I've long thought that state governments should not be in the business of taxing and sanctioning marriage, which is why I thought it pretty forward when SB377 was introduced, eliminating state licensure of marital unions and making it a legal contract instead.
Then the fine print exposed the real purpose. The language states that "the only requirement to be married in this state shall be for parties who are [[otherwise legally authorized to be married]] to enter into a contract of marriage as provided herein."
Ah, so when the Supreme Court rules later this month that states cannot discriminate when issuing marriage licenses, Alabama will be exempt because it won't be issuing licenses any more, only contracts, and that phrase above in brackets becomes more meaningful..."otherwise legally authorized to be married."
The Alabama state constitution, the most archaic and silly state document in the entire nation, defines marriage as between two people of different genders.
Alabama is pre-preemptively exempting itself from having to issue marriage "contracts" to gay people. It's a semantic difference at most and will be struck down the first time it's challenged, but that'll take some time, time that the state legislators can use to brag to the uneducated rubes who voted for them because they promised to fight gay marriage.
Why we are postponing the inevitable is beyond my understanding except that we have a backward, 19th-Century legislature staffed with hypocritical red-necks with nicknames in quotations, who think the same way they do about the lack of a state education lottery, somehow they are keeping Alabama morally pristine.
22 comments:
Nice to know that anyone who opposes same sex marriage is an "uneducated rube."
Duh, in that case I be a ignrunt, unedumacated roob.
Fellas, your personal views on morality shouldn't affect how others pursue happiness, so long as their pursuit doesn't hinder yours.
And if you vote for politicians based solely on their opposition to two gay people being married, then you are indeed a rube. You two guys seem brighter than that. ;-)
"You two guys seem brighter than that.
Gee, I'm an uneducated rube AND a dim bulb. Who knew?
Isaac, what could you possibly care if gay people want to be married......keeping in mind when you answer, that your personal religious beliefs have no place defining public policy for everybod?
We all must bow down, nay, even prostrate ourselves before our Robed Masters. 2000+ years of a Western Civilization - pah!
I' m not all that sure the Framers intended this.
Gay marriage? No they never even considered it. That's why they included the vague phrase "pursuit of happiness" in the DoI. They wisely foresaw that pursuing happiness is universal to all people and that one person's ideas should not infringe upon another's legal pursuit.
I'm not a big gay marriage fan, I'm a big "people should be free to pursue happiness" fan.
If we use the Bible(presumably that's where we get our current definition of marriage) as a basis for law, then why are only 3 of the 10 commandments illegal? It's not a coincidence that they are the only three that deprive others of their pursuit of happiness.
Isaac, what could you possibly care if gay people want to be married...?"
A couple of reasons off the top of my head, Ed, neither of which have anything to do with religion.
1) Homosexual sex is deviant sex. Not deviant from a Biblical standpoint (although that certainly is true) but rather deviant from a biological standpoint. Check the plumbing.
2) If I contract to install a security system for you, and I provide just locks, no keys, that is not a security system. If I provide just keys and no locks, that is not a security system either. A security system requires locks AND keys (appropriate to the locks).
A marriage requires one "lock" and one "key" in order to be a marriage. Two "locks" or two "keys" do not a marriage make. Two guys can butt-fuck, lick each other's assholes, and shit and piss on each other all they want to. I won't interfere. But marriage that ain't.
What's the difference to you? How does a marriage between two gay people taint your marriage in any way, other than thinking about what they do together in the bedroom clearly making you very uncomfortable?
From a legal standpoint though, on what grounds do you have the right to deny otherwise law-abiding citizens the right to enjoy the same things as you?
It doesn't matter if you think it's "natural" or not, people are free to pursue happiness any way they like.
It speaks volumes about you, Ed, that what gays do in the bedroom doesn't make you uncomfortable.
Moreover, second-hand smoke is far less of a health hazard yet look at the lengths we have gone to eliminate that risk to human health. Marijuana is no threat whatsoever to human health yet count the tens of thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands, incarcerated on account of it.
There is a serious disconnect going on here that I think bodes ill for the republic.
What anybody does in their bedroom is none of my business, nor is it the imperial state's business.
You think second-hand smoke isn't a health hazard? What planet did you fall from, yesterday? Cigarettes contain something like 60 known carcinogens and people don't have a choice but to breathe it when somebody smokes around them. It's fully your choice to have unprotected anal sex with an infected gay man....that's the difference.
As for the war on drugs and mandatory sentencing for minor drug offenses.....I couldn't agree with you more. The war on drugs is idiotic and strictly a tool that zealot prosecutors and politicians use to seek higher office. Dumb voters love politicians who're tough on crime.
You sure do employ the Straw Man Fallacy* a lot, Ed. A lot! I have to hand it to you, you are good at it. You are about as slippery as anyone I know.
*"A fallacy in which an opponent's argument is overstated or misrepresented in order to be more easily attacked or refuted." (Or, I would add, avoided.)
I didn't overstate your arguments, I merely addressed them as you stated them.
Your accusation that I'm employing the straw-man debate strategy shows that you don't really have an argument.
If you can't debate on the points, debate the opponent, am I right? ;-)
ED: "What anybody does in their bedroom is none of my business, nor is it the imperial state's business. "
I said the same thing. Why pretend that it is a point of disagreement between us?
Isaac"Two guys can butt-fuck, lick each other's assholes, and shit and piss on each other all they want to. I won't interfere."
ED: "You think second-hand smoke isn't a health hazard?"
Is that what I said or did you misquote me and tilt, Don Quixote-style, at the misquote?
Isaac"Moreover, second-hand smoke is far less of a health hazard...."
Finally, you pretend that our disagreement is about "seeking happiness" or same-sex intercourse when the subject under discussion is neither, it is about same-sex marriage. (The latter, technically, is probably the Red-Herring Fallacy. You are, after all, a multi-talented evader of issues.)
The prosecution rests, Your Honor.
You said that the state shouldn't allow gay marriage because what you imagine them doing in their bedrooms is distasteful to you. Your claim about not interfering is false because you're happy for the state to interfere on your behalf.
The comparison between second-hand smoke and AIDS is a false apples-and-oranges argument for the reason that I stated.
So once and for all, without the side subjects used as a distraction, what is your objection to same-sex marriage, other than when you think about it, you get squeamish? And how is your personal squeamishness a legitimate foundation for public policy? That's the question, to which I'm trying, and failing, to wring out of you a sensible, constitutionally-consistant answer.
I think it revealing that when you are called on your misbehavior, Ed, you double down on it rather than give it up.
“You said that the state shouldn't allow gay marriage because what you imagine… [Ambiguity Fallacy: Imagine? What homosexual sex act have I identified thus far that you believe to be the imagined?] …them doing in their bedrooms is distasteful to you. [Strawman Fallacy: My distaste is anecdotal, not the basis of my opposition to same-sex marriage.]
Your claim about not interfering is false because you're happy for the state to interfere on your behalf. [Ambiguity Fallacy: Denying a marriage license to two people of the same sex is not interfering any more than denying a license to a mother and son, a father and daughter or two trees is. None are candidates for marriage.]
The comparison between second-hand smoke and AIDS… [Strawman Fallacy: Have I mentioned AIDS? (Are you under the impression that AIDS is the only health risk associated with gay sex?)] …is a false apples-and-oranges argument for the reason that I stated.
So once and for all, without the side subjects used as a distraction, what is your objection to same-sex marriage, other than when you think about it, you get squeamish? [Load Question Fallacy] And how is your personal squeamishness a legitimate foundation for public policy? [Loaded Question Fallacy] that's the question, to which I'm trying, and failing, to wring out of you a sensible, constitutionally-consistant… [sic] …answer.”
Strip the fallacies and pejorative innuendo from your question and I will answer it.
Let me distill it down for you since your arguments seem to be personal rather than constitutional.....what - is - the - basis - of - your - opposition - to - gay - marriage?
Is that clear enough for you?
Strip out the pejorative innuendo, Ed, and I will answer.
(O.K., I won’t make you be civil before I answer your question, Ed. I wouldn’t want you to assume that I don’t have an answer.)
WHY STATE-SANCTIONED MARRIAGE IS INAPPROPRIATE FOR SAME-SEX COUPLES.
1. If all of human history were depicted by the face of a clock, societies worldwide would have opposed same-sex marriages for 11 hours and 59 minutes. Same-sex marriages would have come into favor (in places) only in the last one minute. Overthrowing 11 hours and 59 minutes of human history ought only to be done with utmost care and trepidation.
2. Recent tampering with centuries old marriage mores has had disastrous consequences. The U.S. is reaping a flood of unwed mothers, single-parent households, and children growing up in poverty with no stable male influence. It is reasonable to suspect that tampering in the area of same-sex marriage will have unintended deleterious consequences, too.
3. Homosexual sex acts are, by nature, deviant. That is to say, they deviate from nature’s built-in function of the natural organs. The state should not sanction deviancy and give it a patina of normalcy.
4. Homosexuality is a developmental disorder. The state should not pretend that disorder is similar to, or the same as, or as good as, order.
5. To those who say that homosexuality is genetic I say: cleft palate is a genetic condition but the state does not spray them with rose water and call them rose bushes. A club foot is a genetic condition but the state does not pretend that club feet are as useful and desirable as normal feet.
6. Same-sex marriage is favored by those who seek an end to nation-states and seek to institute a global government consisting of three strata: a) the elite, b) managers, protectors and technicians, and c) serfs. That alone makes same-sex marriages suspect.
7. Same-sex marriage is favored by those who believe that a depopulation of up to 90% of the human race is a desirable thing. That alone makes same-sex marriages suspect.
8. Denying marriage to same-sex couples does not deny them anything to which they are otherwise entitled. Two people of the same sex are not eligible for marriage any more than a mother and son, a man and a mare, or an oak and an elm are. Such pairings are not logical, suitable or appropriate candidates for marriage.
9. Denying marriage to same-sex couples does not hinder their pursuit of happiness whatsoever. Gays are free to butt-fuck, lick each other’s assholes, ram their fists up each other’s asses, and shit and piss on each other to their hearts content.
They can't visit each other in hospitals where "family" restrictions are applicable. Nor can they inherit as default survivors the way spouses do, in the absence of a will.
And it doesn't matter what the past was like, there was no Constitution with equal protection guarantees, nor were there any gays brave enough to be open about it and ask to marry before recently.
Given that heterosexuals have done such a masterful job of protecting the sanctity of marriage, parenthood, family units, etc., how can gay people possibly do more damage than what we breeders have done?
I'd like some specifics beyond the vague doom and gloom, end-of-humanity, predictions.
Post a Comment