August 04, 2010

Thanks for a. the lawlessness and b. getting me beaten Your Honor!

No, I haven't read the Prop. 8 decision.  No, I don't intend to do so.  That's not going to stop me from giving my thoughts. Uninformed opinion, it's what's for dinner!

Marriage is a religious matter, not a civil matter.  If the State is going to inject itself into recognition of marriage, then the State can define the terms of what will and will not be recognized on a civil basis.  If the citizens of the State cannot make their voices heard, then there will be, and should be, utter contempt for the judiciary.  If judges are determined to overrule any and all attempts by the citizenry to state what the laws of that state will be, then this is judicial tyranny.  Nothing more, nothing less. 

Attempts to equate sexuality with race are repugnant.  I'm not going to get into whether sexuality is innate or learned (no freaking clue I think it's some of both).  However, the expression of sexuality is within the individual's control.  Sexuality is not race.  Race is not sexuality.  Treating different groups of people differently may be discriminatory in the sense of treating things differently.  That does not mean that it is discriminatory in the sense of prejudice against that group.  There is nothing wrong with treating different groups differently.  There is nothing unconstitutional about that.  It is far past time that any attempts to differentiate between groups are thrown out as "discriminatory". 

I cannot see any logical rationale against polygamy or first cousin marriage now.  Seriously, I can't.  Child marriage and beastiality are covered by the lack of capacity of the other party to provide consent.  Sibling marriage can be covered by concerns about genetic anomalies.  Of course, what about my situation where my brother and I are adopted and have different biological parents?  Someone explain to me the logical reasons, upon the terms of this ruling, as to why we can't marry.  Good luck with that.

I know the shrieking will begin that those examples are taking this decision to the extreme but here's the thing.  Precedents expand.  It is very rare that precedents contract.  There will be challenges to laws against polygamy and cousin marriage.  Those challenges will cite this decision.  If the traditional reasons for restricting marriage to man and woman are rejected, then there are no grounds for those restrictions either.  This opens the floodgates and anyone who claims otherwise is stunningly naive. 

No wonder people freaking hate me.  Hell, I'd hate me too if I didn't know that I don't agree with those who claim to speak for me.  How am I supposed to claim there's not some type of gay conspiracy against traditional values when all the evidence points otherwise. 

Look, I do not care about gay marriage.  I don't care about marriage at all.  I believe that the State should only recognize marriage on a contract basis.  If a group of 12 male first cousins want to get married for a three year period?  Mazel tov but I'm only buying one collective gift.  But I do believe, strongly, that such a change must through legislative means.  Doing otherwise solidifies the belief that the average citizen has no voice in the rule of this country.

Posted by: alexthechick at 04:59 PM | Comments (23) | Add Comment
Post contains 548 words, total size 4 kb.

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
15kb generated in CPU 0.01, elapsed 0.015 seconds.
61 queries taking 0.0096 seconds, 133 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.