Charles Manson Gets Marriage License


King’s County has issued a marriage license to Charles Manson and his 26-year-old fiance, Afton Elaine Burton. Burton says the couple plans to marry in December.

Mason is serving a life sentence for the 1969 murders of seven people, including the pregnant actress Sharon Tate. Tate’s sister and family spokesman, Debra, called Mason’s upcoming nuptials “ludicrous”.



I heard they have their bridal registry at Blood, Bath and Beyond.

ba da BUMP! :smiley:


Oh My:D



The mind boggles. I can’t see why the bride to be would do this other than to say she was married to Manson. Ick.


The bride seems to be attractive from the photo I saw.


Attractive and I believe the article said she is young, too. She could obviously do better. My best guess is she is either extremely damaged or she wants notoriety. Maybe she’s thinking ahead to his death (he’s 80 I think) and getting a book/movie deal or something. Beats me.


Sometimes, it seems we live in Bizzarro World. So many good men and women seem frustrated looking for spouses, and this guy finds a bride!




Another poor choice for Charles. Had he picked a same sex partner … might he have had an outside shot at a Presidential pardon? :confused: :shrug:

Now … uh … who allowed the license? Inquiring minds want to know. :hypno:


Why hasn’t this guy been executed yet? Or at least been given daily beatings for his crimes?


*Beatings in prison mostly come from other inmates … and might be happening. Daily? Probably not. And I’m guessing that part of the above comment is less a serious suggestion than emotional outrage against the equally confusing indulgence(s) convicted murderers have gotten in California. :confused::shrug: *

This former (and current) Governor of California appointed a slate of liberal judges headed by former California Chief Justice Rose Bird, that struck down the death penalty in the state of California. Even when Bird and others were ousted from office per subsequent elections, formerly convicted “Death Row” inmates like Charles Manson, Sirhan Sirhan (convicted assasin of Senator Robert Kennedy), had their death sentences reduced (to date) to just prison. They still actually come up for parole! :ehh:

The Death Penalty in the United States

In 1972, the California Supreme Court‟s ruling in California v. Anderson invalidated the sentences of 107 on death row, including Sirhan Sirhan and Charles Manson.

The United States Supreme Court soon after ruled in Furman v. Georgia that the death penalty, as administered then, was in violation of the Constitution‟s ban on cruel and unusual punishment. Across the United States, legislators in five states including California, pledged to reinstate the death penalty, and in California popular support for the death penalty was large enough for the issue to appear on the ballot in 1972. In the 1972 election, by a margin of 2-1,

Californians amended the state Constitution to reinstate the death penalty. In the next four years, thirty-five states and the federal government enacted new procedures to readmit the death penalty. In the months and years following the Supreme Court decision, popular support for the death penalty increased across the country.

But Manson, Sirhan and the 107 others per the decision of the Brown appointed Rose Bird’s court were not affected by that. And are still being housed, clothed, fed (and IMO endured) by California taxpayers - at considerable expense. :hmmm:


It’s more the latter, but the suggestion is serious insofar as “make prisons a horribly miserable place where rebellious criminal spirit goes to die.” Daily beatings are just inhumane, even if a daily paddling across the butt with a ping pong paddle would do them good. Heck it worked for most rowdy Catholic baby boomers taught by cranky Irish nuns. :wink:

Replace all the food with a powdery white sludge that contains a full day’s supply of nutrients, replace all the gyms and libraries with more bleak cells, remove all the luxuries of basic hygiene, medical care, sunlight etc, just make prisons more miserable!


If the treatment of EVEN “Death Row” prisoners were reduced to the sort of benign neglect the homeless get - there would be outrage (IMO).

The program of Sheriff Joe Arpaio in Arizona gets pilloried for its “tough dress code (striped outfits, with pink tops)” and shelter conditions (tents in some cases) that are nonetheless comparable to the dwellings my father received after being drafted into the U.S. Army.* < “By FDR” sort of, and no one is lobbying to take his face off the dime.*


It doesn’t sound too fair to me - you brutally murder a couple of innocent people and then get to marry a beautiful young lady?


You need the insight of a cynical Welshman. Consider this:

Indeed, according to a corrections officer at Corcoran Prison, Manson has become the richest prisoner in the California system, raking in a small fortune by running a lucrative autograph business from behind bars.

So:she now has a rich elderly husband
She doesn’t even have to sleep with him, as he doesn’t apparently get conjugal visitation rights
As the leader of the move to get him released, she is in the perfect position to ensure that he stays in prison, earning her money, for the rest of his life


And at least one major political party might pony up and invite –

***“Mrs. Charles Manson” *** as a fundraising guest speaker at Hef’s Mansion … :newidea:

:tsktsk: I did say*** might *** … however unnecessary that qualification ***might *** BE! :tiphat:


I guess it is possible that she might be looking for a book deal.


Since SHE’s not an incarcerated criminal and there’s no law against her receiving profits as his “relative/next of kin” … could she then get royalties on the Charles Manson T-shirts and things?

Were it good to be a gold-digger … how much better to not have to dig underground in the dark.


That was what I was thinking, she would not have to sleep with him and she can get money… even after death, any books or whatever that talks about him she will probably get money from that too.
However I do not like to judge…SO it is very possible that maybe she is one of those people out there that believes that love as no age limit??
Even still though, the guy is not a good guy…
But it is possible he would have “changed” as well…
My question is how did she get to know him and him her to even decide to marry??


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit