Gay marriage-Part II

You can build a thousand bridges, and is it “Skippy the bridgebuilder?” But just savage same sex relationships, sex, lies, and marriage, even once-and that is all they remember you for…………..

To all of those who were able to reaffirm their own high opinion of themselves and how superior they are in their lives, relationships, and overall self image than I appear to be in your eyes-your welcome. Glad to help.

There are more than a few clarifications that I should publish in response to the heated reactions to my sentiments expressed here-but there are not enough hours in the day to do it.  However, I think we cannot just let the subject drop with one reader’s impassioned view of how sad my life is.

The simple fact is that visceral reactions aside- the country has a long way to go before it is ready to fully accept George and Jim, living next door and kissing one or the other good bye in the morning. My Canadian counterpart sums it up very well:

Get married or don’t. I don’t give a shit, and I can’t think of a reason why anyone else, particularly the huge bureaucratic machine of government, would either. People are way too involved with other people’s families. Worse still, is this conservative penchant for being busybodies in the name of small government. Jesus, how can any rational adult advocate the government defining the family when that same government was not long ago headed by a guy who couldn’t define what the meaning of the word “is” is.David Guest, He’d kick him square in the nuts. As we all know, He ain’t down with that.

There’s only one reason that I’m for gay marriage: I can’t think of a reason to be against it without feeling like an idiot. Don’t get me wrong, I’d love to be against it. The anti-gay marriage jokes practically write themselves and it’s very difficult to be funny supporting it. Unfortunately, I’m allergic to stupidity.
In a perfect world, the government wouldn’t have a goddamned thing to do with marriage and people would mind their own business. In that world, conservatives would understand that arguing that the government can’t deliver the mail, yet has a duty to sanctify and protect the family unit only serves to make them look foolish.
Conservatives, especially those of the silly social variety, base their opposition to homosexuality on biblical principles. Jesus, they tell us, wouldn’t like all of this faggotry bounding about. Why, if Jesus saw, say, say, David Guest, He’d kick him square in the nuts. As we all know, He ain’t down with that.
There’s a small problem with that reasoning. The New Testament doesn’t actually address homosexery. It does advocate the subjugation of women and the submission of slaves though.

 

What your humble scribe meant to say-was exactly that. There is no reason for me to be opposed to gay marriage-besides my own fact that guy on guy makes me extremely uncomfortable. That is not, as was pointed out, a reason to ban it.

However, to get to the point where it is accepted comfortably, nationwide, there is still a heck of a lot of social engineering, and law making to be accomplished. And quite simply, California State Supreme Court or no-the pieces are not yet in place to get there from here.

Lets set aside for the moment, that in the place I am now living, there are no shortage of policticans who can get elected, ministers who can fill the collection plate, and card carrying members of the NRA at the local roadhouse who can get elected, confirmed, or envigorated-by saying through polite double talk exactly what I said in a more direct fashion. And those folks exist in a hell of a lot of blue and red states I might add.

However, shove all that aside,and we still come to the fact that marriage law is not-despite assertions to the contrary-gender neutral. To advance the cause of gay marriage, there need to be some big changes to divorce law, and also the system of taxes and other government incentives. The issues about gay marriage are not those faced by rich celebs like Geroge Takei any more than heterosexual couples, in large, have to deal with the same issues as Angelina and Brad. There are some nasty same sex divorces coming down the pike that current laws are ill equipped to deal with.

Plus-if all 50 states do not recognize gay marriage, there are real problems for a society that is very mobile. Married in CA, but not recognized in Arkansas? Good luck trying get a lot of things done. That is similar to what happened to interracial couples about 50 years ago. It took intervention by the national government-in the form of both court rulings and Congressional laws. Can you imagine the uproar about legislating from the bench that would occur if the Supreme Court ruled that gay marriage is a constitutional right? The ruling needs to come-but if at least one person gets elected president, that ruling is not coming anytime soon. Unless Justice Kennedy gets cloned or put into a robotic body.

Add to that the fact that there is still some corporate and benefits law to be gotten through. True-companies may recognize domestic partnerships-but not all do. Personally, I always agreed with Rudy Giuliani on this issue. Guaranteeing Domestic Partnerships accomplishes the goal of gay marriage-without all the legal and spiritual baggage.

Think about it. There is nothing under current law to prevent gay men or women from living together. Nothing that prevents them from expressing love between themsleves. There are however, real obstacles short of marriage from having them enjoy a joint tax deduction-and that is what this rush to the altar is really about. Don’t ever forget it. Does the IRS allow two guys to file jointly? I assume so since all it probabaly really takes is two social security numbers. But has that ever been explored?

And of course there is no guarantee the California ruling will not be overturned in November by popular ballot. People forget that on the whole-California is actually a pretty conservative state once LA and San Francisco are subtracted. Let my Canadian counterpart sum up:

Republicans, losing as they are seats in Illinois, Louisiana and Mississippi, will argue that this is another case of an activist judiciary, despite the fact that the case was decided solely on the merits of California constitution, not the federal one.

It also puts John McCain in a peculiar position. In 2006, he opposed the incredibly wrongheaded Federal Marriage Amendment, but supported and campaigned for a similiar measure in Arizona. McCain rightly believed that marriage is an issue for the individual states to decide.

The problem for McCain is that the state of California has decided and Governor Schwarzenegger has declared that he will not support a constitutional amendment to moot In re Marriage Cases. McCain cannot very well be supportive of the decision lest he antagonize the retarded right wing of his party, but he can’t condemn it without undermining his support for state’s rights.

Of course, the GOP will return to it’s cudgel of “activist judges.” It’s worked for them before and it is one of the very few selling points it has left. That that argument undermines the third branch of government and the rule of law itself doesn’t matter, nor does the fact that the current child president of the United States arguably owes his tenures of office to an “activist judiciary.”

Which gets back to my prime point-marriage, like it or not, is evolving. And it should evolve because its current construct, as well as the demographics of those who practice it,  are changing dramatically. And if there are people who “want to be childless and partnerless”-well they have their place too.

I’d also submit that attitudes are not as far advanced as so many of the commenters in the previous post alluded to. I’ll give you a sea story: A not so long ago and in an ocean far away, a Sailor in a sister squadron said the “phrase that pays”. Rather than transfer the guy off the ship right away,  they kept him in the squadron working while they worked his discharge under “Don’t ask, don’t tell”. As soon as it became common knowledge in the squadron-that same Sailor got the stuffing beaten out of him one night in the  aft berthing. Suffice it to say, he left the ship as soon as he could and the next time someone said the phrase-they were gone the next day. Not because of discrimination, but out of real concern for the guy’s safety. People can tell pollsters all they want-but let the “Not in my backyard” syndrome kick in-and its going to be at least one or two more generations before attitudes change. It is what it is.

And, by the way, a recent poll found over 52 percent of Americans were opposed to gay marriage-at all. So perhaps I have more company than my commenter’s realize.

But in the end, short of a radical return to the 50’s, its coming. How we really live with it will be another story. If it makes marriage and divorce laws evolve to ones based on fairness and not entitlement-well then I guess I’ll have to welcome that change. Or move.

So put that in your pole pipe and smoke it!

 

Posted by

It's not easy being me-but the adventures I get to have- make it totally worth it. "One should respect public opinion insofar as is necessary to avoid starvation and keep out of prison, but anything that goes beyond this is voluntary submission to an unnecessary tyranny."- Bertrand Russell

0 thoughts on “Gay marriage-Part II

  1. The problem with having a “seperate yet equal” form of marriage, civil unions, is that it’s unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment. There was a case called Brown v. Board of Education that saw to that.

    When I wrote the post you cited, I wasn’t trying to lead a gay pride parade – although I look fabulous dressed like Cher – I was attempting to point out that marriage is a government service and cannot be selectively granted to citizens of the United States. Marriage isn’t mentioned in the Constitution, but education isn’t either.

    Is gay marriage popular in America? No, it isn’t. But that isn’t the important question. As you probably know, desegregating the schools wasn’t especially popular either, particularly when it stopped being something other than a means to beat up the South and started being applied in northern states.

    Things that are popular are usually unconstitutional. That’s why the Constitution exists in the first friggin’ place. The Constitution, and by extension the courts, exist to protect the minority from the majority will. There would be very little need for, say, the First Amendment otherwise.

    I have one commenter at my place who seems to think that popular referendum or legislative action is the last word on everything. And that’s not an uncommon view among Americans. But I seem to remember that those people weren’t cheering when the elected mayor and city council of Washington, DC voted to ban handguns in the District. That ban, they tell us, violates the Second Amendment. And it does. And they went to the courts to overturn it. Funny how that works, ain’t it?

    As you’ve noted, I’m Canadian. Gay marriage was made legal here by judicial dictat five years ago last week. And you know what? Despite Canada being 50% Roman Catholic, civilization didn’t end. Life continued being boring and cold just as it was before the Ontario Court of Appeal issued its ruling.

    What is perhaps most encouraging was the silence following the California Supreme Court decision. There wasn’t, as I expected, the Great American Freakout that you people are so incredibly entertaining at. Other than a few ballbags at the Family Research Council shitting themselves in indignation, no one said much of anything at all. And it should be remembered that the Family Research Council spends most of its time trying to ban Mighty Mouse because they think he loves cocaine.

    When the California ruling was handed down, I halfway expected that someone would dig up Matthew Shepard and kill him again. When that didn’t happen, I started to think that attitudes were changing much more quickly than I expected.

    And that’s a good sign. After all, who gives a shit about homo hitchery? This kind of nonsense was entertaining in the 90s when the United States was leading a problem-free existence. That’s not really the case these days.

    Now if you’ll excuse me, my Cher bodysuit is starting to chafe my balls.

  2. Okay, I was gonna write what the previous person did, that polls shouldn’t figure into determinations of basic human rights. But I do want to say that I agree with that.

    Also, any New Yorker (such as myself) knows that Guiliani is batshit crazy.

    The thing is – you KNEW when you wrote that post that it was going to be inflammatory. If memory serves (and it often doesn’t) I think you wrote that you chose certain derogatory terms on purpose. And then you’re surprised at the tone of the comments you got? I think you knew what you were doing, that you were writing for a certain definite segment of your readership, and this second posting on the topic is … well, the point eludes me.

    You’ve been back in the US for, what, a month now? Clearly you’re building up steam and need a medical vacation in HK soon.

  3. Yes I do. I need a trip to Hong Kong even if all I do is ride the bus to Stanely Bay. I do miss it so.

    As for the comments I was not suprised-except that living here in Shopping mall USA they are not as isolated sentiments as one might think. What did suprise me was the level of effort expended in pointing out how somehow-not liking my ex-wife somehow shows disrespect to my kids. I still do not get the linkage there.

    Still think there are legal and social issues to be worked out however, and politically the time is not yet here for a few of them. Just my .02.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *