I've left this one alone for a couple of reasons...one, I don't want to give Perez Hilton any more press than he already gets. Two, I'm not opposed to gay marriage--I'm opposed to state sponsored marriage of any kind--and that gets twisted up in things. Finally, I was hoping Goldwater's Ghost would tackle this subject, as only he could.
Well, because GG has been in semi-retirement, I turn to Tigerhawk to cover this one, and he does so wonderfully.
Sunday, May 3, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
5 comments:
You are a hero to today's single men who are criticized by the females for being unable or unwilling to commit.
"But honey, 'I'm opposed to state sponsored marriage of any kind'... it's a political thing".
CW for Emperor of Manworld!
Before I get myself into considerable difficulty, my view on marriage is this. I'm all for marriage as a social and religious practice. I'm very much looking forward to it, and for all I care, I think someone should be able to marry their Barc-o-lounger. Where I depart the pattern is on the state's roll in marriage. It shouldn't have one. It should not confer additional benefits on people who have sought its sanction on their relationship and it should not withhold benefits from those who cannot or will not seek its sanction. Pretty simple.
Pardon me. The state's "role".
I agree, I think TigerHawk does an admirable job. He raises the point I would have made that Miss California's position on gay marriage isn't that far off from BHO's, but we have yet to hear or see Mr. Perez call Obama a b*tch.
Perez is right, she doesn't represent him - but she certainly appears to be expressing the sentiment of the majority of California voters.
Question: Is "I am not opposed to gay marrige", a conserative or a liberal statement?
Post a Comment