Knock-Down, Drag-Outs, or How I slap liberals around in the real world.
I just got into a debate with a close friend of mine online. I’ll withhold the name because I’m sure he doesn’t want any disparagement. Trust me when I tell you that he’s a liberal, only he is the most dangerous kind of liberal; he’s an uneducated one. And I don’t mean that in a bad way. He’s a towards-the-top-of-his-class high school graduate, and is an extremely book smart person. His problem is that history, law, and current events bore him. This debate we snapped at each other over was on gay marriage.
And again, this topic I have had a few debates over. Before this liberal friend of mine, I dealt with a lesbian that I know well. She and he are both unhappy that gay marriage isn’t recognized wholly across the nation. And they both use the primary talking point from the left that marriage is a right. Imagine their surprise when it’s pointed out that no, marriage isn’t a right.
It’s not. Were it a right, the government would end up being like Match.com hooking people up on dates. (Folks, the government can’t balance it’s budget, can’t see eye to eye on issues important to the nation, and wastes more time and money than each of it’s citizens COMBINED on a yearly basis. Why would I want them to choose my wife? That’s like running to the bridge of the Titanic and finding Daffy Duck at the helm.) Marriage is an agreement between a man and woman to be committed to one another, and to attempt to further our species. That’s why God gave us all the plumbing that he did.
And these two don’t seem to get the consequences that have already been set by other states. Granted, it is there right, and I emphasize that. It is the right of the States to determine for it’s citizens laws and freedoms to better govern their lives. It’s inherent and explicit under the 10th Amendment to the Constitution.
But it’s not supposed to come through the judiciary, as it did in Massachusetts. It is supposed to come through the legislative process, or through the voting process among the people. Many states have already passed such legislation, and approved of amendments to their state constitutions that define marriage as a union between one man and one woman. I see nothing wrong with this.
Then again, I see nothing wrong with a conservative gay couple. I know of a couple that are not "open" about their relationships; that’s not to say that some don’t know, but they don’t put it on display at nearly every chance. In private company, sure, there will be more obvious displays of affection, and again, I have no problem with it. For me, it has taken some getting used to; more towards guys than girls.
Women tend to be more nurturing and caring, and are therefore more apt to be open—intimately—with another female. I’m no pervert. I’m not into threesomes, any-somes, watching, or otherwise. But I can understand where women come from. And I respect that. But what is more surprising about this debate than anything else is that more lesbians are against such a move. They don’t like the idea of gay marriage. It’s not that they wouldn’t like it, or even welcome it—eventually—but they don’t need a piece of paper to show whom they love. And according to Tammy Bruce—a noted conservative Democrat radio host, and an admitted lesbian—gay men don’t want marriage either because gay men are far more promiscuous than lesbian women. (Not my words, guys; jump on her backside. I’m just taking the information provided by someone of that persuasion.)
But nonetheless, marriage is not a right. The Constitution is explicit in it’s rights. Marriage is not among them. We straight people have no right to it, nor do gay people. We have an institution that is based in our faith, based in religion, that government stuck it’s nose into for revenues. It’s pathetic, but should marriage ever be extended to gays and lesbians, it throws a giant wrench into the works that scares the Hell out of me. I’m afraid of the appeal that might eventually be made to the First Amendment over religions that refuse to marry gays, and they decide to cite their non-existent right.
Publius II
I just got into a debate with a close friend of mine online. I’ll withhold the name because I’m sure he doesn’t want any disparagement. Trust me when I tell you that he’s a liberal, only he is the most dangerous kind of liberal; he’s an uneducated one. And I don’t mean that in a bad way. He’s a towards-the-top-of-his-class high school graduate, and is an extremely book smart person. His problem is that history, law, and current events bore him. This debate we snapped at each other over was on gay marriage.
And again, this topic I have had a few debates over. Before this liberal friend of mine, I dealt with a lesbian that I know well. She and he are both unhappy that gay marriage isn’t recognized wholly across the nation. And they both use the primary talking point from the left that marriage is a right. Imagine their surprise when it’s pointed out that no, marriage isn’t a right.
It’s not. Were it a right, the government would end up being like Match.com hooking people up on dates. (Folks, the government can’t balance it’s budget, can’t see eye to eye on issues important to the nation, and wastes more time and money than each of it’s citizens COMBINED on a yearly basis. Why would I want them to choose my wife? That’s like running to the bridge of the Titanic and finding Daffy Duck at the helm.) Marriage is an agreement between a man and woman to be committed to one another, and to attempt to further our species. That’s why God gave us all the plumbing that he did.
And these two don’t seem to get the consequences that have already been set by other states. Granted, it is there right, and I emphasize that. It is the right of the States to determine for it’s citizens laws and freedoms to better govern their lives. It’s inherent and explicit under the 10th Amendment to the Constitution.
But it’s not supposed to come through the judiciary, as it did in Massachusetts. It is supposed to come through the legislative process, or through the voting process among the people. Many states have already passed such legislation, and approved of amendments to their state constitutions that define marriage as a union between one man and one woman. I see nothing wrong with this.
