PostHeaderIcon Gay Marriage

Just a mini-rant this time… As I write this, my life partner, Saint J9, is watching an argument between Mitt Robamaney and some war veteran on the subject of gay marriage.

Why is it so hard for the social conservatives and other bible-thumpers to understand that marriage is a bifurcated state in modern America? On the one hand, there is marriage as an institution sanctioned by the various religious organizations. Given our tradition of freedom of religion, each of these organizations should be free to sanction gay marriage – or not, in accordance with their standards and beliefs. On the other hand, marriage is a legal state, recognized by various levels of government that conveys certain legal privileges. Under our tradition of equality before the law, it should be legal for any combination of people who wish to declare themselves legally married to do exactly that. This is a point of contention that lacks any rational foundation.

Think about it.

Troy L Robinson

14 Responses to “Gay Marriage”

  • Trial says:

    I personally believe homosexuals should be able to have “civil unions” but not “marriages” because of the way it is recognized today (specifically concerning being an institution sanctioned by religious organizations). I find it somewhat humorous though how many people get hung up on that particular word, “marriage.”

    On a related note, here’s what Ron Paul had to say about this topic:
    http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul207.html

    Simple summary:
    Conservatives need to stand for states’ rights. This IS a state issue, not a federal issue.

    • Troy says:

      I do not disagree. However, we, as a nation, are facing problems that could soon mean the end of our nation and a descent into absolute tyranny. Given the seriousness of our actual problems, I find such silly arguments as those over abortion and gay marriage nothing better than a distraction and a hazard.

      If we somehow resolved both those issues to the total satisfaction of all concerned, the REAL problems we face would still be there and our future as a nation would still be in doubt.

      I am reminded of a cartoon I saw years ago where a guy is tied to a post, blindfold in place and 10 riflemen ready to perform his execution. The officer in charge offers him a last cigarette which he refuses on health grounds.

      Troy

    • Troy says:

      I personally believe homosexuals should be able to have “civil unions” but not “marriages” because of the way it is recognized today

      I personally believe that the private arrangements adult humans make with each other is none of my damn business — nor is it the business of government.

      Troy

  • ◄Dave► says:

    Now you have done it. One shouldn’t get me started on this one. How could you possibly dispense with such a target rich subject with a mini-rant? If allowed free rein, my rant would be a mini-book; but I’ll try to hold back.

    First, marriage itself is best described as the antidote for love. If one falls hopelessly in love, and cannot get over the affliction any other way – get married – that will cure the ailment soon enough. It would seem cruel to deny our gay neighbors access to such a potent elixir.

    Then, if intelligence is defined as the ability to learn, much can be inferred from the number of times one has been married. Cohabitation with modern liberated women is certainly a challenge, for chauvinistic romantic throwbacks inclined toward monogamy. Personally, I have failed to convince one to put up with me for longer than 10 to 15 years, making my life a series of monogamous relationships; but it is a minor source of pride that only the first one ever talked me into marriage. :)

    Next, marriage is fundamentally a religious sacrament, which the government has no business involving itself in. There are plenty of modern churches that will consecrate a gay marriage. Indeed, anecdotal evidence suggests that gays are over represented among the clergy in America’s churches. Gays desiring marriage should hire a preacher, have the ceremony, exchange their vows, throw a party, and then shut up about it.

    Which brings us to the civil marriage license and contract. License? Really? Do we somehow need the formal permission of government to sleep with our lovers, just as we need a license to share our homes with a pet dog? How utterly demeaning – to loving spouse and faithful dog alike! Yet, more insidiously, the act of applying for such a license enters lovers into an implied perpetual contract. The purpose of a contract is to establish ahead of time, the penalties for breaking an agreement between the parties, when one may doubt the honor and integrity of the other’s handshake.

    Yet, in a marriage contract, both the agreement itself and the penalties for a breach, are indeterminate. Not only are they established by law, rather than the parties involved, and tend to favor the female, they can and do change at the whim of politicians, or simply by moving into a different jurisdiction. It is the only contract I can think of, which can change after it has been executed, and still be binding on the parties who signed it, no matter how onerous the new terms. Needless to say, no man thinking with his large head, would be foolish enough to sign such an open-ended contract.

    It would seem prudent for all lovers, gay or straight, who mistrust their partners, or think they need a contract to maintain their loyalty, to opt instead for a prenuptial agreement. That way they get to establish the terms themselves, which will remain constant no matter where thy choose to live, or what whimsical politicians think they ought to now be. Then, if they think they need the consecration of their church, and/or the status of ‘married,’ they can simply avail themselves of their church’s sacrament. Problem solved.

    Finally, it drives me nuts that so many conservatives, who claim to be Constitutionalists, get so worked up over the definition of marriage, in regard to national politics. There is nothing in the Constitution giving the Federal government any power to regulate the living arrangements of citizens. It is patently none of the Federal government’s business what the word ‘marriage’ means, or who can claim that status. If a man wishes to call his favorite ewe his ‘wife,’ that is his business, not Washington’s. If he wishes to marry the McGuire sisters, his State may prohibit bigamy; but not the Feds.

