Not a member? Sign up now
Pat Robertson thinks Alzheimer's is "a kind of death" and grounds for divorce
By Alex HeiglSeptember 15th, 2011, 12:30 pmComments (15)
In today's "Shockingly Bad Advice from an Old White Hypocrite" column, we're featuring long-time contributor Pat Robertson, who said Tuesday that divorcing a spouse with Alzheimer's is, like, totally cool, because the disease is "a kind of death."
Fielding questions from viewers, Robertson was asked by a man what kind of advice he should give to a friend who began seeing another woman after his wife started suffering from Alzheimer's.
"I know it sounds cruel, but if he's going to do something, he should divorce her and start all over again, but make sure she has custodial care and somebody looking after her."
He added that the man should "Get some ethicist besides me to give you the answer," which is probably the best advice he's ever given.
Robertson's co-host, Terry Meeuwsen, asked him about the whole vow part of marriage, particularly the kind of relevant part about caring for your spouse "for better or for worse" and "in sickness and in health."
"If you respect that vow, you say 'til death do us part," Robertson responded. "This is a kind of death."
I'm going to skip over the hypocrisy of calling a pile of cells a human life in the abortion debate and calling the gradual erosion of mental faculties death when it comes to caring for a spouse because, well, duh.
And yes, of course it's hard for married couples when one partner has Alzheimer's. But that's what you signed up for. Marriage is apparently only an unbreakable and sacred vow when we're trying to prevent gay people from taking part in it — for the rest of us, it's still just something we can wiggle our way out of with specious reasoning when things get tough.
Commentarium (15 Comments)
Provided they live long enough, all Alzheimer patients move into some custodial care (unless they have a large and supportive family). It's too much to ask one elderly spouse to support a brain-damaged elderly spouse indefinitely.
Robertson's advice is that the non-damaged spouse can probably, in good faith, remarry despite the presence of a living spouse who is already in or about to be in custodial care.
That's wrong, how?
It takes very little to qualify for calling Robertson a hypocrite.
Is there still a soul alive who listens to what Robertson says? And if so, why would they think there's any validity to any of it?
Absolutely there are, yes.
Although I am opposed to adultery in general, I'm not prepared to judge someone with a fully disabled spouse who seeks a physical and emotional relationship with someone who can respond to him or her appropriately. To say simply, "Well, that's the 'in sickness' part you signed up for," is too facile. Marriage is a partnership, and a partner can't function as one if his or her mind is gone. Another way to think about it is how would you feel if the situation were reversed? I love my wife, and just as if I were to die, were I to lose the ability to recognize her, I'd want her not to be without a loving companion if she so chose.
Sounds reasonable to me. Sexual exclusivity, while typically part of a traditional marriage, is not the be-all and end-all. I'd rather remain married, with all the legal rights that entails, and find appropriate companionship elsewhere than just dump my ailing husband when he needs me most (just because we can't Do It).
back towards the abortion debate - just because the 'mind' isn't fully functioning, nor the 'ability to recognize' someone is lost, these should never be phrases considered when a human life is involved. a promise is a promise. satisfy your physical and emotional needs with another human - sure, but not at the expense of saying your spouse is dead and the marriage is null and void.
To be clear, I didn't say, nor do I believe, either of those things. I do believe, however, that when someone utterly loses his or her memory and the ability to form new ones, that he or she has become someone very different.
understood and agreed
The fact that anyone actually gives this man any credibility is astounding! He belongs with Jerry Falwell and his brilliant statement that the purple teletubbywas gay, corrupting children! These evangelists and their hypocratic interpretations of morality to suit their personal agendas are laughable. They're so worried about legalizing gay marriage when there is more divorce, cheating, domestic violence among heterosexuals than in the gay community. I'm straight, and was raised a Christian ,but religion has turned into such a political, judgemental platform that it no longer has my respect. It has become more about the ego gratification and power of the preachers than it's original intent of the church being a place to worship God. There is good reason for the separation of church and state. Marriage should be equal for all between two people that choose to spend their life together, for better or worse, in sickness and in health.
"Marriage should be equal for all between two people that choose to spend their life together..."
Why would you limit marriage to two people? Are you saying that three people can't all love each other?
Your bigotry is appalling.
Nice censorship, nerve!
Yeah, but having Hayboob Hiegle - he of the "leathery racists" slur - is a little too much. I certainly hope Hiegl opposed removing Terri Shiavo from life support with 100x the strength he attempts to direct at Robertson. And let's not even get into abortion, as it regards a mother's obligation to care for her child.
Hypocrisy, indeed.
Forgetting this Robertson fella, anyone who has a full-time caregiving role should be given as much support and as many legal concessions as possible to live a healthy, happy life provided s/he has made sure their ward is in the care of qualified professionals in a safe, respectful environment. But - Utopia, the USA is not.
thanks espectful environment. sikişBut - Utopia, the USA is not.