Then again, I see nothing wrong with a conservative gay couple. I know of a couple that are not "open" about their relationships; that’s not to say that some don’t know, but they don’t put it on display at nearly every chance. In private company, sure, there will be more obvious displays of affection, and again, I have no problem with it. For me, it has taken some getting used to; more towards guys than girls.
Women tend to be more nurturing and caring, and are therefore more apt to be open—intimately—with another female. I’m no pervert. I’m not into threesomes, any-somes, watching, or otherwise. But I can understand where women come from. And I respect that. But what is more surprising about this debate than anything else is that more lesbians are against such a move. They don’t like the idea of gay marriage. It’s not that they wouldn’t like it, or even welcome it—eventually—but they don’t need a piece of paper to show whom they love. And according to Tammy Bruce—a noted conservative Democrat radio host, and an admitted lesbian—gay men don’t want marriage either because gay men are far more promiscuous than lesbian women. (Not my words, guys; jump on her backside. I’m just taking the information provided by someone of that persuasion.)
But nonetheless, marriage is not a right. The Constitution is explicit in it’s rights. Marriage is not among them. We straight people have no right to it, nor do gay people. We have an institution that is based in our faith, based in religion, that government stuck it’s nose into for revenues. It’s pathetic, but should marriage ever be extended to gays and lesbians, it throws a giant wrench into the works that scares the Hell out of me. I’m afraid of the appeal that might eventually be made to the First Amendment over religions that refuse to marry gays, and they decide to cite their non-existent right.
Publius II
posted by Syd And Vaughn | 3:11 PM
4 Comments:
To be fair, I don't think the government got into marriage just for "revenues."
In fact, most of our tax code lets married people off the hook to a large degree.
I think the government got into marriage because it recognized where their bread was buttered. Helping married people helps the stability of the nation.
I disagree that there should be gay marriage, but I do so because it is NOT a right, as you point out.
I do, however, support civil unions. They provide for "equal protection under the law," and even show a little deference to the "sanctity" of marriage. It's sanctity can be argued, but what we find sanctified is dictated by society, which has indeed sanctified marriage.
Unfortunately for the left, they have gone out of their way to alienate people like me. In fact, no one has turned me against gay marriage more than the left.
I did an article on this subject for The Intellectual Conservative. Here is that link:
http://www.intellectualconservative.com/article4286.html
I hope you'll give it a read. It explains exactly how I feel about the gay marriage lobby.
Tea,
Civil Unions are allowed around much of the nation; it takes four different contracts to make it official. They just aren't called civili unions. But it allows the same thing.
The point of the piece I wrote, as you accurately pointed out is that marriage isn't a right. However the revenues are a main point of why the State governments won't butt out; my mistake of not making myself clear.
I'm sorry.
But here in AZ. it isn't cheap for a marriage license, and the State gets the revenue. The last time I checked, it was close to fifty dollars to get a marriage license in AZ. I'm not cheap, but isn't that construed as non-consentual intercourse.
I love my other half, and no price is too great for her, but come on.
Marriage was constituted in the Bible; let's put this bacvk in the hands of the Churches. It would clear up a lot of problems, and the sanctity would be protected, supposedly, under the First Amendment.
Wall of Separation--coughcoughBravo-Sierracoughcough--and all, religions would be the only ones to marry, therefore the final arbiters.
Granted, save a move in a different direction, it won't be long before the religions are tested by the judiciary; they have already on many levels.
Thomas
What you are suggesting could be achieved by a simple term change like those loved by the left.
For instance, neighborhood has become "community," or, the lawn has become "greespace," or the horizon the "viewshed."
If we changed all Justice of the Peace ceremonies to "civil unions," the whole problem is solved essentially.
Anyone can get one and of course, a religious "marriage" would be given the same status under the law, citing equal protection.
That way, the government is not in the business of marrying people, just creating unions.
Interesting angle. I would support that.
As to the "revenues" back and forth, I spoke too soon in the first place. Caught it on the re-read. Most tax breaks that we get as a married couple are because of our kids, not our marriage.
As I am prone to do sometimes, I got ahead of myself. Although couples with kids get enormous tax breaks, you were right to note that married couples without kids get pretty hosed on the tax front.
My bad.
I will have to give some thought to your position on government marriage. And kudo's to you for coming up with an angle I hadn't considered before. Very interesting...
Tea,
Thanks. The idea has certain unseen-as-yet merits.
If religious institutions are the only ones allowed to conduct a "marriage ceremony" the anti-religious people are satisfied that, at last, church is separated from state.
For atheists, they may still have a civil union ceremony performed by a JP.
For gays, they have the civil union ceremony, too.
EVERYONE's rights are protected equally, as you so quickly pointed out.
It is a win-win idea. Know why we'll never see it happen? Two words: Bureaucratic bull-s**t. OK, technically, that's three words. But, point being, that is exactly what will happen.
Thomas
Post a Comment
<< Home