Gay Marriage

Gay Marriage; abomination or who gives a shit.

Not so long ago in the USA a black man and a white woman couldn’t enter a union. It amounted to an immediate death sentence for the man and a slow prolonged non-person death for the woman. Nowadays, while not fully accepted, in that it passes unremarked and unremarkable, nonetheless its one hell of a long ways over the bridge from where it was in past days.

Some would say that Gay Marriage is of a different category and on the face of it it is. But when you drill down you find that the very same arguments being deployed. This whether in the USA or any other first world country.

So what exactly is going on ?. I think rather dubious debating techniques are deployed by both sides. Where the conversation, one which should only involve the State has religion grafted to it such that the people are mixing up their religious beliefs/dogmas and the basic Rights of Citizens.

Here, I must interject for clarity sake and state that I’m heterosexual. Granted my training in design and study of Classics will out queer-eye even the most out-there queen, since nothing coppers the Greeks whom I can liberally quote in any argument but when you add the dexterity of a Japanese fan dancer with a colour swatch it just coppers copper. That notwithstanding, a well turned tidy female is what lights my fire.

Politically Joseph Robinette “Joe” Biden, Jr is an idiot. Why annoy the bejapers out of a huge section of the community when it was totally unnecessary. They really seem determined to make it as difficult as they can conceive to get re-elected. It would make one wonder if they think they don’t deserve to hold power. Still since he opened his big gob the debate has crossed the Atlantic landing at Cameron’s #10 Downing St. where it is a thing of beauty to see an Oxford education being mangled. Leaving one suspecting that had he attended to his tutors and less to the Bullingdon Club he’d have a better handle on how to dance this tune.

The history of marriage that resonates in the west is roman. And in the Common Law area we have a unique version of Germanic/Nordic slavery notions grafted to the Roman. Shifts in the law has deleted the property aspect or at least deleted some of them anyway. But as yet the statement ‘my wife’ or ‘my husband’ enunciating ownership hasn’t vanished. Who could say that a husband actually owns his wife today. Ownership that could be enforced by State laws, a version of Manus Marriage. None in the West. Vestiges is all we’ve got left. Still though, like with phrase Abolition of Slavery we have some rather objectionable holdovers.

I am a single man. I don’t get any of the tax breaks that are liberally sprinkled on my married cousins. I cannot pass my estate to whom I choose without paying the State a huge tranche. But do I object to the breeders getting goodies denied to me. Of course I bloody do. And it is here that I really don’t understand the Married Lobby for it is not a small cohort of the deluded they need to worry about attacking their unearned privileges it is ME and the 30% like me who are single. Moneys extracted, then used to support schools. Mortgages padded and tax allowances boosted. Basically it’s costing me a darn fortune supporting people who can darn well support themselves.


This entry was posted in comment and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

26 Responses to Gay Marriage

  1. Shrinky says:

    Ha, very erudite Vince. Yes, I can understand your ire at the forcible funding put upon you to support causes you have no part of. Mind, I also am aware you are a fierce advocate for the education of our youth, and doubt you begrudge their funding, even be it out of your own purse. I don’t. Despite paying a Kings ransom for my kids to be privately schooled, thus easing the financial burden on the state for such, I certainly seek no tax breaks in that area, and for good reason.

    As to marriage, it’s a contract which provides security, commitment and stability to those who want it – to deny this to a section of our community is nothing but a gross injustice, born out of no good reason other than blind prejudice. If the pious feel obliged to object upon religious belief, what of the hypocrisy then of happily wedding all of us hetrosexual couples, knowing fine well a great number receiving that blessing are confirmed aethiests?

    I’m sure as you say, time may well move on where this state of affairs will be looked back on, as a shameful mark on our present “civilised” society.

    • Vince says:

      Of course you are correct. The only problem I have with education is there isn’t half enough of it. And there aren’t half enough teachers. 15:1 should be the top ratio that could be acceptable. While below 10 years, 7:1 tops.

      I know married people that say they’ve had nuclear level rows that were they un-wed they wouldn’t have survived.

      But yeah, the way people are going on about this issue you’d think it was going to become compulsory.

      And what about all the atheists that merrily have banns read in order to have the correct background for the photos.

