- Commenting Rules. Read these before you comment. Really. I'm not kidding.
- Sharing material from Stonekettle Station. Read this if you're thinking about reposting, linking, quoting, or just plain stealing material from Stonekettle Station. Seriously, read this before sharing, otherwise I will unleash the badgers.

- Stonekettle Station's Greatest Hits: The good stuff, it's in here!
- Reader Links: Sites recommended by readers, pimp your site today!

Wednesday, May 9, 2012

Love and War

As noted in the previous post, conservatives have declared the direction of forward to be fascist communism.

Or was it communist fascism?

I can never remember if the Marxists were Nazis or if the Nazis were communists. 

Either way, accordingly North Carolina, not wanting to be labeled either communist or fascist, voted yesterday not only to not move forward – or even to remain in the same place for that matter –  but to, in fact, actually take a couple of giant steps firmly backwards.  It wasn’t enough that they denied granting certain citizens equal rights, they also voted to take away existing rights from a significant portion of their population.

Yep.

See, apparently after it was all over a number of bemused North Backward Carolinians were surprised to find out that they’d not only outlawed same-sex marriage but had also made civil unions illegal (for both gay and straight relationships).

Oops.

If ever you needed an abject lesson why any individual’s civil rights should not be something decided by ballot (besides, you know, that whole black people are property thing. Or women’s suffrage. Yeah, besides that I mean), yesterday’s vote in North Carolina would be a perfect example.

As I’ve said repeatedly here on Stonekettle Station, I have yet to have anybody explain to me how two gay people getting married affects me or my traditional marriage in any way whatsoever – or anybody else’s traditional marriage either for that matter.  They haven’t because they can’t, not that that simple fact makes them stop and think – being as thinking isn’t exactly something religious extremists do very well.  I have yet to have anybody explain to me why any legally consenting adult shouldn’t be able to marry any other legally consenting adult regardless of gender and call it “marriage” if they damned well please. They haven’t because, as I mentioned previously, they cannot.   And I have yet to hear any opposition to same-sex marriage that doesn’t, sooner or later (usually sooner), invoke somebody’s God.  Because the simple truth of the matter is that when you strip away all the bullshit, what it comes down to is a bunch of selfish bastards attempting to force their religious beliefs on the rest of us.

In the United States, if you can’t frame your argument without invoking your religion, you don’t in point of fact actually have an argument, you’re just being an asshole.

Here in America, denying any legally consenting pair of adults the right to marry because it’s against the tenets of somebody’s Bronze Age belief system is no different whatsoever than snatching random citizens off the street and forcing them to join your church.  Denying gay people the right to marry because Christians don’t like it is no different whatsoever from Muslims demanding that pork be outlawed nationwide and that all American women should have to go about with their faces covered.  It’s absolutely no different from American Catholics demanding that nobody can eat meat on Fridays because some senile old pedophile in a pointy hat says it makes Jesus cry.  The only, the only, time that religion should have any bearing on anybody’s civil rights is if it affects you directly, i.e. if you don’t agree with same-sex marriage because you believe that two thousand years ago some wild-eyed hippy with delusions of grandeur and a pocket full of magic fairy dust said it was bogus, dude, fine, then you have the absolute right not to marry anybody of the same sex as yourself – but that’s as far as it goes. You don’t get to tell the rest of us what to do. Period.  And don’t start in with that Christian morality bullshit either, or I will spend the next ten posts describing numerous examples of your religion’s endless immoral hypocrisy in intimate detail – and we’ll start with the aforementioned guy in the pointy hat.

Here’s the bottom line:

If a bunch of religious nuts can vote away your fundamental civil rights, then your rights are not self-evident, inalienable, or endowed by God. Quod erat demonstrandum.

It’s really just this simple: if men can dictate your civil rights based on their religious and/or political beliefs, then God isn’t the all powerful deity he claims to be and any rights he supposedly endows are worthless trash, or the founding principles of the United states – i.e. the promise of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for all citizens – are utter and complete bullshit, or (and here’s a thought) you are wrong. 

Want to take a guess as to which is more likely?

So, anyway, hot on the heels of the North Backward Carolina vote, today the president said he thinks gay people should be allowed to get married.

Predictably, conservative pundits, politicians, preachers, and pinheads went absolutely apeshit. 

