Not that there's anything wrong with that...
So, yeah, I know I’m late, the Senate cloture vote failed, blah blah blah…but give me a break. I work hard for a living, so I don’t always have the luxury of being all “real time”.
So the topic of gay marriage started between a very close friend of mine and me this week, in light of these events. This friend happens to be gay and a Democrat, and he knows I am a conservative, so he was interested in my perspective on the issue. I don’t talk politics with most of my friends, simply because the majority of my closest friends are Democrats. It is a shame really, because most are conservative in one aspect or another, but for whatever reason think they HAVE to be Democrats because of what they do for a living (academia) or because they’re gay. I don’t understand the mentality that you have to agree with the side of the aisle who wants you to pay all of your income in taxes (and redistribute it to the unwashed and lazy) just because of with whom you have relations; but I have yet to find one thing about the Democrat Party that is based in any type of logic. That’s a post for another day, I suppose.
Now back to the topic at hand. My friend sent me this article and was simply curious as to my point of view on the topic as a whole. So, here is my take.
In terms of Mr. Bush's action, the article stated it all...conservatives ARE NOT Happy with our fine President. Many in the ranks of the right are threatening to stay home on election day. Unlike Democrats, we will un-elect one of our own if we don’t like what they’re doing. We’re there to get things done, not be in power for the sake of it. I for one have sent no money to any Republican candidate, nor have I sent any to the party this year. That is my way of saying, “hey, you bastards spend too much money.”
And yeah, I am bright enough to know I am an extremist. I think all government entities and all programs should be sunsetted/forced to justify their own existence about every 5 years or so. And, I think that a lot of them (3 off the top of my head: the IRS, Dept of Education, and National Endowment for the Arts) should not even exist. Bush is a free spending social liberal, and it drives me freakin’ crazy…and the pork is out of control. I think the easiest way to stop it would be to make bills covering multiple subjects illegal, like they do in Minnesota, essentially outlawing riders. So that if that senator from Ohio wants an indoor rainforest, he's going to have to bring it up as an individual bill and justify it before a full legislative body and the public. I think that would eliminate a lot of issues. OK…sorry for that rampant digression…back to the issue at hand…
So, the whole gay marriage business is President Bush’s nod to the angry conservatives who believe that he has been too moderate on a lot of issues. He wins with the general population, and loses with the roughly 10% he wouldn't get anyway. He'd rather leave it alone, I believe, because he really does like to reach out to people. All the example you need lives in Sponge Ted Drunk Pants; I would’ve slapped the crap out of that bastard my first day in office; President Bush, on the other hand, gives him his stupid education bill. Meanwhile, he should have been taking proper conservative action and abolishing the entire unconstitutional department altogether.
President Bush is under a lot of pressure from his base. I see it from where I am in the party, and that is in the bottom strata of the grassroots. I agree with the whole "not happy with Mr. Bush" thing in the respect that I think Bush panders too much to try and make the donks happy, maintains unnecessary social programs, and spends waaay too much of our money. The only difference is that I recognize that for what I'm angry with Mr. Bush about, staying home is the worst alternative. Staying home puts socialist chickens into office, who are going to cause us all to be homeless and then get us all killed.
As for the gay marriage thing, that is where I happen to part ways with my conservative brethren. I agree with the argument that the Supremes & the state of Massachusetts turned what should have been strictly a state issue into a national issue. I also agree with the question of where do you draw the line? The question is legitimate when asked, "why not 3 people, or why not 1 man to 27 women?" As I personally oppose polygamy, I have to go with the "2 consenting adults" answer, but the slippery slope is so very there.
The way it should've been was that people in each individual state should have been given the right to vote on what they wanted to recognize for their specific state. The truth is that the outcomes would not be in the gay community's favor. The votes aren't there. Joe Q. Public ain't ready for Mr. & Mr. Fred and Henry Doe. That's a sad reality. And that is why the courts are trying to force it from the bench; something which they have no right to do.
On a personal note, however, I am full in favor of allowing gay folks to marry. My motives are, however, much more cynical. Make me philosopher-King for a day and here's the way it goes. First, as a precursor to my plan, no-fault divorces would be eliminated. Marriage doesn't get to be like semi-serious dating any more. You marry; you'd better have a damned good reason for getting out. That shakes a lot of monkeys from the trees right there, whether they be hetero, or homo.
