4 votes

My Take on Ghey Marriage

I do support civil unions between any consenting people but I agree with those who point out that marriage has always had a specific definition. It has always, in whatever form it took, been related to the issue of children. As an institution in the context of history and culture, it had no meaning or necessity outside of children and their legal status, the transmission of property, etc.

Homosexuality has always been present, and in the ancient world was more or less acceptable and open, not in the 'closet.'

But the thought never occurred to anyone, as far as I am aware, in all these centuries that a man could marry a man or a woman a woman. And hopefully once it is legalized, the issue will fall out of the popular dialogue since it is inherently ridiculous and only a tiny teeny fraction of homosexuals would even want to get married if it wasn't something they were being excluded from.

The sooner the issue is removed from the political field as a distraction and as a rallying point for more identity politics, the better.

If it takes universal legal gay marriages to never have to hear about this goofy fad again, I totally support it. It is a distraction, an embarrassment, and one of the greatest acts of mass trolling in history (by the gay community).

Twenty years ago, the whole feminist and homo chic idea was that marriage was oppressive, a form of patriarchal slavery. I guess when no one paid attention to this resentful b1tching, they decided well hey if we can't beat them, let's dress up in tuxes and try to demean marriage, to rub it in the face of 'hetero' normal traditional society, as long as we are excluded.

It is also a means of empowering the gay mafia that uses homosexuals as a means to its political power, the same way other minority groups are exploited by their elites and forced to renounce their individuality for group solidarity. They are presented with a unifying issue, contrived or otherwise, and the "enemy" is always the majority painted as oppressive bigots.

With these demagogic devices, the gay mafia is able to enforce ideological lockstep on any homosexual who wants to be 'out' and not be shunned and treated as a social pariah in the synthetic, enforced 'gay culture' manufactured by the media and gay bullies.

With that said, it's also important to point out that nothing is changing. Marriage had already lost its traditional meaning and context, and the primacy of children and legal relations -- had already been dead, in essence, long before sexual deviants decided to feed on its corpse.

Marriage was already re-defined as a kind of social status symbol to demonstrate mutual affection and bonds, and ceased being focused mainly on the legal status of children and property. So this doesn't really reflect any fundamental moral shift any religious person needs fret over. That train already left the station decades ago.

On a practical note and with an eye to the future as always, I would propose the following.

For giggles, and as a form of counter trolling and counter revolutionary protest, those of a satirical bent could file lawsuits on the same precedent as the DOMA ruling, to permit polygamy and cousin marriage, just to make people uncomfortable and ruffle PC feathers. And tie up the courts and ridicule them.

The principle will go out the window when groups without special rights and protected cultural status try to use it.

Who could use more of a boost to their civil rights than cousins and who want to marry and polygamists? We shall overcome!

My two cents anyway.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Marriage is legal

Marriage is legal incorporation.
Corporation:
1. an association of individuals, created by law and having an existence apart from that of its members as well as distinct and inherent powers and liabilities.
2. an incorporated business; company.
3. (often cap.) the principal officials of a city or town.
4. any group of persons united or regarded as united in one body.

The State is a party to and becomes the authority over this legal corporation.

Why ANYONE would want enter into a legal marriage is beyond me. So much liability for just a little benefit.

----------------------------------------------------------
"Ehhh, What's ups Doc?" B.Bunny "Scwewy Wabbit!"E. Fudd
People's Awareness Coalition: Deprogramming Sequence

One well known Kansas group

says that God Hates Fags. Actually the Bible says that God hates Buggery, but he wants all fags to repent and turn from their error.

Buggery seems to be a sin against the land, and the land tends to reject and destroy, spew out, those nations that permit, condone, support, and practice buggery.

It does not bode well for amerika.

Bigot? I think not. No one more a bigot than Rorty.

Apodeictic not Rortyian? You betcha. I completely reject Rorty.

Libertarian? To a fault.

Libertine? God forbid.

Marriage and the State

Marriage no longer means the same thing as it used to.

The 'marriage' that you are discussing here is really 'common law marriage'. It is still possible for two consenting different-sex adults to have a common law marriage.

The 'marriage' that gay people have been granted by the state is a state marriage. A marriage specifically recognized by the state and bound with a bunch of legal attachments from the state, including a change in tax and inheritance status.

A common law marriage need only have its two partners grant each other power of attorney as needed or complete a will and/or DNR to gain the ability to inherit from their partner and make medical decisions for them.

There is no reason why two gay people can't sign the same legal documents and enjoy all the same benefits of a state marriage, minus the tax status.

Also, I have never heard of two common law married adults filling out their tax forms as 'married filing jointly' in the absence of a state marriage license. Maybe it can be done and not be fraud since the IRS does not demand a copy of your state license proving your married.

All of that said, some individual states have more or less recognition of common law marriages and some even endeavor to force 'conversion' of common law marriages into state marriages. Some states will treat common law spouses as state married spouses under the law if certain conditions are met (like they lived together for x period of time).