      • Kimberly says:

        Oh, I just gasped at your ratios. We are 24-34 in most elementary schools, depending on grade level. While due to budget cuts, some are even going up to 40 to 1. That’s the abomination.

        • Vince says:

          Yes that’s the story here also. Class size is now heading to 30. That’s my point about the ratios. 15 seems do-able. You get a one to one when it’s needed and you get the collective dawning of a concept further you have the monkey see monkey do. But anything above that it’s down to magnificence of the teacher each and every second of the teaching day.

  2. Kimberly says:

    The GLBT population is thrilled that the President was pressured into announcing his support due to Biden’s comments (although some say his comments may have been staged), but I too worry that, politically, it may have been too early. I am of the who gives a shit mind frame and feel it’s about time that Obama came out so to speak. Did his support push away anti-gay marriage voters away? That was my worry, but a lot of strategists are saying that those who are whole-heartedly against gay marriage are of the extreme right and would never vote for Obama anyways. The politicos also say that he may have drawn in more excitement from the younger vote, also of the who gives a shit camp. So maybe the loss/gain of support will be a wash.

    In light of what went down in North Carolina this week, maybe Obama’s comments should have come much earlier. It’s shameful that civil union of any kind was voted illegal in that state. It blows my mind that this issue is so hot button. While the extreme conservative right screams “small government” out one side of its mouth, the other side screams “unless it’s taking someone’s personal rights away”.

    Your last point, which made me laugh at first, is spot on, right? There is absolutely nothing that threatens heterosexual marriage (except maybe the +/-50 % divorce rate) with the legalization of gay marriage.

    • Kimberly says:

      Oh, and that article you linked…the politics of it all just blows my mind. Keeping track of who supports what, and who says what even though they think something else, and who…It’s too much really. How a person lives their own life without hurting anyone shouldn’t be politicized like it is. Who one chooses to make a life with shouldn’t be of anyone’s concern but the parties involved. There are so many other issues that the government and the voters need to worry about.

      • Vince says:

        Ha Ha yeah, and it was the Tory paper at that, writing to their own so you’d expect some clarity. But they are utterly terrified that they will be left with a rump of a party if they go too rough on social issues. So the Grandees are tearing out their hair trying to keep order. But keeping that lot in check is like corralling cats.

    • Vince says:

      Hmm, I believe that the comment from Biden was far enough out that any damage will be well mitigated by something that the Rep’ will say that will become fore to the mind. But why say it.
      I really do think NC is in for a shock for this can only go two ways logically.

  3. Kerry Hand says:

    I’m quite fond of the times ‘my wife’ calls me ‘my husband.’
    And vice versa I believe.
    If that implies that she has some sort of rights over me, well it’s fine by me.

    • Vince says:

      She can have all the rights you like over you. But no longer can the State insist on them.

  4. Kelly says:

    On the education thing…before my state decided to force school consolidations, my kids were never in classes with a ratio of larger than 20:1. Once they got into upper level High School courses it was sometime no more than 8-10:1.

    On the gay marriage thing…my younger daughter just keeps saying it’s an issue of legality, not morality. What people think shouldn’t matter at all.

    • Vince says:

      The problem there Kelly is the State hadn’t the kids in mind at all. Even as an afterthought. When you get that type of decision making I bet you’ll find a well got private school like the Citadel behind it.

      Your kid is correct, leastwise she was. Now though it will very quickly become a question of Civil Right and the Supreme Court will be called upon to validate those Rights and force the administrative government to act.
      Frankly this question should have been before that court long ago for it was plain as a pikestaff that the elected wouldn’t move.

  5. Michele says:

    Abomination or who gives a shit. I think there is a third group: in total support to gay marriage. Nothing pisses me off more than the erosion of civil rights and that is just what North Carolina did when it passed their new law. Anyone that is not a white American man should be worried about this trend in law making.

    • Vince says:

      That in the past the notions of a marriage was exactly the same for the State and the various churches can no longer continue assumed to be valid. Therefore any goodies accruing from the State in whatever form cannot continue.
      And all NC has done is bring a nasty little boil to a head. On the rest I’m not so certain. Yes, Americans go nuts about something, but they return to an even keel sooner and faster than most.

