I had a feeling this might happen, some paleo-conservative asswipe sent me an email excoriating my "defense" (as they saw it) for gay marriage. And no, I am not going to post the damn thing, nor give this asshole the benefit of mentioning their name. Rather I am going to clarify why I posted what I posted earlier in the week.
First off, apparently this paleo-con dickweed missed the part of the post where I said I do not agree with homosexuality, I tolerate it for the very same reason I tolerate paleo-con assholes. People have the right to live their lives the way they want to live, they have the right to say whatever they wish to say, and do whatever they wish to do just as long as they are not hurting others, period. I fail to grasp the nuances of just how gay marriage will hurt anyone. Will gay marriage all of the sudden cause our Republic to fall? Will gays being given the ability to marry all of the sudden diminish everyone who is not gay rights and privileges? Please. Emotional, knee-jerk responses to anything is not a good thing be it from those on the Left or the Right, and what is all this talk from the paleo-cons of a Federal Marriage Amendment (or laws to "protect the sanctity of marriage") if not an emotional knee-jerk response.
Looking to the federal government to solve a "problem" (if gays getting married is in fact a problem) is something conservatives are supposed to abhor, but when one state's Supreme Court all of the sudden says Massachusetts cannot discriminate against homosexual couples when it comes to marriage, paleo-cons all of the sudden go running to the federal government to correct "this judicial over-reach". It isn't "judicial over-reach" you morons, point out to me exactly where in the United States Constitution does it grant power to the federal legislature to pass laws regulating marriage? If you can do that, then I might agree with the judicial over-reach argument. Also, the Defense of Marriage Act (and any Federal Marriage Amendment) is regulation of private behavior. Conservatives are supposed to abhor regulation, be it of public business or private behavior. This position strikes me as patent hypocrisy.
Sure you can disagree with homosexuality, that is your right as an American citizen. However, don't go running to the federal government and ask them to pass laws imposing your will (or version of morality) on anyone else. Marriage is a state issue (or as Aaron put it it is a social contract between two consenting persons), the federal government should just stay out of it, and the argument could be made that the state's themselves should just stay out of it.
IF gays getting married all of the sudden granted them additional rights, privileges, and immunities that other US citizens didn't enjoy, then perhaps I would see the paleo-con argument, but since all it would do is give them the ability to get married, I cannot see what possible harm this would do to anyone who is not gay. Any position other than this is simply not logical.
"It will undermine traditional marriage", is a favorite meme of paleo-cons. Okay, fine. How will it do that, exactly? "It's always been between one man and one woman." Is the inevitable response, okay fair enough, but who came up with that definition of marriage? The government or the people? (Hint: it was not the government). Since the people came up with it, then the people can change it if they see fit, which under the 10th Amendment they have every right to do. Now, I suppose one could find fault with the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruling on that basis, since it was the Courts and not the legislature that granted homosexuals the de facto ability to get married in that state, I don't to be honest, since this is fundamentally a state legal question (which are invariably resolved in state courts anyway), but I suppose one could make that argument. Also, paleo-cons make the argument homosexuals cannot procreate, which is another reason why they shouldn't be allowed to marry. Please, do not make me laugh. Do we outlaw marriage between a man and a woman who cannot have children biologically? No. So that argument won't work either.
This will be my last post on this topic. I will probably get even more paleo-con hate mail because of this post, which is fine, for I will just delete it without reading it. I don't particularly care what arguments you come up with to justify your position, I can come up with even more arguments to justify mine, and I have no desire to get involved in a pissing contest with small minds. The federal government is not in the business of punishing "sins" per se, they (and state governments) punish crimes, and homosexuality is not a crime, it is a lifestyle choice (yes yes, I am aware of recent studies which claim to have found a so-called "gay gene", even if that is found to be true it still doesn't mean homosexuality isn't a choice. Just as people with a genetic predisposition to drinking make a choice to drink, homosexuals make a choice to be homosexual. I don't begrudge them that choice, they do have the right to make it. Free will and all that). "Sins" are left up to the Father to punish, not me, not paleo-cons, and certainly not the federal government.
Update
Chris has linked to this post, along with his 2 cents, which I will quote here.
Kevin has made a post regarding his position on homosexual marriage in this country that pretty much reflects my views on the matter.
However, one point he did not touch upon, that I would like to add, deals with the oft-repeated claim that allowing this would "destroy the sanctity of marriage."
Guess what - Divorce does just that. For a Republican to crusade against "destroying the sanctity of marriage", and not be a hypocrite, he would have to support making divorce either extremely difficult, or entirely illegal. After all, if marriage is a sacred bond, then a husband and wife shouldn't be able to end it simply because they feel like it.
My 2 cents.
What he said.
No comments:
Post a Comment