    The only Federal action that needs to be taken, is to add marital status and number of dependents, to the ever growing list of conditions the Federal government my not discriminate against or for. There should be no ‘marriage penalty’ in the tax code; but there should also be no deductions for dependents. A flat or ‘fair’ tax could end such unfair discrimination.

    Of course, the same could be said about abortion. Roe v. Wade needs to be overturned as flawed law on Tenth Amendment grounds; but that just puts the question of the legality of abortion back into the hands of the individual States, where it belongs. The federal government is not empowered by the Constitution to legislate on the matter at all. If the citizens of New York wish abortion to be legal, and the citizens of Oklahoma wish it to be illegal, that is their business, and their legislatures can pass the appropriate legislation. But, it is no business of either one’s citizens to concern themselves with what is happening in the other’s State. None.

    Fundamentalist activists shoot themselves in the foot, by forcing their national political candidates to publicly take a stand on these social issues, when there is nothing in their job description giving them the slightest power to regulate morality. All it does is alienate moderate swing voters, who might otherwise have voted for the conservative candidate, had he been allowed to simply say he had no public position on a subject that was immaterial to the job he was seeking. ◄Dave►

    • Trial says:

      How can I procure this mini-book? Is it on pre-order? Can I get a signed copy?

    • Troy says:

      Hey – I cohabit with a modern liberated woman and it is no problem whatever (well — unless I get too independent).

      The real point to my shorter rant was that we have REAL problems that our misrepresentatives ignore — because they can’t find solutions that make every last voter happy. Our government’s stupid attempts to dabble in morality do not address any of the REAL problems (such as a world papered over with worthless dollars).

      Troy

      • ◄Dave► says:

        J9 doesn’t count. She is a saint. Any lesser woman would have left you long ago, my friend. ;)

        I like ‘misrepresentatives’; it just became part of my lexicon.:) ◄Dave►

  • Daedalus says:

    I was going to add my piece, But it would take a book!
    What is “marriage.” How many varieties are there. (Common Law for example)
    Why is it so prevalent in history and society (note, not the homosexual type).
    Does it serve any useful purpose today.
    If so, why not polyandry and polygamy.
    I feel debate on this topic is way to shallow. Just a study of the history alone would take a book. As for just living together, we make many business transactions without a contract. Let the buyer/seller beware.

    • Troy says:

      Dae,
      All the points you raise are interesting, but not so much so as to entice me to study them in detail.

      At the end of the day, marriage is a cultural attribute and it should be left as such. Cultures change, over time, to accommodate outside influences and new developments, just as they should.

      The problem with government interference into what should be a social issue is that government has established a form of contract law around marriage. Such law works to the advantage of some and to the detriment of others — this is not in keeping with our national intent that all are equal before the law.

      Bottom line, I think this is simply one of many issues where the federal government has no valid role and should simply butt out.

      Said, again, in another way, I don’t care how various groups feel about marriage but I do think such groups should be free to practice as they see fit without government interference. Ditto with abortion, ditto with various religious groups, ditto with most every aspect of being a free individual human.

      Troy

  • Trial says:

    “Said, again, in another way, I don’t care how various groups feel about marriage but I do think such groups should be free to practice as they see fit without government interference. Ditto with abortion,”

    I disagree (with you adding abortion in there). I see abortion as a separate topic that deserves to be discussed as its own issue. Also, I was very offended when you wrote in a different comment: “I find such silly arguments as those over abortion and gay marriage nothing better than a distraction and a hazard.”

    Arguments over abortion are hardly silly.

    • Troy says:

      Trial,
      I am so sorry you took offense at my statements as no offense was intended.

      To my standards, arguments over abortion are silly when done in the federal legislature because they don’t belong there, and, I can’t see any sign that we are about to reach some national consensus on the subject. All it does is waste time and detract from more important matters.

      For my part, I find abortion distasteful under the best conditions and disgusting when used as a method of birth control by people too irresponsible to think ahead further than the tips of their noses.

      However, there are many situations where abortion is a valid, even though distasteful, option. And, I think such situations are understood best by those directly involved, along with advice from medical people, spiritual and professional advisers.

      As for the moral implications of abortion, these are best left to the members of the different groups who have strong opinions on the subject and, again, in my opinion, are best addressed through information and education — so long as one group is not allowed to use the power of federal law to force its views on the population at large.

      However strongly one group may feel that abortion is always wrong, this is by no means a universally accepted position, thus making abortion an unfit subject for debate in the halls of the federal congress, especially when there are so many topics that ARE the business of the federal congress that are going unaddressed. It is this use of the abortion argument that I consider silly.

      I hope I came off better this time.

      Troy

Leave a Reply

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Political Spectrum
Political Circle

Think Up/Down not Left/Right

Archives
Internal Links
Other Sandboxes
T-Speak

Please also join us here. ◄Dave►