Friday, May 16, 2008

Gay Marriage

I am totally in favor of gay marriage. No problem with it, whatsoever.



In fact, I posted about the subject back in February of 2006.

As I said then,

"After all, if gay people want to get "married", who cares? They should have the same right to be nagged, ignored, taken for granted, lied to, cheated on and driven into bankruptcy as anyone else. God bless 'em. Go for it. They'd be about the ONLY marriages where there was a high likelihood of anal and oral sex taking place, so they've got that workin' for 'em."

Conservatives like to yell, scream and wave their arms over the supposed attack on the "natural institution of marriage" by homosexuals.

Bullshit.

Marriage has been on the decline for decades.

Who is responsible for this heinous attack? HETEROSEXUALS! They are choosing not to get married in increasing numbers.

Whereas the GLBT community is eagerly pursuing the right to be married.

GLBTs are the most vocal and active proponents of the "natural institution of marriage".

The GLBT community is a greater champion of the "natural institution of marriage" than any other active constituency.

The GLBT community are the Savior of the "natural institution of marriage" because they are the only ones who still want to do it.

The far right wing conservatives should embrace the GLBT community with open arms.

They share a common cause...the preservation of the "natural institution of marriage".


Can't we all just get along?

7 comments:

MC Spanky McGee said...

It's unfortunate that it's a matter of time, but eventually gay marriage will become legal. When it does, the loonies will cry and hug each other and bark at their crosses, but to no use. In the meantime, ya gotta keep "corrupting" minds and fighting off the superstitious morons...

Rockin' blog. Keep it up.

travel said...

What the California case demonstrates is that it doesn't matter what the people want and vote for if a few people in long black robes decide differently. Perhaps you think that's ok in the case of gay marriage, but you might not like it so much if the people voted to allow rights such as abortion but the long robes decided to ban it.

Pisses me off.

Xavier Onassis said...

travel - Supreme Courts, both at the state and federal level, exist to protect constitutions. Their role is to ensure that the voting public, the legislature and the executive branches to not pass laws that violate the state and federal constitutions. Striking down unconstitutional laws or the rulings of lower courts is exactly what they were designed to do. Most states used to have bans on inter-racial marriages. The supreme court rightly ruled them unconstitutional. That pissed off a lot of people too.

SmedRock said...

Well stated XO. And in California, I seriously doubt that any 'majority' voted for the law banning gay marriage. It was the bible thumpin' woe is the world crowd that Arnold has to kiss up to to keep his job, that forced the issue when it was fashionable for the GOP to do so.

But I respect the difference of opinion, but in no way has it ever been proven, nor will it ever be I think, that gay marriage will make poeple that are heterosexual marriages fail. Hetero's do that quit well on their own merits, just look up the stats for that for first year marriage failures. Hell, just look at the owner o this blog. lol.

To each their own, as long as they are consenting adults and no one gets hurt, let them discover the joys and pure hell that a marriage can be.

Good post XO

Fiery said...

I support gay marriage. See XO's brilliant post as per. ;)

However, I can't imagine ever getting married myself. I have too many unreasonable expectations (thanks to my religious upbringing) of what it means to be married. Nup. I am all for long term relationships, but for me, every day is a choice. I choose to be here. I don't need the government and certainly not a church telling me I've got responsibilities and a commitment to my family or my partner.

travel said...

xo..you're right of course. Supreme judges decide what is constitutional or not, but you must admit there is pause for personal conviction and politics by both liberals and conservatives. Need I point out the angst over Roberts and Alito. But, my point is we the little people can be overruled by a few and I don't like that. But, even then we have recourse either to vote them out or the politicians who appoint them, or to amend the constitution. So, there is a trickle down effect...I'd just like to think the people have a voice.

I don't really care if gays marry ...I don't agree, but it's no skin off my back except for one thing I feel strongly about. One of the things gays want are the benefits..apparently numbering abou t 1000 that single people don't have. So why can't two heterosexual same-sex friends marry to get those benefits? Why does it have to involve sexual orientation? That's my beef. Course, who's to prove it, one way or the other.

Xavier Onassis said...

travel - "...but you must admit there is pause for personal conviction and politics by both liberals and conservatives"

Of course there is. That's why every president tries to cement their legacy by appointing justices that they hope will continue their positions.

And they are almost always dissapointed by the intellectual independence exibited by their appointees.

"...we the little people can be overruled by a few and I don't like that."

Yeah, we can. Especially if "we the little people" vote into law something that is unconstitutional.

That is why we have a separation and balance of power. That is why we give the courts jurisdiction over the legislature and the executive.

It is a beuatifully balanced system that everyone hates equally.