Original Title was "No Comment"
From Talking Points Memo via Right Wing Watch
Showing posts with label gay marriage. Show all posts
Showing posts with label gay marriage. Show all posts
20 February 2010
28 December 2009
The good point to gay marriage
The crowd that dislikes gay marriage haven't caught on to one super advantage: it gives you something to talk to your gay relatives. I have about zip in common with my gay nephew.
Until I realised I can now ask him if he is going to get married!
Yeah! Have you thought about getting married? Now that you can get married why don't you meet a respectable young man and get married?
I wonder if they can be house husbands if they have no real skills like my nephew? He is a massage school dropout. Incredibly intelligent and can work in a bookstore.
But does gay marriage give him the option of being a stay at home spouse?
Until I realised I can now ask him if he is going to get married!
Yeah! Have you thought about getting married? Now that you can get married why don't you meet a respectable young man and get married?
I wonder if they can be house husbands if they have no real skills like my nephew? He is a massage school dropout. Incredibly intelligent and can work in a bookstore.
But does gay marriage give him the option of being a stay at home spouse?
16 December 2009
DC does it again!
After pissing off the rest of the country with its outrageous gun laws, DC has legalised gay marriage! (OK, Heller probably put them where they should be as far as guns go, but I am still pissed off at how the whole thing went down)
I have to admit to having no problem with gay marriage since it is more about property and rights than anything else. Ask anybody stuck in a bad marriage or who has gone through multiple divorces as to how "sacred" marriage really is.
This one will be fun to see how the rest of the country deals with DC's new law.
Will the religious right plaintiff shop to find someone who opposes the law? Will they add some rider onto a law that is popular to ban the law?
I am sure glad I don't live in DC anymore since they have absolutely no rights.
I have to admit to having no problem with gay marriage since it is more about property and rights than anything else. Ask anybody stuck in a bad marriage or who has gone through multiple divorces as to how "sacred" marriage really is.
This one will be fun to see how the rest of the country deals with DC's new law.
Will the religious right plaintiff shop to find someone who opposes the law? Will they add some rider onto a law that is popular to ban the law?
I am sure glad I don't live in DC anymore since they have absolutely no rights.
05 March 2008
Love and Marriage
The California Supreme Court is dealing with the issue of gay marriage, which is something I've wanted to weigh in on since I did my first tax return after getting married.
Marriage is not really a sacrament. It's about property and money. Always has been. And gay marriage is about making sure that people who are in a committed relationship are treated like family members.
I've always seen marriage as being something which is special, but lots of people treat it pretty lightly. We are not talking gays here. How many people get divorced? Even more salient is how many people who oppose gay marriage have been divorced?
And if we are talking about procreation, maybe I shouldn't have gotten married. My wife was post-menopausal when we were spliced. Jewish tradition says that a man can get a divorce if his wife doesn't provide him with children (see the film Kaddosh). My wife and I don't even spend that much time together. Not that I am happy about the latter (time together), but the not having kids isn't a problem to me. I mean there are far too many children on this planet, but that is a whole 'nother post.
On the other hand, by actually being married, rather than just living together, we get all sorts of financial benefits: tax breaks, health insurance breaks, and so forth. When I lived with a woman, we were not treated equally, even though we were in a common law marriage in a jurisdiction that recognises that type of union. Her employer would not recognise that we were a "common law" couple either, which meant none of the goodies you get by being "married".
So, why force people into bad relationships if marriage is a sacrament? Also, shouldn't we be seeing responsibility from people (in particular men) for the children they bring into the world. One question that has always bothered me, is why men can treat their children's mothers so badly, especially financially. Or even why men are willing to treat the children they bring into the world badly.
As one person said, "if men got pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament"
On the other hand, we say marriage is a sacrament, yet we are more than willing to allow this union which "god hath ordained and no man can put asunder" to be dissolved fairly easily. Probably because it's men who want to play the field. Which leads me to muse on how many single mothers are there in this country? The divorced women with a child, or more. Shouldn't motherhood be valued?
I find all this talk of "family values" to be really hypocritical when the person who is spouting it has had affairs, or is divorced.
But, as I said, the real issue isn't what the institution is called, it's the fact that the institution is treated specially. People in loving and committed relationships should be treated the same as those in marriages of convenience, which is all a loveless marriage really is.
The fact is that gays just want the financial and social benefits of marriage. Like those in common law marriages, they don't receive the same benefits in a "domestic partnership".
That's really all this is about is equality. On the other hand, I don't think this country can handle true equality, especially for gays.
Marriage is not really a sacrament. It's about property and money. Always has been. And gay marriage is about making sure that people who are in a committed relationship are treated like family members.
I've always seen marriage as being something which is special, but lots of people treat it pretty lightly. We are not talking gays here. How many people get divorced? Even more salient is how many people who oppose gay marriage have been divorced?
And if we are talking about procreation, maybe I shouldn't have gotten married. My wife was post-menopausal when we were spliced. Jewish tradition says that a man can get a divorce if his wife doesn't provide him with children (see the film Kaddosh). My wife and I don't even spend that much time together. Not that I am happy about the latter (time together), but the not having kids isn't a problem to me. I mean there are far too many children on this planet, but that is a whole 'nother post.
On the other hand, by actually being married, rather than just living together, we get all sorts of financial benefits: tax breaks, health insurance breaks, and so forth. When I lived with a woman, we were not treated equally, even though we were in a common law marriage in a jurisdiction that recognises that type of union. Her employer would not recognise that we were a "common law" couple either, which meant none of the goodies you get by being "married".
So, why force people into bad relationships if marriage is a sacrament? Also, shouldn't we be seeing responsibility from people (in particular men) for the children they bring into the world. One question that has always bothered me, is why men can treat their children's mothers so badly, especially financially. Or even why men are willing to treat the children they bring into the world badly.
As one person said, "if men got pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament"
On the other hand, we say marriage is a sacrament, yet we are more than willing to allow this union which "god hath ordained and no man can put asunder" to be dissolved fairly easily. Probably because it's men who want to play the field. Which leads me to muse on how many single mothers are there in this country? The divorced women with a child, or more. Shouldn't motherhood be valued?
I find all this talk of "family values" to be really hypocritical when the person who is spouting it has had affairs, or is divorced.
But, as I said, the real issue isn't what the institution is called, it's the fact that the institution is treated specially. People in loving and committed relationships should be treated the same as those in marriages of convenience, which is all a loveless marriage really is.
The fact is that gays just want the financial and social benefits of marriage. Like those in common law marriages, they don't receive the same benefits in a "domestic partnership".
That's really all this is about is equality. On the other hand, I don't think this country can handle true equality, especially for gays.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