The folks over at Fox Nation deployed their Jesus Powered Orbital Gay-Shield and stridently sounded panicked battle stations, declaring on Twitter:

OBAMA FLIP FLOPS, DECLARES WAR ON MARRIAGE!

Oh noes!

War?

On marriage?

Obama declares war on marriage. 

War.

Ah hell, not another damned war. Seriously? 

I thought we were done with that nonsense for a while – especially since Jeb Bush decided not to run for president.

So what’s reasoning here?  Did a bunch of traditional marriage extremists fly a jetliner into one of our buildings? Did One Man and One Woman bomb Pearl Harbor or invade Poland? Are traditional marriages hotbeds of terrorism and anti-American sentiment?  Did traditional marriage attack one of our allies or endanger our oil supply?  Did traditional marriage take one of our embassies hostage? Has traditional marriage been attacking our merchant ships on the high seas and impressing our sailors into their navy? Did traditional marriage nationalize the pineapple industry or attempt to burn down the Alamo? Do we want to build a canal through the middle of traditional marriage. What the hell is it this time?

Are traditional marriages hiding weapons of mass destruction?

That’s it, isn’t it?

Next thing you know, Obama will send Hilary Clinton to testify before the United Nations.  She’ll use CIA intelligence and a big flip chart to prove how traditional marriage hasn’t been complying with UN sanctions and how marriage hasn’t been cooperating with inspectors. 

 

Traditional Marriage, Clinton will tell the UN Security Council, is trying to build a Bomb.

 

Reluctantly, the UN will vote for war (and for once, those French pussies will be cheering us on! China and Russia will protest, of course, they’ve always been in bed with traditional marriage). We’ll rename Russian Dressing to Queer Vinaigrette and dip our Freedom Fries in it!

Joe Biden will be dispatched to an undisclosed location, not some high tech bunker beneath the Naval Observatory or the old Cold War facility under Weather Mountain, no it’ll be a bath house Command Post in the Castro District. 

This time people will listen to The Dixie Chicks and The Nuge will be vilified as anti-American and a traitor.

Rachel Maddow will become the voice of war, Forward, Girls, crush traditional marriage beneath our Doc Martens!

As Commander in Chief, Obama can’t wait for Congress to act – the threat from traditional marriage is too immediate and dire.  Besides the War Powers Act gives him the right to attack without congressional approval. He’ll call out the National Guard and deploy the drones.  He’ll order the Navy to begin bombardment of traditional marriage from offshore, followed by a Marine amphibious landing (Little known fact, the Navy actually has an aircraft, the EA-6B, nicknamed The Queer. Coincidence? Or has the military industrial complex been preparing for this all along?)  B-2 Spirit bombers will launch laser guided anti-marriage missiles.  In an awesome display of military might, the B-52’s will deploy the thunderous Rolling Divorce, carpet bombing marriage into smithereens!

That’s why Obama really ended the war in Iraq and is drawing down our forces in Afghanistan, you know, so that he can redeploy our troops in the war on marriage.  It’s true!

Obama’s sparkly rainbow-camouflaged troops will march across the land and the forces of traditional marriage will throw down their weapons and flee.  Shock and awe, folks, shock and awe. Together we’ll tear down the wedding chapels, and they’ll cheer us in the streets of Raleigh!

It’ll be fabulous!

Of course, if history is any guide (heh heh, right), traditional marriage will retreat to mountain caves and hidden lairs, and we’ll face a decade of insurgency, underwear bombers, Improvised Jesus Devices, and holy water attacks on gay people. 

War on marriage. Frankly I don’t see this ending well. 

Then again, you know, maybe it’s not as crazy as it sounds.

No really, think about it, conservatives love war.  It’s their most favorite hobby.

Maybe declaring war on traditional marriage is how Obama convinces conservatives to give gay people equal rights.  Well, sure, if it’s war, we’re in.  Let me get my gun and gas up the Hummer. For Freeeedom!

Crazy? Maybe, but it’s not half as crazy as some of the nonsense I’ve heard this week.

 

Of course, if it works out, Mitt Romney will probably want to take credit for it.

Gay marriage, totally my idea.  Totally.

80 comments:

  1. MUST you be so right on and funny too? you caused my keyboard to get coffee on it! Thrice!!!

    ReplyDelete
  2. "In the United States, if you can’t frame your argument without invoking your religion, you don’t in point of fact actually have an argument, you’re just being an asshole."

