GAYNESS, "DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE ACT" AND MIGRAINES: WHAT'S IT ALL ABOUT, ALFIE?
I've got a lot of male friends and they mean a great deal to me but about the only screwing that goes on between us is when they cheat at golf or maybe pass gas during my usually silky smooth backswing.
On the other hand, I've always admired women at completely different level. In fact, when I was single, I don't remember ever sending a drink at a club over to a guy or hanging around an airline lounge to meet pilots.
Still, I have a lot of clients and friends who are gay and in a committed relationship. Works for me. I don't care.
So that's my experience predicate. Here's my issue: What do the various proposed iterations of the "Defense of Marriage Act" actually do for marriage? Is the presumption that all the dedicated husbands in conventional marriages are going to instantly turn gay and run off with Ralph or Steve? Is it that we have to let Ralph into Steve's insurance plan? (That's an argument against the so-called Civil Union, too.). Is it that we think fewer men will enter into hetero relationships if they know they can cruise for a male bride (as opposed to a mail order bride, which is a different issue)?
I don't get it. If we're "Defending" marriage, please, Daddy, tell me what we're defending it FROM.
posted by UMRBlog @ 08:23
20 comments
20 Comments:
Personally, I do not know that Gay Marriage impacts my heterosexual marriage. I don't know that any conventional marriage needs protection from anything beyond simple selfishness (of the specific spouses).
However, the issue of gay marriage is deeper than what people think. My concern is what are the unintended - and unseen consequences.
The left would have told you that Arbortion was an issue of little more than a 'woman's rights' over her own body.
Yet a baby died. I would suggest that the cavalier manner in which abortion treats human life has unintended consequences that cost our society dearly.
Lack of personal responsibility.
Lack of respect for self.
lack of respect for others.
Let's be honest - when we, as a society, can kill/ terminate a life at its most vulnerable point - there are consequences.
So is gay marriage a big issue? On the surface, (in my opinion) No. However, what are the consequences to the generations that follow?
Every action has a reaction, a consequence. To expect no consequences is foolishness.
(umrblog - Good post)
How is the relationship betwen two consenting adults anyone elses business. No problem with the Church requiring marraige to be between a man and a woman. Marraige at the courthouse is not a solemn ceremony before God. At least not in my opinion. It's more a civil contract. Why make a distinction? Justice is supposed to be blind.
Are you for or against gay marriage?
Let's try the issue again, sports fans: What are the various proposed "Defense of Marriage" Acts protecting marriage from.
Special to Eldrick, the declining dollar also has enormous unintended consequences and is bad for american character and morale but it does nothing to explain what the evil is from which the "Defense of Marriage" acts would protect us. I appreciate your sincerity but your brush is too broad.
TYFCB
The "Defense of Marriage Act" is just a name. However, the act is supposed to defend marriage from thoise who would define it as something that it is not.
Marriage, for 10,000 years, has been known, has been accepted as marriage between one man and one woman.
They defense is from changing this given and accepted fact.
Allow 'marriage' to be -
- between two (2) men, and 'marriage' is harmed.
-between two (2) women, and 'marriage' is harmed.
The problem with Oracle's comment is "two consenting adults." Once you open the door to defining marriage however anyone desires (to provide them freedom), then what about,
THREE (3) consenting adults?
FOUR (4) consenting adults?
SIX (6) consenting adults?
TEN (10) consenting adults?
Then you'll get the argument,
"I pay taxes because I earn an income, how can you keep me from being married just because I am 15 (or 14)?"
SLIPPERY SLOPES!
What does the 'Defense of Marriage Act' defend against -
*** It defends marriage from the slippery slope (as my earlier broad-brush post suggested) of unforseen consequences.
Just a guess...
Hard to phrase since you used the word from, but..
Defense from a new interpretation of what marriage is (the parties involved) relative to the biblical interpretation that it is a union ordained by God between a man and a woman.
I try not to get to complicated here.
My guess is that DOMA is putting the brakes on both gay and judicial activism in order to save gay marriage from the fate of abortion "rights". When even former ACLU lawyers like Ruth B. Ginsberg say Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided, you know initiating new "rights" via judicial fiat ain't the way to go.
Marriage has been defined as one man and one woman for centuries, yet at the stroke of a pen, the US courts decide it just ain't so. Wouldn't it be better to let the process continue through the legislative process and bring the public along gradually, rather than have the courts say "gays can marry 'cause we say so---deal with it"? Hasn't anyone learned from the debacle of Roe v. Wade?
Personally, I don't have an opinion about gay marriage, except that I think it is inevitable. But using Roe v. Wade as a guide, please remember that the original court decision decreed that legal abortions could only be done in the first trimester in order to save the life of the mother. My, my, how things have changed in the intervening decades!
