Saturday, June 03, 2006

Love My Way ...

Don't even get me started on our fuckwit president and his pathetic right-wing pandering with reviving the gay-marriage amendment, even though he knows it's never going to pass. But it's an election year and his numbers are in the toilet and the GOP is worried that Americans are finally waking up and are gonna boot their sorry asses out of Congress. Time to throw the red-staters a bone. Right on, Georgie. Let's write discrimination into the Constitution. Ah, the founding fathers would be proud. Someone?, Anyone?, Bueller?, please, tell me how allowing gays to marry weakens the institution of marriage. I've asked before and I'm asking again because no one seems to have an answer for me. And remember, we're not talking about marriage as a religious rite. If churches want to ban same-sex marriage on religious grounds, they can do whatever they please. I'm talking about marriage as a legal entity. The kind that any heterosexual couple can buy with a few bucks and a blood test. The kind that's so sacred that it can be performed in a drive-thru in Vegas by an Elvis impersonator in a gold lamé suit. The kind that's cast aside, year after year, by half the population, what with our sky-high divorce rates.



Anonymous Ethan said...

I hear ya. In High School we had a running gag to the effect of "look over there! Lady Di!" (Pre-death.) This "issue" is quite similar.

But here is an interesting take by "teh ghey":

Link love to Jared

Interesting spin on the issue.

7:18 PM  
Anonymous Jared said...

Aww...hugs all around - if you want to seem some fireworks, check out that running argument I have with this guy....

I agree marriage is SUCH a political football right now...I wish people would realize we've GOT BIGGER FISH TO FRY!

Salute's to the blogger intelligencia we have here Ethan & Beth!


"The Gay" - {Sniker}

5:18 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I kind of doubt the founding fathers would have said, "Same Sex marriage", that's cool. Then again some of them at least were fans of slavery so they were not exactly the most open minded group of people to begin with.

You are right there are two very different definitions of marriage the legal one that has differences over the years between the states, which in some ways is a variation on contract law related to rights of property transfer and the distribution of assets.

Then there is the religous definiton which in some cases varies between religions but is generally defined as a union between a man and a woman. There are people who feel that this definition should also be the legal definition of marriage as well and that any significant change to this definition will open the door to all sorts of other changes. Why not plural marriage? Marriage between people who are related? The libertarian definition of marriage can lead to all sorts of issues down the road? Who gets the kids if a pluaral marriage ends?

Finally politically it makes sense for the Republicans to push the issue. The religous conservatives and conservatives in general are not really happy with the president and may demonstrate this by staying home in the fall. By providing them an issue that motivates them to go to the polls it helps the Republican party.

10:48 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well I say let the fags marry. Let them be as miserable as the rest of society. Let them pay child support, alimony, and lose half their assets in a divorce. All hail the queer marriage. Plus it'll open up a whole new market for my flower shop.

1:13 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home