Then, allow any two, unrelated by blood, consenting adults who want to marry, to do so. I have a couple of friends who have been in a committed lesbian relationship for close to 20 years. I believe that if they were allowed to marry, they may or may not choose to do so because I don't think they think they need it. But if they did, then they'd go about their lives together, like they have been for all these many years...being a shining example of what marriage is supposed to represent: 2 people committed to each other for the rest of their lives.
Others, who are not so committed, would marry, go through hell getting a divorce (because they couldn't just get one because they can't get along anymore), clog the court systems to death (everybody trying to divorce would push the docket back 2-3 years at least), and then never do it again. Can you imagine a couple of bitchy little queens battling it out in court over the china because Fred cheated on Garry with Mitch? Well once that divorce is final, and Fred lost his Grandmother's china, his brand new Corvette, and custody of his favorite cat to Garry, I guarantee you he'll think three times before he tries to marry Mitch because, “no ma'am I've got nothing left to lose to a new spouse”...right on with that sister.
I also don't see the whole world just running out and getting married, creating chaos in the streets and backlogs in the J.P.s’ offices. Same argument, IMO, if marijuana was legalized. Employment policies would remain the same in terms of drug testing and all that business, so everybody on the planet wouldn't just file out in droves to buy & smoke weed. But, on the flipside, leave the slacker at home to get high on his own time and clear out our jails for the rapists and murderers...but I digress...yet again.
I also believe that a lot of the conservative sides’ arguments in opposition to gay marriage are extremely weak. Many I can understand, even though I don’t necessarily agree; but this one just loses my sympathy every time I hear or see it. From this article this twit blabs:
Perzyk said "marriage is an institution designed to bring a man and a woman together to have and raise children."
What these people are saying to me is this: if you are unable for whatever reason to have children, or if you are say, unable to afford to adopt them, then you have no right to be married. OK, so what is your time limit? If a couple tries for what, 5 years, 10 years to have children, and then can't, then you will require them to divorce? What if 2 people get married and decide to not have children for whatever reason, then you will require them to divorce? What exactly is worthy here? So yeah, let's punish a woman (or a man) who already feels empty because she (or he) may want kids but can't physically have them. Let's further tell her (or him) that she (or he) is somehow defective and thus has no right to have any love in her (or his) life whatsoever. Screw you, you lose.
So why is the government in the business of marriage anyway? Some may say that violates the separation of church and state. To them, I say that I think government is basically in the business of marriage to serve a purpose that a church can't for folks who don't attend/believe in church. To not have some kind of union under the law (as opposed the church) is to deny the first amendment right of free exercise of (and as would naturally follow "from") religion. And as far as the Catholics are concerned, of which I am one, all marriages not in the church are civil unions. Most other religions don't see it that way for whatever reason. Marriage, however, is not a right under the law.
The only thing I will say about the whole "separation of church and state" issue is that it doesn't exist anywhere except in court made law, identical to that non-existent "right to privacy". I won't bore you with all those details, but the "separation of church and state" term itself was used not in the Federalist papers or anywhere authoritative, but in a letter by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists. It was a statement of opinion similar to that if you wrote your congressman on an issue and got a return letter. The Baptists were writing a letter congratulating Jefferson on his election to the Presidency and complaining about the Congregationalists as the official established religion in the state of Connecticut (state establishment of religion was legal) and the taxes they could assess. It was much later that the anti-God crowd got into the mix and convinced a bunch of activists that it meant something different. So, unfortunately, when folks come up with the almighty "separation of church and state" argument, you can basically translate that into "I got nothin'...but this cool catch phrase.”
But in terms of popular support, it still isn’t there. And, I don't have to tell anybody how it stacks here. I’m in Texas, the most conservative place on the planet Earth. And yeah, admittedly, 99% of the time that is sweeet by me. I just have to respectfully disagree on this one. I do believe that allowing gay people to marry, fundamentally doesn't threaten anybody or anything. There are some minds you just are not going to change. I think the key is waiting a bit longer. The views of many thirty-somethings and those younger will eventually remedy the rift. We're fiscally more conservative and socially more libertarian, which suits me just fine. The wait is what sucks. The freakin baby boomers, IMO, once again, have ruined it for the rest of us.
