March 08, 2004
TOG on the FMA
I’ve written the following post about 800 times. I keep deleting it, re-writing, and deleting again because it never quite turns out right. I finally said screw it, so here she blows.
The Federal Marriage Amendment, you know the “marriage is only a man and a woman” thing many ‘publicans want to put in the constitution, is a horrendously BAD idea. No, not just bad, immoral, definitely immoral. I know I’ll probably get it trouble with a few of my more devout friends for saying that, but it’s high time somebody without the leftist baggage pipes up.
Marriage is no place for government, no matter the willful participants. There should be a single process for which the government allows any number of willing people to share assets, establish family medical rights, and all the other legal things that come with a conventional marriage. I don’t care if it’s a man and a woman, or if its 6 men, 18 women, and 14 transsexuals in some twisted sexual conglomerate of gloom and doom. If they all agree, then they should be able to go for it. Let “marriage” be a religious institution, like it originally was. The churches can decide whom they think should and shouldn’t get married, and can act accordingly.
The government’s job is not to impose a religious morality on all of its citizens. In fact preventing people for partaking in consensual activities at gunpoint is one of the very pillars of human immorality. If the activity is not directly harmful to you or your property, then you have no right to impose or prevent action by another person by means of force. Because when you get right down to it, that is what any law represents, "Do/don’t do this or face incarceration."
And the second point to which there is absolutely no forgiveness. Don't mess with my constitution. It is the only document in the history of government to firmly establish an entire list of things that the government cannot do. That’s the point, that’s why we as a country exist, because a few men 220 years ago, established a government that couldn't do crap. It was this distinct lack of 'doing something' that lead us to grow from a piss-poor colony with no hope of continued existence to the greatest country in the history of the world. If a single principle of "leaving people alone" has served us this far, why spit in its face now.
There is however some good news for those of us not hell bent on regulating people’s lives:
It’ll never happen
Period. The FMA will not pass, regardless of how passionate Dubya is. There is no way it gets 2/3 the senate, 2/3 the house, and 3/4 of the states to give it the okay. It will not happen. So don’t get too huffed up about the plight of the gay man.
And if it ever does, I’m buying my own island in the middle of nowhere and declaring independence. You all are welcome to join me.
Posted by Kyle at 04:31 PM
| Category: Political Sundries
Power to you, Kyle. I do take issue (hey, what comment of mine on here would be complete without me taking issue) with the fact that more liberal-minded people's opinions matter less on this. Before I start a big ugly argument, I'm not dissing on you, and I am stating a fact. When a conservative backs a lefty ideal or vice versa, it just seems to give it more credence, and I hate that idea. Left, right, it shouldn't matter. People are too tied to the religion of their political parties or supposed political ideals to actually think about things, and that pisses me off.
On to the FMA. I whole-heartedly agree with you that it's not the government's business to tell people they can't get married, but it's not entirely a religious matter. When a man dies, his wife inherits his estate. When a woman is in the hospital, her husband can visit her when others can't. These are just a couple of examples of privledges married couples have that gay couples can never have. As much as I like to do this sometimes, as a society we can't just say "No Comment" on the issue.
My comment on this post is getting too long already, so I'll just cut to the chase. Gays should have civil unions that have the same legal standing as marriage, and if a church wants to marry them, have fun, I don't care.
Juby,
I'm with you on the right/left shouldn't matter, and its the merits of the argument that should determine its validity. However, I'm merely pointing outs that its human nature to listen more closely to those you normally agree with. And to essentially ignore the ideas that come from people whose opinons you nearly always oppose. Everybody does it, so while a pinko-leftist tree-hugging hippie may say the exact same thing as me, the fact that the argument is coming from my mouth may make it more effective. Note more valid, just more effective.
Oh, I totally agree with you on the increase of effectiveness, I'm just saying that people (who are, as we all know, stupid) will find the argument more valid when a righty says it, regardless of whether it is or not.
Oh, and does anybody else remember the last time an amendment was passed regulating private lives? I'll give you a hint, look at the eighteenth and twenty-first amendments to the U.S. Constitution.
The last amendment to actually be ratified in to action was in '92, it had to do with increasing congressional salaries, and it took around 200 years to happen.
The last ammendment to be put in place that was rooted in a societal issue, as Juby points out, was prohibition... and we all know how well that worked out.
Either way, if the "sanctity" of something is to be protected, sanctity by the dictionary being defined as a religious or holy morality, then it would seem to me that it has no place in a government claiming to separate church and state. Furthermore, if the sanctity of marriage is violated with gay marriage, why aren't any of the hundreds of Elvis impersonators (Elvii plural?) that have marriage licenses in Vegas damaging this institution? Why is a 50% divorce rate not a problem?
So in closing: get your values off of me (Mr. Bush), and keep your religion out of my Constitution. I don't care what your views are, you're entitled to them but SO AM I. If I wanna be gay and have hot gay monkey sex, why should you care at all? It is interesting to me that an administration which attempts to privatize everything public (9/11, Iraq intelligence, Bush's Vietnam record, etc.) is trying to publicize the private.
And now so that I am not eaten alive by responses, I leave you with this: if Richard Simmons, arguably the happiest man alive, can't even get married, then what hope do the rest of us have?
