In A Victory For “Traditional Marriage,” Mass Murderer Charles Manson To Marry 26 Year Old Woman

wedding-rings

Charles Manson may be serving the rest of his life in prison, but he’s apparently not going to be alone:

Mass murderer Charles Manson plans to marry a 26-year-old woman who left her Midwestern home and spent the past nine years trying to help exonerate him.

Afton Elaine Burton, the raven-haired bride-to-be, said she loves the man convicted in the notorious murders of seven people, including pregnant actress Sharon Tate.

No date has been set, but a wedding coordinator has been assigned by the prison to handle the nuptials, and the couple has until early February to get married before they would have to reapply.

The Kings County marriage license, viewed Monday by The Associated Press, was issued Nov. 7 for the 80-year-old Manson and Burton, who lives in Corcoran — the site of the prison — and maintains several websites advocating his innocence.

Burton, who goes by the name “Star,” told the AP that she and Manson will be married next month.

“Y’all can know that it’s true,” she said. “It’s going to happen.”

“I love him,” she added. “I’m with him. There’s all kinds of things.”

And yet, according to the social conservatives, it’s gays and lesbians who are killing marriage in this country.

FILED UNDER: Quick Takes
Doug Mataconis
About Doug Mataconis
Doug holds a B.A. in Political Science from Rutgers University and J.D. from George Mason University School of Law. He joined the staff of OTB in May 2010. Before joining OTB, he wrote at Below The BeltwayThe Liberty Papers, and United Liberty Follow Doug on Twitter | Facebook

Comments

  1. Tillman says:

    She must think the embedded swastika is from the one time he banged his head on a shower fixture.

  2. ernieyeball says:

    Traditional Marriage in The Bible: See Numbers 31:1-18 Deuteronomy 21 11-18

    Male Soldier+Prisoner of War Under Moses’ command, Israelites kill every Midianite man, woman and child; save for the virgin girls who are taken as spoils of war. Wives must submit sexually to their new husbands.

    http://www.upworthy.com/the-top-8-ways-to-be-traditionally-married-according-to-the-bible

  3. Pinky says:

    In lieu of a traditional registry, guests are requested to send human skin.

  4. ernieyeball says:

    @ernieyeball: It may be worth noting the claim that the Bible was written by people “inspired by god.”

  5. Poster says:

    According to social conservatives, yes, redefining marriage is destroying marriage, as is usually the case when you redefine something to include other elements. A serial killer who chooses to get married to someone of the opposite sex does not harm nor uphold marriage; in any case, the character of marriage was never in doubt here. Your inability to understand this leads you right down the rabbit hole.

  6. ernieyeball says:

    @Poster:.. A serial killer homosexual who chooses to get married to someone of the opposite sex they love does not harm nor and does uphold marriage.

    FTFY

  7. Pinky says:

    A person who chooses to flarmph someone of the same sex does no harm to the institution of flarmph, because “flarmph” is a word with no prior meaning. A person who chooses to marry someone of the same sex redefines marriage. You may like the new definition, or may not, but neither opinion would change the fact that marriage is being redefined.

  8. Guarneri says:

    I trust the last line was tongue in cheek. You generally write good stuff but if that was serious, it was just dumb.

    Comment brought to you by the King of hyperbole and sarcasm.

  9. Joe says:

    I suspect that Manson’s estate will be worth something to his widow.

  10. ernieyeball says:

    @Pinky:..marriage is being redefined.

    We can only hope that this Biblical meaning of marriage was redefined a long time ago.

    Deuteronomy 22: 28-29 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay her father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.
    New International Version

    Have to note the “…they are discovered,..” phrase. Apparently if they are not the rapist gets off scott free…It’s in the Bible.

  11. CSK says:

    @Joe:

    Maybe. Maybe not. California revised its Son of Sam law after the original was struck down in 2002 and enacted a less draconian one. The new law does, however, still provide for a means by which criminals can be prevented from profiting from their crimes. The survivors of the victims could still sue to keep (or try to keep) Manson from realizing any profit if he sold, say, his memoirs. And judges have tended to look kindly on the plaintiffs in cases like these.

    But it’s probably a moot point. Afton herself could do up a book proposal (“My Life with Charlie”) or, or more likely, have one done for her, and I doubt any publisher would snap at it. How big a market would there be for it? No one was interested in reading the memoirs of the wretched Casey Anthony.

    And given that one of Manson’s most famous victims was Sharon Tate, a star who seems to have been universally liked, I doubt Hollywood would be terribly interested in filming a story peddled by her butcher’s widow.

  12. ernieyeball says:

    @King Guarneri..I trust the last line was tongue in cheek. You generally write good stuff but if that was serious, it was just dumb.

    Help us out, Your Highness. Whose “last line” are you citing?
    Enquiring minds want to know.

  13. Rafer Janders says:

    @Pinky:

    A person who chooses to flarmph someone of the same sex does no harm to the institution of flarmph, because “flarmph” is a word with no prior meaning. A person who chooses to marry someone of the same sex redefines marriage. You may like the new definition, or may not, but neither opinion would change the fact that marriage is being redefined.

    A person who chooses to flarmph someone of another race does no harm to the institution of flarmph, because “flarmph” is a word with no prior meaning. A person who chooses to marry someone of another race redefines marriage. You may like the new definition, or may not, but neither opinion would change the fact that marriage is being redefined….

  14. Tyrell says:

    Sick, perverted. The prison authority should never allow this garbage. The governor should step in and say “no way”.

