Ammo For Sale

« « Quote of the day | Home | Cheating to win » »

Where the right loses me (part 2)

Social conservatives tend to be a bit, uhm, stodgy. I find that annoying. In the first episode of why the right is losing me, it was the right’s fear of sex. What’s rather ironic to me about this is that they tend to take the nanny approach, which they abhor democrats for doing, to this sort of thing. I really don’t think it’s healthy to be so concerned about sex.

They also lose me because of their fear of dudes getting married. There’s a proposed constitutional ban on gay marriage here in Tennessee. I have not doubt that it will pass. I had a little discussion in the comments section here with Bill and Jeff, who oppose gay marriage.

First, I won’t even address the argument presented that it should be banned because the Bible says so. Using the Bible as justification for law is illegal and asinine. The basic gist of the other bullshit argument against allowing gay marriage (summarized by Rob Huddleston here and used by Bill in the comments section mentioned above) is:

gays have the same equal rights as everyone else (the right to marry someone of the opposite sex)

In my quick perusal of the constitutions of the State of Tennessee and the United States, I see no right to marry enumerated. In all honesty, I fail to see why the .gov is involved in marriage at all, other than to the extent they may provide contract remedy. After all, from the state’s perspective, a marriage is just a contract between two people. In the eyes of individuals and churches, it obviously has more meaning. Though I question how sincere Americans are about that meaning given our high divorce rate and 52 hour long Las Vegas marriages. But I digress.

The issue is not about the right to marry someone of the opposite sex. What gay person wants to do that? Framing the issue in such a pointless manner does not treat the issue seriously and is disingenuous. Married people enjoy certain benefits, such as: special tax consideration, survivorship to an estate, the legal authority to make decisions for loved ones who can’t make their own decisions, etc.

Gay people should be entitled to those same benefits. They are denied the benefits that other married people enjoy because they have matching sets of genitalia. And they’re denied those benefits because people think two dudes kissing is icky. And that is not right.

Of course, none of the gay people I know actually want to get married anyway.

Update: And as the former owner of a lesbian poodle, I don’t buy the arguments that homosexuality is not supported in nature. There are gay dolphins and lizards that are exclusively gay. They even reproduce.

13 Responses to “Where the right loses me (part 2)”

  1. _Jon Says:

    Yeah, I pretty much agree.
    It’s a contract. Gender should be irrelevant.
    And it’s a state contract, the Feds shouldn’t be involved.
    And other states are bound to honor it.

  2. tgirsch Says:

    the legal authority to make decisions for loved ones who can’t make their own decisions

    Hell, social conservatives don’t want heterosexual married couples to have that authority. Witness the Schiavo incident.

    Aside from that, I’m surprised nobody brought up the “gay marriage will lead to polygamy and bestiality” argument.

  3. SayUncle Says:

    tom, I’m sure some one has but it’s too stupid to even acknowledge.

  4. Xrlq Says:

    And it’s a state contract, the Feds shouldn’t be involved. And other states are bound to honor it.

    Based on what? A creative reading of Article IV, Section I, that exaggerates the import of the first sentence while ignoring the second altogether?

    In my quick perusal of the constitutions of the State of Tennessee and the United States, I see no right to marry enumerated.

    So? The federal government is a government of enumerated powers. The State of Tennessee is not. The proper test at the state level is whether either constitution says the state cannot get involved. If neither constitution says anything about marriage at all, the State of Tennessee can do as it pleases.

  5. SayUncle Says:

    And nothing you said there, xrlqy, indicates marriage is a right, which was my point.

  6. Ravenwood Says:

    I have yet to hear a valid arugment for why letting gays get married harms other people.

    Until I do, I support gay marriage.

  7. Cowboy Blob Says:

    There are many cases in the animal world of mothers killing their own young, but we humans take a dim view of that as well.

  8. _Jon Says:

    I don’t see how two consenting adults entering into a property sharing contract should have any reflection of gender.

    In fact, doesn’t one of the amendments specifically say that discrimination based upon gender is illegal? And isn’t denying a contract application based upon the gender of the application sexual discrimination?

    And my opinion that other states are required to honor a same-sex marriage is based upon the same condition that states recognize a mixed-gender marriage.

  9. cube Says:

    Uncle,

    As far as the nature arugment is concerned, i think it is a poor argument because of what cowboy bob pointed out. Animals are ‘animals’ and we should be better than that.

    tgirsch and uncle,
    As to the arguement that gay marragie will lead to polygamy. I see no reason why it wouldn’t. The same arguments can be used (and probably will). To me polygamy is just as wrong as gay marragie, but if we allow one, i see no reason why we should not allow both.

    Also if you were a morman and you say gay people getting married, I would be really upset, and I might go start my own state….errr.

    As to the beastily argument. I agree that is dumb.

  10. cube Says:

    Just to give an exmaple from the frist comment.

    “Yeah, I pretty much agree.
    It’s a contract. The number of parties involved should be irrelevant.
    And it’s a state contract, the Feds shouldn’t be involved.
    And other states are bound to honor it.”

  11. Ravenwood Says:

    In fact, doesn’t one of the amendments specifically say that discrimination based upon gender is illegal?

    No.

  12. tgirsch Says:

    As to the arguement that gay marragie will lead to polygamy. I see no reason why it wouldn’t.

    Marriage is a contract between two parties, and necessarily so. If one dies or becomes very ill, the other gets to make the decisions, inherit the property, get custody of the children, etc. This is all possible because the order is clear: one becomes incapacitated, the other takes over. And it all works equally well irrespective of the gender of the two involved.

    But make it a relationship of three or more people, then the wheels come flying off. Spouse A becomes incapacitated, and spouses B and C disagree over how things should be handled. Spouse A dies, and spouse B and C now inherit the estate (assuming no will with explicit instructions). How do you resolve this? It’s much more complicated, and there’s no compelling reason for the state to get into such sticky messes.

    Which isn’t to say that a two-person marriage can’t get sticky (just look at Schiavo), but the state already has its nose in there. From a purely legalistic perspective, there’s no legal benefit conferred by marriage (custody, inheritance, medical decisionmaking, etc.) that doesn’t apply just as well to a same-sex couple as it would to an opposite-sex couple.

  13. _Jon Says:

    “From a purely legalistic perspective, there’s no legal benefit conferred by marriage (custody, inheritance, medical decisionmaking, etc.) that doesn’t apply just as well to a same-sex couple as it would to an opposite-sex couple.”

    I think that’s the point I was trying to make.

Remember, I do this to entertain me, not you.

Uncle Pays the Bills

Find Local
Gun Shops & Shooting Ranges


bisonAd

Categories

Archives