So the topic of gay marriage started between a very close friend of mine and me this week, in light of these events. This friend happens to be gay and a Democrat, and he knows I am a conservative, so he was interested in my perspective on the issue. I don’t talk politics with most of my friends, simply because the majority of my closest friends are Democrats. It is a shame really, because most are conservative in one aspect or another, but for whatever reason think they HAVE to be Democrats because of what they do for a living (academia) or because they’re gay. I don’t understand the mentality that you have to agree with the side of the aisle who wants you to pay all of your income in taxes (and redistribute it to the unwashed and lazy) just because of with whom you have relations; but I have yet to find one thing about the Democrat Party that is based in any type of logic. That’s a post for another day, I suppose.
Now back to the topic at hand. My friend sent me this article and was simply curious as to my point of view on the topic as a whole. So, here is my take.
In terms of Mr. Bush's action, the article stated it all...conservatives ARE NOT Happy with our fine President. Many in the ranks of the right are threatening to stay home on election day. Unlike Democrats, we will un-elect one of our own if we don’t like what they’re doing. We’re there to get things done, not be in power for the sake of it. I for one have sent no money to any Republican candidate, nor have I sent any to the party this year. That is my way of saying, “hey, you bastards spend too much money.”
And yeah, I am bright enough to know I am an extremist. I think all government entities and all programs should be sunsetted/forced to justify their own existence about every 5 years or so. And, I think that a lot of them (3 off the top of my head: the IRS, Dept of Education, and National Endowment for the Arts) should not even exist. Bush is a free spending social liberal, and it drives me freakin’ crazy…and the pork is out of control. I think the easiest way to stop it would be to make bills covering multiple subjects illegal, like they do in Minnesota, essentially outlawing riders. So that if that senator from Ohio wants an indoor rainforest, he's going to have to bring it up as an individual bill and justify it before a full legislative body and the public. I think that would eliminate a lot of issues. OK…sorry for that rampant digression…back to the issue at hand…
So, the whole gay marriage business is President Bush’s nod to the angry conservatives who believe that he has been too moderate on a lot of issues. He wins with the general population, and loses with the roughly 10% he wouldn't get anyway. He'd rather leave it alone, I believe, because he really does like to reach out to people. All the example you need lives in Sponge Ted Drunk Pants; I would’ve slapped the crap out of that bastard my first day in office; President Bush, on the other hand, gives him his stupid education bill. Meanwhile, he should have been taking proper conservative action and abolishing the entire unconstitutional department altogether.
President Bush is under a lot of pressure from his base. I see it from where I am in the party, and that is in the bottom strata of the grassroots. I agree with the whole "not happy with Mr. Bush" thing in the respect that I think Bush panders too much to try and make the donks happy, maintains unnecessary social programs, and spends waaay too much of our money. The only difference is that I recognize that for what I'm angry with Mr. Bush about, staying home is the worst alternative. Staying home puts socialist chickens into office, who are going to cause us all to be homeless and then get us all killed.
As for the gay marriage thing, that is where I happen to part ways with my conservative brethren. I agree with the argument that the Supremes & the state of Massachusetts turned what should have been strictly a state issue into a national issue. I also agree with the question of where do you draw the line? The question is legitimate when asked, "why not 3 people, or why not 1 man to 27 women?" As I personally oppose polygamy, I have to go with the "2 consenting adults" answer, but the slippery slope is so very there.
The way it should've been was that people in each individual state should have been given the right to vote on what they wanted to recognize for their specific state. The truth is that the outcomes would not be in the gay community's favor. The votes aren't there. Joe Q. Public ain't ready for Mr. & Mr. Fred and Henry Doe. That's a sad reality. And that is why the courts are trying to force it from the bench; something which they have no right to do.
On a personal note, however, I am full in favor of allowing gay folks to marry. My motives are, however, much more cynical. Make me philosopher-King for a day and here's the way it goes. First, as a precursor to my plan, no-fault divorces would be eliminated. Marriage doesn't get to be like semi-serious dating any more. You marry; you'd better have a damned good reason for getting out. That shakes a lot of monkeys from the trees right there, whether they be hetero, or homo.