  6. Ed says:

    I’ve always been against it mostly for religious reasons. But when it comes to politicizing it, I fall more in the who gives a shit category. Why? Because I think if I am in the majority, it is a slim majority of mostly older Americans who will soon if they haven’t already become the minority as we die off. Eventually I think it will become national law with the younger generations.

    • Vince says:

      I thought that the civil partnership legislation would be adequate. But now I see that this was but a milestone. There are way to many anomalies for it to remain as is. So it’s better to simply bite the bullet and just get on with it.

  7. R. Sherman says:

    Ultimately, the fight is about an alleged right to be included in a definition, as opposed to the right to do something. I know, as a lawyer, I’ve represented couples in “non-traditional” relationships and have drafted all the documents necessary for them to live just like a married couple. Throw in a “commitment ceremony” with a cake and presents and you have it.

    • Vince says:

      Yes, but what about end of life ‘switch off the machine’ decisions. What about kids brought up in such partnerships when the parent dies leaving them orphans. What about the non biological and the will. There are just a raft load of little bits that need fixing. I feel that it is simpler to just do it. Or as I pointed out above, no one should be privileged, wed or otherwise. That like with Roman adoption was simple and final, conferring inheritance as if with blood.

      It is a totally different matter where the religions are concerned.

      • R. Sherman says:

        The “switch-off” documents were there as well. In Missouri, they’re ironclad and trump any well-meaning family member’s attempt to take over.

        • Vince says:

          Isn’t part of the question a variation of the ‘do unto others as you would like them to do to you’. Would you be satisfied with the current arrangement since the whole can be changed on a whim of the Missouri voter. That’s what I mean by NC putting the cat amongst the birds. Now in the USA this can only be settled by undercutting the populous vote and it becoming inalienable.

  8. Crystal says:

    Interesting you should write about this today. My brother just (lovingly and semi-jokingly) called me a bigot this evening for sharing an article on FB regarding same-sex marriage. For me it is a moral issue.

    People who do not have have strong faith in God’s plan for a man and a woman to multiply and replenish the earth will never understand my stance.

    It saddens me that religious people have many angry fingers of blame pointed at them. There is little tolerance from the very people who wish to be tolerated. The whole debate just sucks. I am a religious person. I feel terribly uncomfortable speaking out about my views because the many who would shout their angry disapproval. Where are MY rights in this debate?

    I do agree with the arguement that 50% of marriages end in divorce even among the very religious. Those people irritate me as well. Marriage is sacred and should not be terminated in a drive-thru.

    • Vince says:

      Hmmm, but you are mixing apples and oranges. If, and especially in the USA, if there is separation between church and State then this is a total non-question. No one is, well outside of the totally idiotic, demanding that the Pope or the boys up in SLC insert an acceptance of gayness into their tenets.
      The very concept of Citizenship is based on personal Sovereignty. This doesn’t change because you submit to the social dogmas of a religion. Granted the LDS’s and Catholics along with the Baptists, Presbyterians, Amish, Jews and who-have-you hold that they are the anointed. Which if true, leaves one heck of a lot of people even within the US outside. No State can exist with that degree of exclusion.
      But to return to my point. Why exactly are single people supporting your marriage, any marriage with tax benefits/allowances. They/WE aren’t gaining in any way. Basically an argument could easily be made that marriage should be removed from the legal code & tax code and that gay or straight have equal recourse.

  9. Pearl says:

    Well done, Vince.

    I fully support the rights of all citizens to marry the person of their choice.


  10. Rebecca S. says:

    The gay marriage issue is never something I would base my vote on. The whole thing is a reality, and who are we to decide whose relationship is worth paying for or not paying for in our taxes? I suggest it is a question of civil human rights, and the various religions should also be free to condone it morally or not. I’d rather talk about the environment right now with my government which is introducing draconian laws to allow big business the right to undo decades of forward thinking legislation. Argh!

    • Vince says:

      Yes, Rebecca, but the issue is even in places where there is a form of arrangement there are areas within it that are different from actual Marriage. What they have is a half-way house. Or as many would see it, a sop, to shut them up.
      And this was the topic that came about while watching the BBC Faith&Morals programme at 10am Sunday morning. But I’ll happily deal with any reading list slash links you compile about what’s going on in Canada.

Comments are closed.