Gay Marriage Revisited

And so there was a proposal to amend the Constitution so that same-sex marriages would be considered illegal. And it failed to be passed, with the support of 48 votes (50 voted not to pass it and 2 were caught in the john during the vote) – I also think that Amendments need 2/3 support, so it was not a close margin. What does this mean? Simple: none of this will be decided before the election and we can expect a lot more press on this issue over the years to come… un-freakin-believable.

I got one forward asking me to sign a “keep marriage holy” petition and another that asked me to support gay marriages, within as many days, so this was probably going to get some play on here again… but then the amendment thingy happens and well, now it’s a timely post as well as a pointed one.

What the hell is wrong with all of you? Has it gotten so bad out there that no one can argue their sides of a debate anymore? I mean, here is the 100-seat Senate, nearly evenly split – both sides claim victory. And for what? Bragging rights? It’s a stupid and pointless thing to be debating, in the first place, at this level.

And now all of the gay people that read my Blog are pissed off. Hear me out.

Same Sex Marriages is not the same as a Gay Marriage. Know why? If I could get back an extra $5K a year in taxes, if I file a joint return with some John Doe that lives down the street, you bet your ass I would. And there’s nothing gay about that. So that’s point number one: abusing the system.

And point number one plays into point number two. Seeing as there’s no nation-level law that says a marriage has to be between a man and a woman, this drops down to the state and then local levels of government (which is why I think the Senate level debate is pointless). I know that there’s gotta be some states that have a “mixed couples only” statute on the books. There has to be at least one, but I’m betting there’s more. And so for the states that block such a union, you can lobby to get that law changed. Until then, it’s illegal – sorry! Protest all ya want, but it’s still illegal. That’s life. Move or continue to fight to get the law changed.

Point two, sub b: if your state and town does not have a local statute stating what constitutes a couple, go forth and marry. It’s that freakin’ simple.

How can it be that simple? Ever wonder why there’s 49 states that have bigamy laws? Ever wonder why 49 states (with one NV county) has banned prostitution? Um, duuuuuh! These laws were put into place to address an issue; before you is an issue. No law, the issue is allowed.

Beyond these two key points, I have to believe that the “No same-sex marriage” law, that states currently have, was put into effect to close a benefits and tax loophole. So fine: governments and insurance companies might be against it… but why are so many other people against it?

Here’s point three: Marriage is not about religion. Hell, it’s not even about love, if you ask enough people that are divorced. It’s a secular union. Secular. Is religion involved? It can be, but it doesn’t have to be. Religious marriages are applicable to your faith – they have no baring on the world around you, and that’s a fact. That’s why you need to get a marriage license from your local town government. It isn’t recognized by the government until it is licensed. So again, marriage is not about religion. I repeat it, because people seem to forget that aspect of it.

Those three points are what’s gumming up the battle over gay marriage. Most people can’t believe it’s as simple as that, but I think it is. Bush argues it from a religious background: that’s bunk. He’s entitled to believe what he wants and he can offer his opinions on religion and God – he’s not oppressing anyone when he declares himself religious – but that cannot be the basis for your argument. It has no baring and that is when oppression comes into play. If he wants an effective argument, he should be lobbying on behalf of the insurance companies. Kerry stomps around about how same-sex marriages are a right and blah blah blah. Well, sure, they’re a right, if a local law isn’t blocking it. In CT, I can’t buy beer after 8pm, but in WA I can buy beer anytime. Is it my right to buy beer? Sure, it’s my right, but if a local law supersedes it, then “Oh well” – I don’t have that right anymore.

I know I’ve said it before, and I’m sure I’ll say it again seeing as the debate will continue: if you’re not gay (or an insurance company) what the hell is the problem? …and if you have to a problem with it, argue it properly, please.

3 thoughts on “Gay Marriage Revisited”

  1. hmm…your arguments are amusing, but not sound. Why would “same-sex marriages” be abused more than straight marriages? (for insurance, etc.) if you are looking to save some money and care desparately about saving a few bucks why not marry a woman? there are plenty of deperate ones out there. you might even get lucky enough to get someone to clean your home and cook your meals too. total perks.

    so…that argument kind of falls flat, you know? Also, there’s no guy i know who would be willing to marry a guy to save a few bucks.

    as for the argument being simple – i agree. gays are not reqesting a “special kind of marriage” just that existing marriage be extended to people who are gay. For the state to deny them this, they have to meet the legal requirements showing that this would be harmful to the commonwealth. Alas, scientific evidence supports same-sex marriage (APA, AMA, american pediatric association, american anthropological association, etc..)…showing no harm. In fact, massachusetts has the lowest divorce rate in the nation…and the sky hasn’t fallen.

    so – i say let people form committed, loving relationships. Just because there is a majority who may support oppression, doesn’t make it right. If we were to let the public decide on votes – we would still have segregation and interracial marriage bans (After all, 70% of the public disagreed with the courts decision to lift those bans in 1967)….

    i think history should have taught us something.

    so – it’s that simple – no harm to the commonwealth, then the extension of rights is a legal obligation.

  2. Because I believe two men or two women could more convenient life together in a marriage of convenience. If a dude marries a desperate woman, just for the sake of a tax break, do you honestly think that she’d be OK with him bringing a date home? Think the date would care more about a woman being there rather than a “male roommate”? And women tend to believe their own press easier – that marriage wouldn’t stay “platonic” for long.

    And the reason why there is an argument is that gay people are asking for an extension FOR the benefits of marriage. They can live together in long loving committed relationships already – yet when a mixed gender couple does that it will eventually turn into a common law marriage, thereby activating the benefits (and perils) of marriage. That’s the major flaw with what you’re suggesting: it still doesn’t extend the same rights to same-sex couples that mixed-sex couples would receive, which is the very problem they’re fighting against.

  3. I am a Muslim male, never been with any guy, 25 years of age, but I know i have homosexual inclinations and I want to be honest about it to someone I marry. If there is a Muslim girl out there who is not bothered by this fact and is willing to cooperate, contact me at:

    I want a real marriage with no extramarital affairs and not just a MOC where couple sleeps in separate bedrooms. Obviously, in a situation that I am in, I would need some cooperation, understanding and may be patience, hence knowing and understanding my sexual inclinations is important.

Leave a Reply

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

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.