Basically, there is zero authority in the constitution for state marriage. DOMA is unconstitutional as in any attempt that FedGov makes to define marriage. It is a power reserved to the states and people. I don't like state government marriage licenses and state recognition of marriage. I think the founders would be aghast at what has happened here.

So what did happen? The state got involved in marriage to regulate and/or prevent marriages between different races. Ewww. It used to be the law in many places that Blacks and Whites could not marry and Blacks and Native Indians could not marry. Do we really still need this embarrassing racist relic?

Back to the issue at hand... I believe the gay lobby has demanded certain 'rights' merely as a way of fully humanizing gay people. Remember that our liberties are tied to being human. In the past, various groups made the case that blacks are not humans and therefore should not enjoy the same rights as fully human white people. Gay people have been treated terribly in this country in the past as well because they have been seen by the straight majority as being somehow compromised or abnormal. If women (1st), blacks (2nd), Native Indians (3rd) and Gay people (4th) can enjoy the same state classifications as straight whites, this normalizes them all under the law and the distinctions that used to exist between white men and everybody else are swept under the rug. A declaration of the rights of these various minority groups would accomplish the same thing.

There is also a danger to all of this. Gay people were 'in the closet' for years mostly out of fear. If they all sign up as gay in the state databases now and the government falls and is replaced by a Theocracy, they could find their names listed in these databases to be a great liability, no? It happened in Germany where the 1920s was a very liberal time, followed by the 1930s and 40s, which were obviously far from liberal. This is why the law is not good enough. These groups are endeavoring the change the culture itself so that there can be no regression back into second class citizen status. Some of this 'socialization' gets over the top and may do more harm in this regard then help.

sure, sure. we have dif

sure, sure. we have dif discussions going on here we need to unravel.

people should be allowed to sign whatever contract they want. whether the state will enforce said contract depends on the law. if i sell myself to you or agree to serve you for food and shelter, that is a contract the state will not enforce. so the state doesn't simply enforce any and all contracts, if they conflict with the law.

second, marriage laws and specific, standard marriage contracts recognized by courts and convenient for two simple people to enter into without hiring expensive legal counsel is probably not going away. two people want to get married, they don't want to become legal scholars. they go and get a standard marriage license and the court recognizes it according to how marriage is defined by the law. the people of a state, through the state legislature, gets to decide the nature of that standard marriage contract.

whether state A wants to issue marriage license or enforce marriage contracts according to the actual definition of marriage or some new definition is up to the state.

if the government per se, or states in particular, cannot define marriage or limit marriage, than that would imply all marriages simply be individual, customized contracts with any possible range of terms and conditions. 2 people, 5 people, 10 people, of any s e x, could marry one, or 10, or 20 people of any other s e x. it wouldn't be marriage it would just be a custom contract. the variety of contracts could contradict each other. the status of spouses and children could be contradictory if the state does not define marriage or limit what contracts it recognizes as marriage or will enforce in general.

i think letting each state define what marriages it will uphold and recognize is reasonable, with no state forced to recognize the definition of any other state.

but on a practical note i do support universal rights to gay marriage just so it becomes a dead issue. the fad will prob disappear within a few years or a decade after that except for a tiny number of people.

this may be helpful to the

this may be helpful to the word/definition challenged

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage#Definitions

vanity bump

vanity bump

Yes, marriage has always had a definition.

It was a contract. Exchanging a daughter for property. That was all, for thousands of years.

Or, you can go with Biblical definitions:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFkeKKszXTw&list=FLr1HuNmkAcj...

"In the beginning of a change the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot."--Mark Twain

it had lots of dif meanings

it had lots of dif meanings in dif places, times and cultures, to meet the needs of real people in their struggle from savagery toward civilization. you can make snide remarks and thumb your nose at them from your comfortable little perch, or you can try to understand what motivated human behavior and what factors contributed to human culture and institutions.

all the dif forms marriage took were based around establishing a legal basis for the transmission of property from parents to children, and never had any meaning outside children til modern times.

Exactly!

If the definition is flexible depending on time, culture, etc... then it is not the responsibility or the prevue of any group to "define" it. Why do the Christians get to define it? Why not the Hindus? Why not people who are neutral like atheists?

You agree it is a contract dealing with property, power of attorney, etc... Then it should apply to any two, or more, people that voluntarily agree to collectively own property. As Ron Paul says, any voluntary association or contract must be respected. Anything else is tyranny.

"In the beginning of a change the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot."--Mark Twain

well like i said for all of

well like i said for all of human history marriage has been regulating a union on the basis of the children. that is the definition of marriage always and everywhere, whatever form it may have taken.

there simply is no such thing as same s e x marriage according to that definition.

if you change the definition of marriage to mean any union between any number of people of any s e x, then you can have same s e x marriage or group marriage, etc.

but who has the right to change definitions is an area i haven't looked into much.

passing laws to make words mean things they don't mean is outside my expertise.