As most of you loyal readers know, I am ambivalent about gay marriage, because I am ambivalent about straight marriage. I would see marriage evolve to a social/religious custom with straightforward contract law covering the rest. I would also see marriage advantages that are enshrined in law, done away with.
That said, I am bracing myself for today's decision, which is almost certainly going to uphold gay marriage as a Constitutional right.
Not because I would disagree with such a decision, though I might.
But because the smarmy, bootlicking, cool-kid, oh-so-nonjudgmental media will immediately claim yet another victory for President Obama, a man who was elected President looking straight into the cameras claiming that he believed marriage was between one man and one woman. All will be forgotten by the cloying toadies of the political-media complex.
Friday, June 26, 2015
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
5 comments:
I agree with all of that, especially the last part. All of that said, of the various social con positions, the opposition to gay marriage baffles me the most. Anti-abortion -- that I understand, insofar as anybody who does not think that abortion is an extremely fraught issue, pro or con, is not, shall we say, morally subtle. To me, though, gay marriage supports all the things that social cons like in the abstract, including social stability, commitment to a higher value, and so forth. But beyond that, I never know what gay marriage opponents say to their gay friends. Do you take that position with them, or just hide your point of view? If the latter, why?
All of that said, I do object to gay marriage being decided in the courts. I fear it will become another (although less important) Roe v. Wade, which has politicized and perverted our judiciary ever since. Had Roe simply declared the abortion question a matter for the states, it never would have become partisan, and most states would have evolved themselves toward the middle position on abortion that most Americans favor: It should be lawful, unusual, early in the pregnancy, and the health of the mother should dominate other considerations. Some states would ban it, some states would be liberal, but mostly it would be a subject for legislatures, which would require our politicians to take middle positions on the subject. Gay marriage also ought to be decided by legislatures, just as New York, to its credit, did.
Statutory law was destroyed yesterday in favor of ad hoc law. Common law will be destroyed today in favor of anarchy.
The argument CW presents is that all "marriage" is equal, just between two (presumably two) people with no societal effects. That's a short-sighted and absurd idea. Marriage as an institution will be destroyed today.
How so Hammer, you Redneck, reactionary pos? Well, look at it this way. Let's say the Army decided that Ranger school was just to exclusionary, standards must be lowered. Then a Ranger would no longer be a Ranger, at least in the sense that a Ranger is a "bad ass mofo that has gone through two months of intense physical and mental endurance training in weapons and tactics". For all intents and purposes a Ranger would be no more. If something means everything then it means nothing.
But continue on with your intellectual games so you can impress you gay friends with your "he's a conservative but he's really nice" thing. THIS is bigger than ISIS, it's bigger than immigration and it's bigger than Obamacare. This is flushing a culture down the toilet of decadence and hedonism. I just hope you live long enough to see it.
"I would see marriage evolve to a social/religious custom with straightforward contract law covering the rest. I would also see marriage advantages that are enshrined in law, done away with." Couldn't agree more, CW. I don't get the cultural obsession with marriage. I only got married because it was important to my husband. Living in a small community, I suppose it will, sadly, be important to my kids "social standing" that their parents are married. Childhood is hard enough without the world deciding that your parents must not love each other if they didn't GET MARRIED. It makes sense since EVERYONE that is married is clearly in love and providing a healthy relationship for their kids to see.
We saw a judge to get married. I was late - had a work lunch beforehand. I don't even know what day it was. Some Saturday in January. Funny how I still love and respect my life partner a lot even though the legally married part is obviously pretty irrelevant to me.
We had a non-legal private commitment to each other evening - just the 2 of us - on December 24, 2007 - before we got legally married in January. I remember everything about that. Weird how that works.
I'll tell you what I say to my gay and lberal friends (as if there is a difference) about marriage. One man and one woman is the line in the sand that I draw. If you call that bigotted or "phobic", so be it. But I then go on to ask if they are also willing to accept the idea of multiple spouses, incestuous marriages, and/or pederastic unions. The answer is invariably "no" or some weak ass attempt to deflect the question. I point out that they are no less phobic than I, their line in the sand is just drawn a little further back.
Post a Comment