    Best. Line. Ever.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. My sentiments exactly! It could be a rallying cry

      Delete
    2. South Jersey DocMay 11, 2012 at 7:52 PM

      Couldn't agree more.

      Delete
  3. In the near-twenty years I've been married, no one else's decision to get hitched (or divorced) has had any impact on my marriage. It makes no sense whatsoever, and never will.

    Also, the economy could use the boost. Caterers and florists are hurting.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Jim, I'm sending this to my 85 year old female cousin (retirement, union, wha?), who lives with another woman (war on conventional marriage, gasp!), and was a teacher (union, retirement, double gasp!), who had breast cancer (medicare and retirement), who lives in NC and who will be seriously pissed at you for saying all the things you have just said..................Geeesss!

    Bunnyslippers!

    ReplyDelete
  5. With the divorce rate at 50%, traditional marriage seems to have done itself in.

    ReplyDelete
  6. As a North Carolinian, I just would like to say I voted early, and I voted against Amendment One.

    Hubby and I (and our two urchins) were living in Laramie when Matthew Shepard was killed. We've seen firsthand what ignorance and hate can do...and that's WITHOUT encouragement from our politicians.

    I firmly believe that this entire mess was created as a political diversion. We already (unfortunately) had legislation in place that made sure that same-sex marriage wasn't recognized, so why did we need this amendment?

    Short answer? We didn't. Our local politicians were up to their armpits in embarrassing choices and mistakes, and they needed a good hot-button issue. One where they thought they could reasonably predict public opinion. Gay marriage was it. This is the buckle of the bible belt, after all (which explains why there are so many "gentlemen's" clubs around here...buckles were made for undoing, apparently).

    I suspect it came as something of a shock to those politicians when the amendment did NOT pass without dissent. Change is slow...and this is undoubtedly something we will regret and have to apologize for...but that day will come when we emerge, blinking and dazed, into the century of the fruitbat.

    Someday.

    ReplyDelete
  7. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  8. OMG I just woke up the sleeping squirrels out in the trees (not the woodpecker...he's on a tight schedule as the nest is only 1/2 way drilled and the missus is ready to pop...I digress)--that was the funniest damn thing I've heard all day.
    I always have such a hard time picking out a favorite line in your always-on-the-mark diatribes (correct word there?), but tonight's I think is this: "...if you don’t agree with same-sex marriage because you believe that two thousand years ago some wild-eyed hippy with delusions of grandeur and a pocket full of magic fairy dust said it was bogus, dude, fine..."
    I'm trying to find the courage to tell my mother this is pretty much what I think of that wonderful Catholic religion she instilled in me as a child. I'm thinking my 94-yr-old grandmother is a lost cause...but if I can come clean with my mother, then maybe there's hope for me.

    Just as an aside...are you, by any chance, writing a book? As in, putting all of these together for a "Collection of Essays on the Finer Things in Life." I'm just sayin'.

    ReplyDelete
  9. My favorite strawman that I keep seeing, is that is we legalize gay marriage, why then we open the door to multiple marriages and bestiality and pedophilia. Despite the fact that we're talking about marriage between two consenting adults.

    Where DO these people get these ideas?

    Dr. Phil

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Where DO these people get these ideas?

      I'll give you one guess

      Delete
    2. Well, I hope they at least wipe them off (with the Constitution, maybe?) before putting them out in public.

      Delete
    3. The one I heard on NPR the other day was priceless: If we give gays rights, we'll end up with an all-gay army, and kids going into the forces will be turned gay.
      I had to grab a napkin to staunch the blood from where my jaw hit the floor.

      Delete
  10. Jim, you hit this one right out of the damn park. I absolutely adore you (in a totally platonic way, of course!) - thank you!

