Monday, November 17, 2008

Proposition Hate

Here's my opinion (as if you couldn't guess):

Gay Americans should be able to get married. End of story.

This is one of those cases where I just simply literally do not understand why anyone would give two shits whether gay people get married or not. I mean, seriously: what's it to you? Your church doesn't have to marry them. Your minister doesn't have to preside at the wedding. So why do you care if the state says it will marry gay people?
It affronts your morals? Hey, listen, I could rattle off about 100 things right now about various elements of organized religion that affront my morals, but I don't get to ban them, do I?

And then the Mormon Church, which politicized itself in a manner unprecedented, now expresses shock! horror! that it is being held accountable for its politicking by protesters. You don't get to fund a massive political proposition-to the tune of tens of millions of dollars--from your tax-free perch and then get all wiggy when people start treating you like a political machine rather than a church. Hey kids, if you want to play in the political field you've got to take a few flyballs to the head. You cannot have it both ways.

And, finally, here is Newt Gingrich--a man on his THIRD marriage, a relationship which began before he was divorced from The Unfortunate Second Mrs. Gingrich--talking to us about Christianity and religion being attacked by secularists. Am I the only person on whom the richness is not lost of such a disgusting, dishonest excuse for a husband accusing others of attacking Christianity? The man is a cheater, the lowest form of life in the relationship world, and he's harrumphing about gays ruining marriage?! Why is he not laughed out of this debate? Oh, that's right. Because he's against those who seek to "impose their will" on others. Riiiight:

From the November 14 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor:

O'REILLY: OK, now, the culture war. I know you've been flying around the country, and you're doing stuff. In the last three or four days, this is really nasty stuff. I mean, you know, hyper -- we're gonna show you some of the video. A woman getting a cross smashed out of her hand. We had a church in Michigan invaded by gay activists. We're gonna show you the video on Monday of that -- we have exclusively. We had a guy in Sacramento fired from his job. We had boycotts called on restaurants.

I mean, it is getting out of control, very few days after the election. How do you assess that?

GINGRICH: Look, I think there is a gay and secular fascism in this country that wants to impose its will on the rest of us, is prepared to use violence, to use harassment. I think it is prepared to use the government if it can get control of it. I think that it is a very dangerous threat to anybody who believes in traditional religion. And I think if you believe in historic Christianity, you have to confront the fact. And, frank -- for that matter, if you believe in the historic version of Islam or the historic version of Judaism, you have to confront the reality that these secular extremists are determined to impose on you acceptance of a series of values that are antithetical, they're the opposite, of what you're taught in Sunday school.

O'REILLY: Are you surprised at the speed of it? You figure that there'd be --

GINGRICH: Oh, I --

O'REILLY: -- a two-week breathing, you know -- wham.

GINGRICH: No. I think -- I think when the left -- when the radicals lost the vote in California, they are determined to impose their will on this country no matter what the popular opinion, no matter what the law of the land. You've watched them, for example, in Massachusetts, basically drive the Catholic Church out of running adoption services, drive Catholic hospitals out of offering any services, because they impose secular rules that are fundamentally --

O'REILLY: Yeah, and that's -- right --

GINGRICH: -- sinful from the standpoint, you know.

O'REILLY: Of the church --

GINGRICH: And so I think, we need -- look, we need a debate. [Gingrich's wife] Calista [Gingrich] and I just did a YouTube video on the Capitol Visitors Center where there's also an effort to take "In God We Trust" out of the Capitol Visitors Center.

O'REILLY: OK, we'll talk about that when we come back.

GINGRICH: That's how bad it is.

No, let me tell you how bad it is, Newt. The voters of a state voted to enshrine prejudice and bigotry in their very constitution in a manner akin to the anti-micegenation case of Loving v. Virginia. As the old saying goes, if this is the law then the law is an ass. Simply put, gay Americans are just that: Americans. Entitled to the same rights and responsibilities as each of us, entitled to equality on every level.

Or, put another way: It seems so obvious to me that I can't even believe I'm writing this post.

7 comments:

Todd said...

I am opposed to same-sex marriage, but not to rights for people in same-sex committed relationships.

I have read about, listened to arguments for and against and pondered this issue for most of a year (and contemplated it for much longer), trying to find "reasons" for my opposition.

All of the founding fathers, indeed, all of the presidents of the US support maintaining marriage as one man/one woman. It is a foundation of our society. (even Obama, I believe, said marriage should be one man, one woman...it may have been Biden)

Why should it matter? If two consenting adults love each other, why not let them marry? It begs the question of where do you then draw the line? First cousins? Brother/sister? (or brother/brother, sister/sister) Mother/son, father/daughter? Why not polygamy, assuming consenting adults? I have wondered if this might not be _part_ of the Mormon support of Prop 8; Utah was denied statehood until polygamy was banned there.

The Catholic Church in Massachusetts, the largest adoption agent in the state is out of that function now due to same sex marriage being legalized. They would only allow married opposite sex couples to adopt. Is it important for adoptees to have a mom and a dad? I believe it IS best for a child, all other things being equal (loving, kind parents).

Sorry for going on for so long...

Respectfully, B

nm in mn said...

It's not the 'consenting adults' part that is the problem with brothers/sisters (and your other examples), its the genetic defects that result, and the cost on society of those offspring.

I don't feel that gay marriage will lead to the relaxation of inbreeding prohibitions, but that's just me.

Anonymous said...

What about polygamy?

Anonymous said...

Also, brother/brother sister/sister couples wouldn't have any genetic problems...

Ken said...

Gays should not be given the privilege of marriage until they can demonstrate their capacity to uphold the sanctity of the institution as demonstrated by the brave defenders of marriage amongst our nation's leadership.

For example, by abruptly dumping their crippled wives for beer heiresses, divorcing their cancer-stricken used-to-be-my-high-school-teacher first wives for younger models, cheating on their wives with younger underlings while attempting to impeach opposing political figures for infidelity-related misconduct, attempting unsuccessfully to cheat on their wives by soliciting airport bathroom sex, laundering funds in order to cheat on their wifes with expensive prostitutes and asking said prostitutes to eschew condoms, cheating on their wives with their secret gay meth dealers [actually, that one is tricky. To be parallel, the gays would have to betray their same-sex partners by having a sordid affair with their opposite-sex meth dealers], or soliciting underage Congressional pages through simultaneously sordid and puerile instant messages.

Show us that kind of commitment, my gay friends! Then we'll talk.

Anonymous said...

This should all be a moot point. Please ask yourself why the government is involved in marriage in the first place - Marriage is primarily a religious institution, or an institution that carries only the significance that the married couple places on it. Adding regulation to the mix does nothing to enhance or defend the institution. So drop the antiquated (marriage is no longer the landed gentry's way of transferring property) notion that the state must license marriage and we will not even have to have this painful and pointless debate and people can go about their lives without interference.

Anonymous said...

The problem with the point of government non-interference is that (and correct me if I'm wrong) one of the issues with same-sex marriage proponents are the laws concerning inheritance. Spouses are afforded a great deal more non-taxed inheritance than non-spouses, including family members.