In which I (reluctantly) endorse gay marriage
By Next93 Posted in Archived — Comments (9) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
This is going to be short, but will probably generate a lot of criticism (and more than one person will probably inform me that I'll burn in hell).
I think that outlawing gay marriage is a bad idea. Here's my reasons:
1) As a conservative, I don't really see how it's the government's job to tell people who they can and can't marry. Just because I find the concept nauseating (it's NOT fear (homophobia), it's disgust (what's the greek for that?)) doesn't mean that it should be prohibited. At the end of the day, it's not costing the taxpayers, and they're not hurting anyone but themselves (or, if they are, they'll do that with or without a marriage license). And if this puts us on the "slippery slope" that leads to inter-species and group marriages, then someone is simply going to have to tell me how that costs the taxypayer.
2) I can't think of anything we could do as a society to make Islamic fundamentalists hate the US even more than they do already. If legalizing gay marriage leads to just one terrorist being crippled by a stroke, then it was worth the effort.
3) In the long run, it's *not* the idea of same-sex couples that's a threat to the institution of marriage in this country. The real damage is being done by the idea that cohabiting (shacking up) provides all of hte legal rights and benefits of marriage (health insurance, survivor's bennefits, alimony, child support, etc.) without the attendant committment As long as gay marriage is prohibited, there is a a legal excuse for continuing this nonsense. If allowing gay marriage makes it possible to pass laws limiting benefits of marriage to people who are, in fact, legally married, I think society is ahead on the deal.
4) I think gay men DESERVE to have mothers-in-law. If I have to put up with one, they should, too. While we're at it, I think they deserve having to deal with divorce lawyers, too (more on that below).
5) If we're going to allow gay people to adopt (which I think is a HUGELY bad idea, but that train has apparently left the station), then we need to provide them with the same set of legal protections that we do to any couple raising children. They should also be subjected to the same legal responsibilities (i.e., you don't split up without propoerly providing for ongoing support and visitation rights for the child/children).
5.5) If the gay community follows the hetero patterns, we can expect 50% of gay marriages to fail. I think it will be fascinating to see how family court continues it's long tradition of screwing over the father on child support and custody issues when it turns out that BOTH parties are fathers. Are they going to be reduced to awarding custody to the first woman who walks past the courtroom?
So, there are my reasons. Go ahead and have at.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
At the end of the day, it's not costing the taxpayers
This is all about costing the taxpayers. Why is it so important to have a officially recognized SSM? Because of the free government stuff that goes with that status. That's the only stuff people can't replicate on their own.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
When I stopped "living in sin" and made it legal, my wedding gift from Uncle Sam was our combined taxes going up a few thousand dollars.
It's a marriage bonus to everybody except couples where both people make exactly the same income. In that case it is neutral. If you marry a stay-at-home spouse, your taxes get more than cut in half. That's a pretty significant bonus built into the tax code. Then of course there are things like inheritance, survivor benefits, etc. There is no downside, from a tax perspective, anyway.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
I need Mr. Hahn's 'Humor is not your strong suit' picture right about now.
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.
....I have to say that this is total crap. The poster won't burn in hell but hopefully he will hang his head in shame at this pitiful performance.
Your point 5 is actually a very good point in favor of same-sex marriage (which I am very much for). Like it or not, same-sex couples DO have children (either through adoption, previous heterosexual mariages, or other means), and those kids need protection and the same fundamental rights as every other kid from heterosexual marriages. That means having consistent protections when/if their parents split up.
The kids of course also deserve to have the same protections if their parent don't split up. Imagine a child with two fathers where his non-biological Dad is in the hospital. Can the child go and see his father? I should certainly hope so. What if his biological Dad's partner dies? Shouldn't the child be entitiled to Social Security benefits that would have been paid to a so-called "real" son.
Finally, conservatives know in their heart that marriage is very much steeped in religion. The First Ammendment to the US consitution is VERY clear. Congress shall pass no law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. That means that government should NOT be in the business of recognizing mariages period. This is purely a church function. While 98% of churches won't perform same-sex marriages (which is fine), some will (their choice). If we want to be free...if we don't want to be a theocracy like Iran / Iraq, we must keep government and church seperate.
I really hope that it is.
If not, your only really serious point is #1 and it isn't very compelling. Marriage has a specific meaning, it isn't a catchall term. Therefore, even if you had a "right" to marriage, it would be limited to what marriage means.