    ReplyDelete
  11. I've had a traditional marriage, no more, thank you. Of course, I didn't meet Mr. Wright.
    But I certainly hope this is the beginning of the end of this fight for basic human rights in this country. It's far past time.
    Well done, Mr. President. And very well written post. Thank you.


    bd

    ReplyDelete
  12. I really can't laugh about any of this anymore. Education is snobbery per the GOP unless you are one of the ones educated in the GOP. In Kansas a doctor can let a pregnant woman's cancer spread and kill her rather than treat her if he feels it is a danger to the fetus.(what happened to her choice?) In Arizona Pregnancy begins 2 weeks before conception. Hatred of everything and everyone different is rampant and civil discourse is in the toilet. A man in Georgia diplays a sign outside his bar saying He won't be voting for the N.gg.r in the white house but he's not racist. It's just not funny any more, it scares the hell out of me. Your posts at least make me feel so not alone and give me hope that there are like minded people like me out there. If we could only get together and forge change.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Better yet, the doctor that lets his patient die for lack of treatment gets pro-life brownie points. If there were actually cognition, the cognitive dissonance would do the pro-birth people in.

      Delete
  13. I have come up with a scenario where gay marriage threatens a "heterosexual" marriage. If one or both of the alleged heterosexuals is actually gay and married heterosexually rather than coming out or raising children as a single parent, then that marriage might be threatened by gay marriage. Once gay marriage is a legal reality, that partner might be more willing to leave a nominally heterosexual marriage.

    Other than that scenario, which is probably a less likely marriage to exist now than 20 or more years ago, I don't see much threat to heterosexual marriage.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well, yeah, you can see how religious fundamentalists would be concerned about that scenario since it would affect primarily their marriages...

      Delete
    2. Michelle Bachmann comes immediately to mind.

      Delete
    3. That actually happened to a friend of mine. She thought my wife and I had the best marriage she'd ever seen and she attributed it to my having been in the Marines and my wife having an extreme amount of education.

      So she went to Medical School and looked for and married a serving marine. Dude turned out to be queer as a three dollar bill and married her to not get a Big Chicken Dinner for his actions.

      But it's all good ... she turned out to be gay also. For years she wrote a sex advice column in Baltimore.

      Delete
  14. Hmmmmm, name calling and profanity aren't exactly stellar points of argument, either. '^'

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. But sometimes when the "points of argument" are absolutely illogical, ignorant, offensive and actually hurt other people in real ways, then I do believe name-calling and profanity are in order- after all sometimes you have to call a spade a spade, or in this case, call homophobes, a homophobe.

      Delete
    2. Mr. Wright actually made his points using logic, examples, and compassion. The profanity and name calling were just for added enjoyment.

      Delete
    3. Profanity is part of my charming personality. Don't like it? You're perfectly welcome to fuck right off back to wherever it is you came from.

      As to name calling, if you act like an asshole, well then you're an asshole. Don't want to be called an asshole? Stop acting like one. It's really just that simple.

      Delete
  15. Obama's statement made the Swedish news yesterday, introduced by: "And, now for some GOOD news!"

    We've had same-sex marriages for some time now, and I have still to see Sweden collapse.

    /Anna

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Same-same in Massachusetts, which, besides having had gay marriage for years, also has the lowest divorce rate in the nation.

      Highest divorce rates? In the Bible Belt states.

      Just sayin'..............

      Delete
    2. As someone from the other side of the keel (hello neighbour!), Norway legalized same-sex marriage in 2009, and we're still here. And the states in the US that legalized it are also still there.

      Of course, now that gay marriage and domestic partnerships for anyone, gay or straight, has been outlawed in Backwards Carolina (thank you for that,by the way, presumably the right to divorce will be next on the chopping block...

      Delete
  16. It made the news in London as a crawl under an endless opening of Parliament news piece

    ReplyDelete
  17. I'm absolutely disgusted with my state. It's especially sickening to me because I know of another young man who took his own life because of bullying-he was a male cheerleader. There have been about 4 suicides within the past 6-8 months I believe, within the cheerleading world my daughter is involved in (competitive). One was a female and the rest were boys, but I'm pretty sure they were all gay. And NO, not all male cheerleaders are gay! Quite a lot of them are straight, but that's beside the point. Not only does this legislation prevent gays from marrying and experiencing any of the benefits of a civil union, it prevents ANYONE who is not heterosexually married from the same thing; so you're fucked if you don't want to get married and your heterosexual partner of 30 years isn't allowed to be at your beside when you're dying in the hospital because of this law-despite the fact you've been together longer than most heterosexual married couples. It's wrong all together of course, regardless of sexual orientation, but what an even larger amount of ignorance and stupidity went into writing this amendment.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Jim,
    Thank you. It needed to be said and as always you did a brilliant job saying it. Other readers have already mentioned some great lines ... Another I really enjoyed was:

    The folks over at Fox Nation deployed their Jesus Powered Orbital Gay-Shield and stridently sounded panicked battle stations....

