Cold Fury

Harshing your mellow since 9/01

Leave it to Iowahawk to make the most sense

And bring hot lesbo trysts on Gilligan’s Island into it while doing so.

I’m not going to join the chorus opposing same sex marriage. First, I’m against restrictions on adults entering into voluntary contracts. Second, I see no reason why broadening the definition of marriage to same-sex couples devalues or diminishes mine. Finally, there’s the purely utilitarian Gilligan’s Island effect: if Skipper and Professor decide to wed in a tasteful lagoon-side ceremony, I’ve got Ginger and Mary Ann to myself at the wedding luau. And if it’s Mary Ann and Ginger hooking up, well…I’ll be in my bunk.

If there’s anything that gives me pause about SSM, it’s the thuggish tactics of some of its most vocal proponents. It’s hard to take a “human rights activist” seriously while he’s beating someone over the head with a “NOH8” placard for holding the same position Barack Obama held until 5 minutes ago.

So yeah, in a secular society maybe it’s time for opponents to recognize a rational basis for legal SSM. But it’s also time for supporters to recognize they are espousing a position that every society in the first 99.99% of human history would have considered nuts.

As I’ve said before, I don’t care one heck of a lot about this debate either way; in light of my own recent, umm, experience, if gays want marriage they can have it for all me, and rotsa ruck to ’em.

The truth is, all joking around aside, it’s no use arguing that the institution of marriage is going to be destroyed by them. That was done a long time ago, and not by them, but by us. And just as I wax momentarily serious here, so does Iowahawk there:

The solution? Maybe it’s time for government to get out of the whole marriage business altogether. Or at least to treat it as a standard civil contract between adults conferring certain privileges (wills, powers of attorney, co-ownership) and obligations (say hello to alimony and the marriage tax penalty, Bert and Ernie). Don’t want to call it “marriage”? Fine, call it a civil union, domestic partnership, blancmange, whatever, leave it open to any pair of consenting adults. Leave the holy sacrament business to churches, and if First Lutheran or Immaculate Conception or Temple Beth-El don’t want to bestow the title of “married” on a same sex couple, that ought to be their own business. You get married at a church, you get blancmanged at the county courthouse.

Now you’re talkin’ sense. The eagerness of some social cons to resort to government interference to promote their own standards for private behavior is, shall we say, telling. And judging from the lack of any real interest in getting married themselves on the part of every last one of the gay people I know (yes, there are a few–actually, more than a few), their own eagerness to poke a thumb in the eye of religious types is, too.

Share

5 thoughts on “Leave it to Iowahawk to make the most sense

  1. There are two types of people in the world. People who want to be left alone and people who have to tell people how to live their lives. Where the real fighting starts is when two sets of controllers each demand that the government enforces their differing beliefs on others.

  2. I agree. Government should get out of the marriage business. I have been saying that for years, including in IowaHawk’s comments, so I’m gonna say he stole it from me. Having something stolen from you by IowaHawk is a high honor, indeed.

    Government is incapable of promoting marriage. They have proved that time and time again. The only thing they are capable of doing is defining marriage down and further eroding the institution. They should be kept as far away from marriage as possible.

    Marriage existed for Millenia before the United States government came along. It should be permitted to continue to exist without government interference.

  3. Actually, Robert Heinlein wrote about marriage contracts many decades ago: they ran for a limited number of years, and were renewable by mutual consent. If a couple really wanted a monogamous lifetime together, that, too, was up to them.

    Contracts could be as complex as a corporate merger, specifying duration, purposes, duties, responsibilities, number and sex of children, genetic selection methods, whether host mothers were to be hired, conditions for canceling and options for extension — anything but “marital fidelity.” It is axiomatic there that this is unenforceable and therefore not contractual. (From “Glory Road”)

    Fiscal conservatives should shrug and say “Well, as long as it doesn’t cost me anything, go for it.”

  4. Problem is, past behavior of the same-sex thugs shows they’ll use it as a cudgel against anyone who doesn’t slobber over them in approval.

  5. “The churches and marriage are just obstacles to the real goal, which is to topple every institution except government, so that every organizing principle in American life can be subject to the official bureaucracy.

    The enemies of traditional marriage are not seeking same-sex marriage, they are seeking to take control of everything that supports stable adult relationships. That’s why the argument to “separate marriage and state” entirely misses the point and, in fact, moves the ball in the direction of the destroyers precisely by making one more non-government institution less relevant.

    Honestly, their vendetta against religion in America is no more about religion than it is about Red Dye #2.”Scribe of Slog (McGehee) said March 27, 2013 at 1:48 pm in comment section of post Mark Levin on SCOTUS and Prop 8 over at Protein Wisdom

Comments are closed.

Categories

Archives

"America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards." – Claire Wolfe, 101 Things to Do 'Til the Revolution



Click HERE for great deals on ammo! Using this link helps support CF by getting me credits for ammo too.

Image swiped from The Last Refuge

2016 Fabulous 50 Blog Awards

RSS FEED

RSS - entries - Entries
RSS - entries - Comments

E-MAIL


mike at this URL dot com

All e-mails assumed to be legitimate fodder for publication, scorn, ridicule, or other public mockery unless otherwise specified

Boycott the New York Times -- Read the Real News at Larwyn's Linx

All original content © Mike Hendrix