  15. Rafer Janders says:

    @Pinky:

    A person who chooses to flarmph someone of the same sex does no harm to the institution of flarmph, because “flarmph” is a word with no prior meaning. A person who chooses to marry someone of the same sex redefines marriage.

    Woah…you shifted pretty quickly there from saying that something “redefines” marriage to claiming that redefining it is “doing harm.” Even conceding that what is happening is “redefining” marriage, why say that that redefinition “harms” the meaning of marriage rather than enhances it? Why see it as a negative rather than a positive?

  16. Pinky says:

    @Rafer Janders: That’s not true. Interracial marriage changed the law about marriage in some places, not the meaning of the word.

    @Rafer Janders: That’s also not true. I said specifically that you might like the new definition or might not.

  17. Rafer Janders says:

    @Pinky:

    That’s also not true. I said specifically that you might like the new definition or might not.

    No, you said “A person who chooses to flarmph someone of the same sex does no harm to the institution of flarmph,” implying and meaning that someone who chooses to marry someone of the same sex does harm. If you didn’t want to imply harm, you shouldn’t have used the word harm.

  18. Rafer Janders says:

    @Pinky:

    Interracial marriage changed the law about marriage in some places, not the meaning of the word.

    Sure it did. Marriage was between a man and a woman of the same race. Inter-racial couples were not allowed to get married, therefore marriage did not include inter-racial couples. Letting them marry changed the definition of the word, as you see it.

  19. Rick DeMent says:

    The definition of marriage has been changed so many times over the sweep of civilized history that it hard not to bust out laughing when someone claims it has never changed.

  20. al-Ameda says:

    @Poster:

    According to social conservatives, yes, redefining marriage is destroying marriage, as is usually the case when you redefine something to include other elements. A serial killer who chooses to get married to someone of the opposite sex does not harm nor uphold marriage; in any case, the character of marriage was never in doubt here. Your inability to understand this leads you right down the rabbit hole.

    Speaking of rabbit holes: Newt Gingrich is redefining marriage as pre-divorce.

  21. Pinky says:

    @Rafer Janders: Marriage has always been a family structure. There’s nothing in the nature of marriage that prevented men and women of different races from being joined in it. Historically, interracial marriage has always been present. However, not all family structures are marriages. Marriage has been reserved for a particular male/female relationship. To alter marriage to include m/m or f/f relationships is just that, an alteration.

  22. Pinky says:

    @Rafer Janders: Doug used the term killing, and Poster used the term destroying. I used harming, a softer word.

  23. Rick DeMent says:

    @Pinky:

    Marriage has always been a family structure….

    Actually this is so wrong that it’s hard to even muster the energy to respond knowing that if you actually believe this you have so little knowledge of history that explaining it to you now will only make you more defensive about how much you know. Then you will try another more nuanced approach that will be just a tortured as before and so one. But …. here goes.

    Marriage, historically, was scarcely more then a way to track lineage of the noble families of antiquity. Common people never really got “married”, they just shacked up. Marriage started out exclusively as a union between noble houses and more often then not, it was one man and several woman. Marriage was never an institution for common people because no one gave a rat’s ass who their kids were. The reason that same sex couples didn’t get state sanctioning historically is because unions that have no issue were never in need of state sanctioning even among nobles.

    These days marriage, at least as far as the government is concerned, is not much more then a way to determine benefit eligibility so there is a need to sanction same sex unions and any logic that claims this should not be the case is just tortured beyond all reason.

    The definition of marriage you are thinking of is a religious one and currently each religious institution is free to make whatever definition they want. Some religions don’t allow interfaith unions, other do and so on.

  24. Scott O says:

    I’ll probably be getting a call from my Mom soon.

    “Even Charles Manson can find a nice girl to marry. Why can’t you?”

  25. CSK says:

    @Scott O:

    Tell her you’re waiting for the enchanting Jodi Arias to be freed.

  26. Rafer Janders says:

    @Pinky:

    Doug used the term killing, and Poster used the term destroying. I used harming, a softer word.

    And why didn’t you use the term enhancing, say, and not harming? Why isn’t making marriage fairer and more inclusive enhancing rather than harming it?

  27. Rafer Janders says:

    @Pinky:

    Marriage has always been a family structure.

    Flatly false and historically ignorant. Marriage has “always” been a way to transfer and track the distribution of property, not “a family structure.” Many of the first marriages were between one powerful man and multiple women — so yeah, if that’s the “family structure” you mean, I’ll grant you that.

    But a romantic marriage between one co-equal man and woman? That’s a relatively recent 19th-21st century phenomenon.

  28. Pinky says:

    @Rafer Janders: I allowed that possibility.

  29. OzarkHillbilly says:

    @Pinky: Just out of curiosity, why didn’t you assert that probability?

  30. rodney dill says:

    I certainly would not characterize this as a ‘Victory’ for traditional marriage.

  31. Liberal Capitalist says:

    @rodney dill:

    I certainly would not characterize this as a ‘Victory’ for traditional marriage.

    … that’s the joke.

    ** facepalm **

  32. ernieyeball says:

    @Liberal Capitalist:..… that’s the joke. ** facepalm **

    His real name is rodney dull

  33. al-Ameda says:

    @Tyrell:

    Sick, perverted. The prison authority should never allow this garbage. The governor should step in and say “no way”.

    So, you like it when the chief executive takes unilateral action?

  34. SC_Birdflyte says:

    Well, South Carolina has finally caught on. The first same-sex marriages in my home county were performed yesterday. The courthouse is still standing.