    I just love your Navy and Star Fleet flashes of brilliance. Unfortunately, there are too many un-brilliant shuttered minds out there and it truly has me despairing when we see elections like the one in NC when people cast their votes without even knowing what they are voting for or against because they haven't bothered to do their very basic homework.

    In any case, please keep writing, Jim!

    ReplyDelete
  19. As a high school English teacher, I would love to assign your blog as required reading; however, I teach in a conservative suburb in Texas. As you have repeatedly pointed out, my state will compete for the prize of "The Last Bastion of Ass-Backwards (non) Thinkng."

    But I saw an interesting juxtaposition of photos today showing a crowd on the steps of a marble/granite government building protesting inter-racial marriage - "Stop Mixing Races" - and an almost identical modern scene against gay marriage - "One Man One Woman For Life".

    We all know the fear of the right-wing movement on this...

    Race mixing got us our current Communist, Muslim, Non-American President. What could come of the unholy union of gay people? (Um, the in vitro, possibly surrogate-carried, product of living in sin, I mean). Obviously, the Rainbow-Clad Anti-Christ.

    It all makes sense...

    Incidentally, hippie Jesus didn't give a fig about gay people (at least as far as I have seen). His message was always about love and acceptance. What if Christians followed THAT example?

    ReplyDelete
  20. Will you spend the next ten posts describing numerous examples of religions' endless immoral hypocrisy in intimate detail anyway, just for our amusement?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That would be fantastic!

      Delete
    2. christy, I second that motion.
      Mr. Wright, you ARE a delight!
      Keep going!

      fromthediagonal

      Delete
    3. I would like to add a third voice to this request. Please? Pretty please? With an apoplectic "Christian" on top???? :-)

      Delete
    4. Please? Please!

      Delete
    5. Yes please!!!!!!!!! with a cherry on top

      PLee

      Delete
    6. Jim,

      Betcha can't do it in ten. In fact, betcha can't do it in fewer than 20.

      Lucy

      Delete
    7. I think even 20 would't cover the Roman Catholics and there are many other flavors to choose from.

      Delete
  21. I think you found the reason - that why, in the 65th year of my life - I went out two days ago and bought my first pair of Doc Martens.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Will Obama's sparkly rainbow-camouflaged troops really march or will it be more of a prance?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The troops prefer the term "sashay"

      Delete
    2. I've got a friend who's a retired EA-6B squadron commander. He's on marriage #4 (can't quite seem to understand that "forsake all others" part of the ceremony-needs practice, I guess)and is against marriage equality.

      Irony, thy nickname is "Conservative".

      knittingbull

      Delete
    3. Guess you've never seen Monty Python's sketch on "The Second Armored Unit Close Order Swanning About"

      Delete
  23. Wouldn't a Christian be a hypocrite if they were to vote to legalize gay marriage? Just saying.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Why?

      Just because some bigots, who happen to be Christian, feel that gay marriage is wrong, doesn't mean they speak for me, or many other Christians.

      Love one another, said the New Testament - it didn't then qualify that statement.

      Delete
    2. No, because civil marriage, and religious marriage are two entirely different things, and after all "Render unto Caesar, that which is Caesar's".

      Delete
    3. Christianity does not condemn homosexuals or gay marriage. Certain Christians do. To my mind, they are the hypocrites, failing to follow the tenets of their own religion ... not to mention getting their panties in a big, uncomfy wad over non-issues like who's sleeping with who.

      Delete
    4. Nick from the O.C.May 10, 2012 at 1:17 PM

      Hey, just for the record, my family and I consider ourselves to be practicing Christians. We go to church 40+ times/year and I'm in the lay leadership and my wife teaches Sunday School.

      We voted against Prop 8 here in CA (a YES vote meant that same-sex marriages would be made illegal under the CA constitution). We donated money to the cause.

      Much of our congregation is LGBT. We don't care. All our welcome. In fact, we proclaim that we are "Open and Affirming". (Go google that phrase.)

      So no, I don't feel hypocritical for being in favor of equal civil rights and for opposing those who would deny equal civil rights to others, simply based on who they want to love. Quite honestly, I feel that Jesus would take the same position.

