That Was Quick
Well, since I found out that I was secretly an unreconstructed Washingtonion conservative (it was very secret, as even I was unaware of it) and that I was doomed to marry a conservative, I did the only thing I could: I asked A.C. Kleinheider to enter into one of those thousands-of-year-old traditional Judeo-Christian marriage with me and let me be his fourth wife.
Surprisingly, he said yes. If only I had known that the only thing standing in the way of me being married was my reluctance to let my dad offer someone I don't know seven cows to take me off his hands!
All kidding aside, one thing that always amazes me is how often Mr. Kleinheider and I end up on the same side of issues from entirely different directions.
For instance, Kleinheider doesn't think that the state should sanction gay marriage. I, of course, think that the state should sanction gay marriage; if they're going to sanction one type of consentual relationship between adults, they ought to sanction them all.
Discriminating against a group just because you don't like them or they make you uncomfortable is, on the one hand, an American pastime, and decidedly un-American and keeping gay people from getting married because it offends your religious sensibilities is a fight you should be having in your churches, not in my government, where I'm supposed to be assured that the church and state will remain separate.
But, on the other hand, I really don't think the state should sanction marriage at all. Since marriage is no longer about transferring property rights from the bride's father to the bride's new husband, why does the state give a shit about it?
For all the shit conservatives give liberals about being the soft, froo-froo bunch, this need to have the government acknowledge their personal sexual arrangements and give them special rights because of it seems a little soft and froo-froo to me.
posted by Aunt B at 9/09/2005 06:34:00 PM
6 Comments:
But, on the other hand, I really don't think the state should sanction marriage at all. Since marriage is no longer about transferring property rights from the bride's father to the bride's new husband, why does the state give a shit about it?
That's basically my feeling on the matter, insofar as if the state sanctions relationships between heterosexuals it has no business not sanctioning other relationships.
I tend to bounce around between Kleinheider's take and Glen's take, although I'm more of a Keep The State Out Of It kind of gal.
You're scaring me. It's like First National Aunt B. Libertarian Day over here today.
BTW...I didn't see your brilliant comment over at my place so it must have been a casualty of the Blogger Update thingy.
Please share unto me thy brilliance
What they will tell you is the state should give a shit about it because it concerns the promotion of a basic good: the reproduction of life, which they argue cannot happen between gay and lesbian couples (unless a third party enters the picture, a point that they rarely consider).
Perhaps if we lived in an Old Testament world where spilling semen on the ground is a crime because male (females=curse, until they could be given in exchange) offspring were relatively rare and hard to "cum" by, then that argument would carry some weight.
But banning gay marriages on those grounds in a world teaming with children who need loving parents is just plain ridiculous. I don't think the government should be involved in marriage. I particularly don't think it should be giving married people tax breaks it does not give the unmarried. However, I do think tax credits for children is a great idea, because it does address the reproductive good without erring to the extreme.
I do think tax credits for children is a great idea, because it does address the reproductive good without erring to the extreme.
*Kat runs screaming from the room*
No. No. No.
I want a tax break for NOT having children. Or at least a tax break for fertility treatments. Those are 10 times as expensive as children, and they ostensibly aid the public good as well--assuming they result in live births.
For some reason, no one seems to see it that way, until they've been down that road.
Where them cows at? I need to make me a double CHEESEburger.
B, your thoughts mirror almost exactly what Sojo's Wallis wrote in his book "God's Politics : Why the Right Gets It Wrong and the Left Doesn't Get It." I barely skimmed through most of the book, but his chapter on gay marriage was very good.
Yeah, A.C. it turns out my dad doesn't believe you have three other wives and so if I'm going to be your primary wife, he says that I'm actually worth at least 14 cows from your dad.
As much as I'm finally glad that my dad recognizes my worth to this family, I'm thinking that you might be better off going for one of those revolutionary young upstart marriages based on "love."
I know it's a little rebellious and goes against thousands of years of accepted marriage tradition, but I think you'd be happier.
Post a Comment
<< Home