Gay Marriage, Or: Abusing the legal system in any which way you want to
by hulk
Alright this bugs me. The gay lobby has become flamboyant with our legal system. I know that doesn’t make any sense, I just wanted to use the word flamboyant. Ahem. So we’re all well used to the fact that in many (most?) places, it’s illegal to discriminate against gays for jobs or anything else. We also know that it’s a “hate crime”, a.k.a. ridiculous nonsense, to do anything illegal to a gay person. Hate crimes tick me off too, because I can’t imagine anyone who murdered someone else out of love for them. It’s just silly that killing a so-called minority is somehow worth greater punishment, that their life or livelihood is worth more than that of us non-minorities.
Back to the issue at hand. So the gay lobby has been using our legal system to forward their agenda. What happens when the legal system doesn’t favor their agenda? When we have a president who believes marriage belongs between a man and a woman? When a clear majority of the people of the state of California vote that marriage should be defined as being between a man and a woman in their state constitution? What then? Well first, if you’re a judge who decides to make things up from the bench, you rule that the Massachusetts legislature must make a law legitimizing gay marriage. Yeah, because it specifically says that in the constitution, and that equality applies to everything across the board. While we’re at it, why doesn’t the equality clause in the constitution give me equal powers to that judge so I can issue another ruling contradicting his? Making up things is fun.
And if you’re a mayor in San Francisco, you deliberately defy state law and then sue the state. And if you’re a judge in San Francisco, you don’t stop the mayor because you “don’t see the harm” in letting a mayor violate State Constitutional Law. So which is it? Does the gay lobby respect the law, or not? Because quite frankly, I don’t see why by the same token I couldn’t argue that the anti-discrimination laws violate my constitutional right to happiness. What if I hate gays, but I’m forced to tolerate them? Doesn’t that violate the constitution? NO. That’s ridiculous, right? So why is one thing ridiculous and the other not? Because, say it with me now, it’s ok to break the law if you are a liberal and believe you have the moral high ground. Conservatives respect the sanctity of our laws, the fact that we live in a democracy and there are procedures to do things, such as constitutional referendums, and if the majority does not agree with you, oh well. The fact is the gay lobby and their supporters don’t recognize opposing viewpoints as valid. There are people, myself included, that believe marriage is a sacred institution that belongs between a man and a woman because of the potential for reproduction, though that sounds a bit cold. The point is we need children, and children deserve to be raised in a stable family structure. Gays cannot have children. It’s a fact you can’t legislate, try as you might to make more things up. While the law permits things to be willed, science does not. There are also those who believe marriage is a biblical issue. It’s not about “cheapening” marriage, thought it may or may not be for some. The gay lobby has cited this as the chief opposition, that gay marriage cheapens heterosexual marriage. No, it’s about not being a bunch of damn fools. We can allow all the legal benefits afforded to married couples to gays through civil unions. It’s also interesting that the word marriage comes up in a court of law. These judges in Massachusetts and this mayor in San Francisco, who are they giving marriages under? Under God? Under the deity to whom you swore your oath of office? That’s right. Marriage is granted by God. Ooh, scary word, I used the G-word. That makes me a crazy in the eyes of some liberals, especially the ones who reject God out of some misplaced subconscious problems, who claim themselves as Atheists and grin from ear to ear whenever they hear of the Catholic church having problems.
I’m just disgusted, quite frankly, and I don’t care what any of my liberal friends think of me for it. Marriage belongs between a man and a woman. Men and men or women and women can have civil unions as granted by the state. I’m sick of the will of the people being ignored by high-minded liberals who think they know what’s best for the rest of us.
Hoooh, boy. Here we go.
There are people whose lifestyles and choices I don’t agree with. Even though I want them to shut up and go away and stop their polka music, or their declaration that Velveeta is the best cheese, or their insistence on producing shows like “My Big Fat Obnoxious Fiance,” they have a right to do what they choose. Similarly,
two people have the right to do as they choose in their bedroom, so long as they don’t break laws regarding consent, legal age, murder, and so on.
We could offer gay couples civil unions under which they would be given the same protections as any other married couple, but it’s a nomenclature issue. It’s sort of like saying separate but equal is okay. And we all know how well that worked out. I honestly believe that if we offer civil unions, the power of a civil union will be chipped away until it’s just a token gesture. Separate but equal has never worked for long, if it has ever worked at all.
The decision of each religious group to offer or withhold blessings to a same-sex couple is the choice of that religious group. However, the decision of the government should be the decision that will protect and uphold the rights of the majority of its citizens. Allowing gay marriage will not cheapen or lessen hetero marriage, restrict the rights of hetero couples, or cause problems for heteros except in an ideological sense. Therefore, the only logical step is to allow gay marriage to be legalized by the government.
LikeLike
It’s not separate but equal. It’s a flat out no, you can’t have marriage, but you can have something else that’s nowhere near the same but that’s all you can have because marriage is a man+woman=children=family. But that’s still not my beef here. My beef is judges legislating from the bench because of their arrogance to make things up, like violating constitutional law doesn’t cause “irreparable harm”, and mayor’s who decide they’re gonna do whatever the hell they want, fuck the law, and a governor who refuses to enforce the laws of his state by sending the state police to stop the violation of the law and instead requests that the Attorney General look into the matter. This is my freaking problem. Civil servants can’t go ignoring laws they don’t like because of their personal beliefs!
LikeLike