      The Pharisees, on the other hand ....

      Delete
  24. In Denver, Colorado, Mitt Romney sez to a CBS reporter when the topic turned from same-sex marriage to in-state tuition for the children of undocumented immigrants to medical marijuana, "Aren't there issues of significance that you'd like to talk about?" the former Massachusetts governor asked CBS4 . The economy? The growth of jobs? The need to put people back to work? The challenges of Iran?"

    Later, he quipped, "I'm not running on marriage and marijuana, those are state issues, right? Aren't they?"

    Wonder if he will now decline to comment on Obama's positions.

    ReplyDelete
  25. It seems to me that the people who shout the loudest about wanting to be free of government intrusion and regulation of their private lives, are, strangely, the same people who insist that government should have the power to intrude on and regulate other people's lives.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Those who shout the loudest that we need to uphold the Constitution are those who have no idea what's in it, or why, and most loudly advocate for the violation of its principles, too.

      Delete
  26. Everything has literally become a zero sum game for the right, because they have to keep their flock in a perpetual state of fear.
    You would think, that at some point, they would just tire of being afraid all the time...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The more fear they can create, the more the fearful pay. It's a business.

      bd

      Delete
  27. Thank you again. I check every day for new content. It is WONDERFUL to read beautifully written (and hysterically funny) commentary and the comments that prove thinking people still exist.

    THANK YOU.

    Becky

    ReplyDelete
  28. Thought you might enjoy this article that shows that marriage traditions weren't always what folks seem to think they were:
    http://anthropologist.livejournal.com/1314574.html

    ReplyDelete
  29. OK, long time reader, first time poster. I was so angry this morning (and last night) reporters going around sticking a microphone in front of several Hispanics that work for a local CATHOLIC church asking them if this PERSONAL DECISION by POTUS changes their vote in November. Of course they said yes - the church secretary even said she could never vote for anyone who doesn't believe the same thing she believes in. Now I happen to think that's even stupider (?) than anyone on Fox (and that takes some doing) but I expect Fox to be that stupid and small minded (sadly they never disappoint). I do not expect the so-called MSM to pile on as well. Nowhere did the President say I'm going to make this more important than passing health care or ending wars or keeping our country safe. I'm straight, always have been, always will be but it is none of my business what someone I don't know (or even if I do know them) does in any part of their life just as my life is my own to mess up. The screaming "President Supports Gay Marriage" equates to - stay tuned for man eating live doggy and liking it - it is the shiny object for everyone to look at. The stupid will growl that if Obama gets re-elected not only will he take away all your guns but then he'll turn around and point them at you and force you to get married to your cousin Fred or Freda - sure he says different but we KNOW different.

    Anyway Jim, I always enjoy your point of view, sometimes you make me laugh, sometimes cry but you always make me think.

    ReplyDelete
  30. I'm sure Rachel would love to be the General of the Armed Forces rallying against heterosexual marriages. Ahh, the sound of marching doc martens.....

    What would be the weapons of choice (snicker) be in this deadly battle? Hair gel and high heels at fifty paces? A wedding invitation signing- who can sign 100 invites in 5 minutes wins? Perhaps lobbing condom bombs filled with teeny tiny heart-shaped glitter from rainbow-colored hot air balloons?

    And I bet the uniforms would be just spiffy! Pleather pants, corsets and knee high boots, all accented with lots of sparkles and color!

    The opposition would run screaming, terrified!

    The after party would be just spectacular too!

    ReplyDelete
  31. How ironic that the presidential candidate from the largest polygamist church in the US has declared that he is for 'one man one woman traditional marriage'. (The LDS and FLDS churches justify only slightly different interpretations of their world views using essentially the same texts. Same church, different labels. The irony meter pegs at 11.) I'm hoping that Maryland does not follow in the hooftracks of the Deep(er) South. I'm not going to place any bets, though.

    I am glad that I have learned to stop drinking anything while reading the post _and_ all of the comments. While many comments are insightful, several are downright dangerously funny.

    ReplyDelete
  32. The real irony is that the institution of marriage is, if not in it's death throes, in very serious trouble, and that is even though the vast majority of states disallow same sex marriage. The divorce rate is declining, but that is only because the number of marriages have steeply declined. People are getting married later, less frequently or not at all. Cohabiting is on the rise so people who would have married and divorced in the past now just live together and split up.

