Lower the portcullis. The homosexuals are laying siege to our venerable institutions again:
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court has cleared the way for lesbian and gay couples in the state to marry, ruling Tuesday that government attorneys "failed to identify any constitutionally adequate reason" to deny them the right.
Reaction to the news was swift from all the the expected quarters:
Rep. Walter Jones, R-N.C., called the Massachusetts decision "just one more assault on the Judeo-Christian values of our nation."
That's some progress, I suppose. Thirty years ago he probably wouldn't have said the "Judeo-" part.
Meanwhile, across the pond, the President took time from his busy schedule dodging protestors to chime in:
"Marriage is a sacred institution between a man and a woman," he said. "Today's decision ... violates this important principle. I will work with congressional leaders and others to do what is legally necessary to defend the sanctity of marriage."
Too late. Where were the guardians of decency when it became acceptable for a guy at a convention in Vegas to take "Sapphire" from the Cheetah Club to a drive-in chapel and say their vows in front of Fat Elvis? Where's the outrage over letting any doofus with a mail-in ordainment certificate (ahem) perform marriage ceremonies? In 1998, a convicted felon and self-proclaimed messiah married 1500 couples in Madison Square Garden, but someone was getting a blow job in the White House, so apparently the moral watchdogs were a bit distracted.
Then there's this excerpt from the proposed "Protection of Marriage Amendment" to the Massachusetts Constitution:
"It being the public policy of this Commonwealth to protect the unique relationship of marriage in order to promote, among other goals, the stability and welfare of society and the best interests of children, only the union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Massachusetts."
If marriage is so crucial to the "stability and welfare of society" then criminalize divorce. Half the couples getting married are ultimately going to harm society by splitting up, so don't let them. Especially if you're thinking of the children.
That Vermont went through a similar situation in 1999 and ended up passing a civil union law proves once again that this debate has nothing to do with rights and benefits and everything to do with the umbrage taken by certain individuals at the temerity of those filthy sodomites who want to call themselves "married." Two guys referring to each other as "husband and husband" won't take away from the legitimacy of my hetero union any more than online divorce does. Rep. Jones and his ilk should channel their righteous indignation into something useful, like sending angry e-mails to CBS protesting the cancellation "Touched by an Angel."
As near as I can tell from the arguments in favor of the prohibition in the case, the legislature would be best served criminalizing natural childbirth - it seems like that's what's really dangerous. It's alright for gays to raise adopted children, because there will be case-by-case oversight to make sure they are capable parents; but since heterosexual couples have the loaded gun of natural childbirth at their disposal, we need to encourage them to marry so we at least have two subliterate morons raising any given child.
The same right-wing christian lunitics who want to protect the sanctity of marriage and oppose "divorce" are the first ones in line for an "annulment."
And don't even get me started on how legitimizing gay marriage under the Internal Revenue Code would raise tons of money by basically taxing homosexuality. And since the "Code" already taxes heterosexual marraiges in a punitive manner through various Code sections that treat married couples differently (the so-called "marriage penalty tax), the Code is actually set up to favor gay couples. Kind of the opposite of what these hypocrits say they stand for, if you ask me.
Or what about the legal insulation gays are provided by not being married. If my wife runs some kid over, the plaintiffs can come after me and take my stuff, in addition to hers. Not so in a gay relationship.
The list goes on and on. Alimoney, child support, life insurance premiums, bankruptcies, lottery winnings, medical consent forms, etc.
When it comes right down to it, anyone who isn't willing to legitamize gay marriages has prioritized their personal view of sexual morality over fiscal conservatism or fundamental notions of treating all citzens fairly. I guess people can do that if they want to. I'm just surprised there are so many.
Honestly, the idea of another guys cock up my ass (or vice versa) is pretty offensive. But I'll be damned if I let anyone tell me and my wife what we can do in the privacy of our bedroom, so I sort of have to afford everyone else the same right. That everybody doesn't get that blows my mind.
I don't think churches (or any religious establishment) should be forced to legitimize or perform gay marraiges. That's their business. But there is a compromise; if the government were to allow "civil unions" with all the same legal rights and responsibilities as marriage, then the "sanctity" of marriage has been preserved, but the social inequities of a monogomous, comitted gay couple being treated differently (in both beneficial and discriminitory ways) would be eliminated.
Well, I have actually been in favor (I know this will sound rather harsh, but oh well) of an exam before you have children. One that covers up to rudimentary Algebra, basic ideas of economics, philosophy, history, literacy, reading comprehension, basic accounting, physical science. Passing with more than a "C" would give you a license to then see a certified counselor who will review if you are actually ready. Failure to do this and having babies outside of the process will result in jail time and the child immediately being placed as a ward of the State.
Horrible, yes. But perhaps we can scare the hell out of people.
Since when are edumacated people better parents than anybody else? As a prole, I object!
On average, educated people have more resources which, from what I hear, can be useful when raising a child. Plus, there is probably some corelation between education (*usually* resulting in learning stuff) and the depth and bredth of the knowledge base from which: (1) a parent has to draw from when raising a child; and (2) a parent has available to pass on to a child.
No one said you have to be educated to be a good parent. I know plenty of "educated" people that I'm hoping never reproduce. However, almost all the impoverished - and largely uneducated - parents I know aren't very good at parenting. My wife sees the same thing at her birth center and baby clinics. Statisticly speaking, the uneducated parents - for a multitude of reasons - generally don't have their shit together nearly as well as those who graduated from high school and/or college.
Here here, I agree. Remmeber, corollation doesn't emply casaulity. Maybe theirs some underlying facter which causes both the poor education and the poor parinting.
I'm home schooling my kids. From orbit. It's the only way to be sure.
I'm home schooling my kids. From orbit.--Sneaky Pete
"Alright, kids, stand up and face the monitor, put your left hands over your lung and repeat after me.
"I pledge allegiance to my Dad, and the United Satellites of Erotica, and to whatever it is for which he stands, on station, over dogs, with liberty and shore-leave for all."
"That's a fact, Jack."
"OK, siddown you little bastards. OK, history, wasn't it? Right, last week we covered how weapons system superiority allowed the Star League to defeat the numerically more powerful Xur and the Ko-Dan Alliance. Today we're going to go over the advantages of Gungacide and the failure of the Trade Federation to rid the Old Republic of this menace and the how that led to the fall.
"Any of you kneebiters still paying attention? Good. Daddy drinks because you cry. Don't forget that. If you're good, you won't have to scrape the space barnacles off the satellite this weekend. We'll let 'em build up for Mother's day."
I'm right there with ya.
For my part, I don't really care if you want to marry a fencepost. It doesn't involve me.
I'm trying to figure out how to get government out of marriage altogether.
First, the government have to do some, OK a lot, of tax code re-writes. Fine. Just have the income tax be per household. Household filing singly, household filing jointly. You get the idea.
Let the insurance and retirement savings companies let you define your beneficiaries (sp?) without the autmatic default to "spouse".
Same with social security. Which won't cover more than my monthly beer budget once the Boomers are through with it.
Hospital visitation still has me stumped, but maybe you could have something pre-defined on you driver's lisence.
I just don't see why the government feels it's need to involve itself in something so intimate.
Pete will someday be free to pursue his feelings and change his last name to Hannity.