Then, allow any two, unrelated by blood, consenting adults who want to marry, to do so. I have a couple of friends who have been in a committed lesbian relationship for close to 20 years. I believe that if they were allowed to marry, they may or may not choose to do so because I don't think they think they need it. But if they did, then they'd go about their lives together, like they have been for all these many years...being a shining example of what marriage is supposed to represent: 2 people committed to each other for the rest of their lives.
Others, who are not so committed, would marry, go through hell getting a divorce (because they couldn't just get one because they can't get along anymore), clog the court systems to death (everybody trying to divorce would push the docket back 2-3 years at least), and then never do it again. Can you imagine a couple of bitchy little queens battling it out in court over the china because Fred cheated on Garry with Mitch? Well once that divorce is final, and Fred lost his Grandmother's china, his brand new Corvette, and custody of his favorite cat to Garry, I guarantee you he'll think three times before he tries to marry Mitch because, “no ma'am I've got nothing left to lose to a new spouse”...right on with that sister.
I also don't see the whole world just running out and getting married, creating chaos in the streets and backlogs in the J.P.s’ offices. Same argument, IMO, if marijuana was legalized. Employment policies would remain the same in terms of drug testing and all that business, so everybody on the planet wouldn't just file out in droves to buy & smoke weed. But, on the flipside, leave the slacker at home to get high on his own time and clear out our jails for the rapists and murderers...but I digress...yet again.
I also believe that a lot of the conservative sides’ arguments in opposition to gay marriage are extremely weak. Many I can understand, even though I don’t necessarily agree; but this one just loses my sympathy every time I hear or see it. From this article this twit blabs:
Perzyk said "marriage is an institution designed to bring a man and a woman together to have and raise children."
What these people are saying to me is this: if you are unable for whatever reason to have children, or if you are say, unable to afford to adopt them, then you have no right to be married. OK, so what is your time limit? If a couple tries for what, 5 years, 10 years to have children, and then can't, then you will require them to divorce? What if 2 people get married and decide to not have children for whatever reason, then you will require them to divorce? What exactly is worthy here? So yeah, let's punish a woman (or a man) who already feels empty because she (or he) may want kids but can't physically have them. Let's further tell her (or him) that she (or he) is somehow defective and thus has no right to have any love in her (or his) life whatsoever. Screw you, you lose.
So why is the government in the business of marriage anyway? Some may say that violates the separation of church and state. To them, I say that I think government is basically in the business of marriage to serve a purpose that a church can't for folks who don't attend/believe in church. To not have some kind of union under the law (as opposed the church) is to deny the first amendment right of free exercise of (and as would naturally follow "from") religion. And as far as the Catholics are concerned, of which I am one, all marriages not in the church are civil unions. Most other religions don't see it that way for whatever reason. Marriage, however, is not a right under the law.
The only thing I will say about the whole "separation of church and state" issue is that it doesn't exist anywhere except in court made law, identical to that non-existent "right to privacy". I won't bore you with all those details, but the "separation of church and state" term itself was used not in the Federalist papers or anywhere authoritative, but in a letter by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists. It was a statement of opinion similar to that if you wrote your congressman on an issue and got a return letter. The Baptists were writing a letter congratulating Jefferson on his election to the Presidency and complaining about the Congregationalists as the official established religion in the state of Connecticut (state establishment of religion was legal) and the taxes they could assess. It was much later that the anti-God crowd got into the mix and convinced a bunch of activists that it meant something different. So, unfortunately, when folks come up with the almighty "separation of church and state" argument, you can basically translate that into "I got nothin'...but this cool catch phrase.”
But in terms of popular support, it still isn’t there. And, I don't have to tell anybody how it stacks here. I’m in Texas, the most conservative place on the planet Earth. And yeah, admittedly, 99% of the time that is sweeet by me. I just have to respectfully disagree on this one. I do believe that allowing gay people to marry, fundamentally doesn't threaten anybody or anything. There are some minds you just are not going to change. I think the key is waiting a bit longer. The views of many thirty-somethings and those younger will eventually remedy the rift. We're fiscally more conservative and socially more libertarian, which suits me just fine. The wait is what sucks. The freakin baby boomers, IMO, once again, have ruined it for the rest of us.
posted by J at 11:12 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home