    The Christians have already lost the battle. The marriage rate per 1000 women has dropped from 76.5 per 1,000 unmarried women in 1970 to 39.9 currently. The Christians can scream and throw tantrums, but they cannot force people to marry and stay married. They might try, though.

    Christian young people contribute to this decline in marriage also. They are marrying later, if at all. In the good old days, the young people graduated from high school, often left the church briefly, married and started having children and returned to the church. Now, they delay marriage and children, and are far less likely to return to the church. I find this encouraging news.

    The number of people approving of same sex marriage now stands at 50%. This is a sharp increase. As the younger generation reaches voting age and the older generation dies off, the percentage will rise. The kids, like Obama's girls, cannot see what all the fuss is about. They think it is rather silly.

    I am very hopeful for the future. I think that the screaming, wailing and gnashing of teeth we see coming from the right is their reaction to the changing times and results in a desperate attempt to return to the "good old days". Sorry, but the 50's are not returning, no matter how hard you try.

    Jeanne in WV

    ReplyDelete
  33. Here is a non-religious argument to gay marriage.

    Marriage was originally a religious institution, it was co-opted (but not completely taken over) by the State to ensure equal marriage rights to non-religious persons. It is now subsidized by the State (tax breaks for married couples). The reason this subsidy was emplaced is to encourage stable homes for raising children that would be produced by said marriage. The point was to encourage young people to get married and produce children. This does not happen with a gay couple.

    There is still absolutely nothing preventing two consenting adults from sharing their lives. Further, nowhere in any Federal code is there any mention of marriage as a RIGHT. Gay people have equal RIGHTS. The fight is over equal BENEFITS, like health insurance, and tax subsidies.

    Before everyone vilifies me, I do not say that this is NOT a worthwhile fight. I fully support gay marriage. But as it is stated, the argument is invalid.

    As for how it affects those who are traditionally married, the tax subsidy will decrease the budget. Take it for what it is worth.

    -Jeff K
    SFC, USA
    Fort Knox

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Jeff--
      There is nothing in the Tax Code that requires married couples to have children in order to be subsidized...In fact, the only couples subsidized until recent "tax reform" were those with one paycheck. I don't understand why you think the option to marry is not a right for same gender couples the same way it was for biracial couples. Except that of course it allows you to make the argument for "non-religious" reasons, at least you think that it does. I also don't understand why you think the decreased budget due to the "tax subsidy" is how "traditional" marriages are threatened by gays marrying.
      Bottom line for me is there is no rational reason not to allow any two individuals to marry, regardless of gender or race. Not allowing gays the same benefits as heterosexuals is indeed a matter of unequal rights and treatment under the law.

      Delete
    2. The tax code does not require children for the subsidy, but that was the purpose when it was originally created.

      The reason I state that marriage is not a right is two-fold. 1) It is nowhere codified as a right, the way life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, voting, speech, press, etc. are. And 2) Not everyone can do it. You need to ask the state permission, and be granted a license to do it. This makes it a privilege, not a right, just like driving.

      I do not think gay marriage, even with tax subsidy THREATENS traditional marriage. I was stating how it can AFFECT a traditionally married person, per Jim's original post "...I have yet to have anybody explain to me how two gay people getting married affects me or my traditional marriage in any way whatsoever – or anybody else’s traditional marriage either for that matter. They haven’t because they can’t..."

      I agree there is no rational reason not to allow gay marriage. I was simply stating that the argument AS PRESENTED time and time again is fallacious.

      -Jeff K

      Delete
    3. Nick from the O.C.May 11, 2012 at 6:42 AM

      Anonymous @ 5/11 1:26 AM wrote -- "The reason I state that marriage is not a right is two-fold 1) It is nowhere codified as a right, the way life liberty, pursuit of happiness, voting, speech, press, etc. are ...."

      You may want to review Hamilton's Federalist No. 84, arguing that a Bill of Rights was unnecessary, because "Here, in strictness, the people surrender nothing, and as they retain everything, they have no need of particular reservations."

      The more you know ...

      Delete
    4. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    5. Jeff K,

      Pedant that I am, I cannot allow your statement, "Marriage was originally a religious institution, it was co-opted (but not completely taken over) by the State to ensure equal marriage rights to non-religious persons" to go unchallenged.