But lets get real about these new judicial "rights". Once the door is opened, others will be demanding their "rights"---and why not? The polygamists are already making noises that if gays get the right to marry, so should they. Maybe it's a good thing to let old guys marry a bunch young girls, or old guys marry young guys or Mr. Ed marry Wilbur (just joking!), but once the barn door is open (hee!hee!), all sorts of activist groups will demand the same rights as gays----and legally, why shouldn't they get them?
So my major objection to the Cali court decision is that without extended debate among the public (and even with), all sorts of unintended consequences will arise, just as the "right" to abortion has been expanded to allow an infant to be killed minutes before he/she is born and allow the state to take away the authority of the parents concerning a minor's decision to have abortion.
If history is a guide, gay marriage by judicial fiat will become as divisive as abortion, which means that our country will be fighting about gay marriage long after this Boomer Dinosaur has shuffled off to the tar pits.
Umr
Are you for or against gay marriage?
Simple question.
Eldrick, that one reminds me of the argument made by the Attorney General of California during WWII that Japanese-Americans were extraordinary spies based upon the fact none of them had, in fact, been detected spying.
One obvious conclusion could have been they were no danger. The other, unsupported by anything but the "unknown" was they should go to detention camp. We locked up hundreds of thousands of good people, loyal Americans, because we were preventing the unknown.
Give me evidence-based and sound social policy reasoning anytime.
TYFCB
Sorry umrblog, I don't follow you. My post was about 'Slippery Slopes' - which I believe that both I and QCE covered quite clearly.
The bottom-line is that once the definition of 'Marriage' is altered for one group, it has to be altered for all. And will be.
Your Slippery slope is to "The Unforeseen". I'm actually pretty good at reading. Therefore, the slope is not the danger you point out. It's the destination..."the unforeseen". It's an identical false minor premise argument. If we don't lock up the J/A's, we don't know what will happen. If we don't allow states to determine who may marry....we may end up with character defects..or the smell of jungle fruit aftershave in elevators.
It's earnest, but inartful.
TYFCB
QCE,
Wonderful combination of on point and amusing. Thank you for your thoughtful contribution.
What about state legislatures? Aren't States supposed to be the laboratory of social policy in this Republic? Assuming they actually pass legislation defining marriage in their state, shouldn't that decision be accorded full faith and credit throughout the republic.
Always appreciate your taking time to come by here and elevate the discussion.
BTW, I think it's truly interesting how one person can make a Roe-based argument and manage to sound like the ubiquitous psycho-abortion guy and another can actually make the argument in a way that reasonable human beings can read and consider.
simpleton 0944 and 1341,
Your question has squat to do with the topic and I doubt you apprehend that fact. Still, I guess it's just good manners to pay some attention to the slowest pupil in the class, so I will answer your question.
I do not favor gay marriage. I favor permissible civil unions which allow committed couples to have virtually identical probate and insurance rights. I favor the decisions on how or whether those unions should be allowed to be made by state legislatures and I favor people who have followed the legislation in one respect state and gained the protected status to have that status upheld should they move to another state.
Because your question is about 9 miles off the topic, I won't explain my reasons for disfavoring gay marriage, as opposed to permissible civil unions but, I suspect that everything after "gay marriage" gets you so excited that you couldn't pay attention anyhow.
TYFCB
See, if you're not careful, you're answer to 6:23 might just tell you what we're defending it FROM.
Umrblog,
Its not me poking you on this one! LOL
;)
p.s. I do find your anti-spin of tigers comments amusing though. Little seems to sink in with him so I just prefer torturing the poor deluded soul.
0546,
Here's the flaw in your reasoning. My personal opinion is not in any proposed legislation.
DOMA was what the post was about. My answer to his off topic question was a side trip. It certainly doesn't imply that either gays or gay marriage threatens the institution of hetero marriage.
TYFCB
I'll tell you why but the answer will be long and I'm in a very busy time. Bear with me. I'm not ducking your question.
TFCB
UMR, this doesn't really advance the discussion, but is an amusing anecdote I know you'll appreciate.
After the Democrats grabbed total and complete control of Illinois government, they started making noises about how they were going to pass gay marriage legislation.
So I asked a moderate Democrat lawyer I knew what he thought about gay marriage coming to the Land O' Lincoln.
He said he was all for it because gay marriage would be good for business; more marriages = more divorces = more work for lawyers.
Whoo!Hoo! When you're a lawyer, it all good!
QCE,
I don't do divorce work but I'm all in favor of lawyers getting paid! Thanks for the anecdote.
TYFCB
Answering the earlier question, large gobs of actuarial, health and government data are used to make important decisions by both Gov't and private industry. If the input for that data are altered, it will be years before the totals catch up to the decisions being made. There will also be increased costs in maintaining records which, by and large, will have no genealogical or other public use.
If folks of any gender want to make a civil contract between themselves and file it at the recorder's office at their own expense, that would be fine with me.
I guess, at the end of the day, I'm kind of a States' Rights advocate on this. My societal wish is that such a scheme not be be adopted but that's just my preference. I'm certainly not suggesting any State adopting such a position would threaten the institution of marriage.
Post a Comment
<< Home