      Back in the day (I think around the Reformation, I can check the exact date and council), marriage as a ceremony and institution was specifically a state function - it applied only to those with enough property and power to make it worthwhile. For the vast unwashed masses, it was enough to say, "we are married" and have done with it.

      Of course, having "done with it" (or done it), there were always those cads who quibbled with exactly what was said before hand - promises in the dark, as they say. Eventually, the church and state got involved.

      But the point is - marriage was originally a civil, even political, arrangement.

      As for your point that, as a privilege, it is somehow immune to the logic of civil rights, this too is spurious. The state cannot deny privileges on the basis of race, creed or color, nor should it do so based on sexual orientation or gender identification. In this regard, it is a question of rights - does the individual have the right to his or her sexual orientation, with the reasonable consequence of marrying someone who fits that orientation, or can the state deny privileges based solely on that orientation.

      Finally, you ignore a whole host of details regarding sharing and inheritance of property, hospital visitation, power of attorney, etc. in reducing the issue simply to that of tax benefits.

      Greg

      Delete
    6. Thank you for that Greg, you saved me the trouble That particular misconception goes unchallenged far, far too often.

      JC

      Delete
    7. As it turns out, I was mistaken regarding the "marriage as a right" issue. Per Loving v. Virginia, the Supreme Court ruled:

      Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

      So I, and Jeff K., stand corrected. Marriage is a right, not a privilege.

      Delete
  34. Faaabulous post! If it's OK with the the wife, will you please gay-marry me?

    (I mean your wife. Mine's perfectly fine with it.)

    ReplyDelete
  35. Okm funniest and most on target article I have seen on same sex marriage.
    I want
    "If a bunch of religious nuts can vote away your fundamental civil rights, then your rights are not self-evident, inalienable, or endowed by God. Quod erat demonstrandum."
    on a t-shirt.
    You rock! Keep it up!

    ReplyDelete
  36. It's just amazing to watch the red states compete to be the locomotive on the Stupid Express.

    First Mississippi tries to get the "every egg is a sacred person" law. Then Tennessee was in the lead with preaching alterneetives to global warmin' and evuhlushun. Now North Caralinee jumps in the lead with "Hah! you fags can't marry but O SHIT now all them kids in the trailer park is illegitimate since we outlawed civil unions." Father's Day will now be more confusing than ever.

    Hey Texas, where are you? Get that lege back in session! There's stupid to be done.

    ReplyDelete
  37. OK. Funniest post evah!!! I, a straight man, am not ashamed top say "I love you, man" and hope you will keep it a' commin!!!!!
    Seriously though, the simple fix is to remove the church from the marriage equation. All persons who want to join together-regardless of orientation- will have to go to the court and do it there. No preacher, priest or imam. Only the clerk and judge to make it so. Done. No need to have this argument ever again. But I'm sure Occam would roll over if it ever happened...

    ReplyDelete
  38. reply to Okra God (having trouble with the 'reply to post' option, I seem to be..)

    Monty Python's Camp it up was my first thought too..

    enjoy
    bobby

    ReplyDelete
  39. Thank you for the excellent post.

    For the purposes of accuracy, the secret location is Raven Rock, or Site R, and is about 1 Air Mile from Camp David.

    Thanks again.

    Whizbangsc

    ReplyDelete
  40. Thanks for keeping the light on...

    ReplyDelete
  41. Jim-
    You continue to hit the bull's-eye, my friend. This whole religion/abortion/contraception "issue" boils down to a bunch of assholes who cannot conceive of a world where they don't get to impose their religious views on everyone else. I cannot understand the numerous times that so-called religious leaders invoke the "war on Christianity", because virtually every time they cite a particular instance, it is clear that what THEY view as someone attacking Christianity is, in reality, someone complaining about "christians" seeking to impose their world view on others. I love your succinct rejection of their subversion, as quoted from your article, to wit "In the United States, if you can’t frame your argument without invoking your religion, you don’t in point of fact actually have an argument, you’re just being an asshole". Keep up the good work! I regret to report that I live in a Progressive refuge (Asheville) in that otherwise depressingly conservative state of North Carolina....

    ReplyDelete

Be sure to read the commenting rules before you start typing. Really.