reply to post by Janky Red
The funny thing about complexity is that I believe it is a creation made by us. The universe may seem to be complex to some people, but I suspect
that the universe is really very simple, and whatever complexities we perceive are simply just those things we don't understand. The same with the
human genome. It may seem complex, but I suspect it is really very simple, and whatever complexities we perceive is that which we do not understand.
I often find that finding answers to problems are best found by simplifying the complexity of the problem. Break down that problem to its simplest
terms. In terms of gay marriage, it seems to me the problem is licensing schemes. In fairness to government, it appears that licensing schemes
existed before The United States did regarding marriage, and it appears that George Washington had a license to marry Martha. Some one once told me
that the history of licensing schemes began with masignation, (sp), of which I have tried to research, but either I am remembering the term
incorrectly, or he was full of it.
As he claimed masignation was the crime of marrying a slave. It was illegal to marry your slave, but slave owners began lobbying for licenses to
marry, and this is how the whole licensing scheme began. In searching for this on the internet, I have never been able to corroborate this story, but
this is how I learned that George Washington had a license to marry Martha, so the whole masignation claim seems to be a crock of...
Regardless of the history of the marriage licensing scheme, under our Constitution, it is dubious that such as scheme is legally viable. It is
arguable that marriage is a right, and protected under the 9th Amendment which extends to each state since the passage of the 14th Amendment.
Marriage does not cause any demonstrable harm, even if spousal abuse exists, it is not demonstrably so because of marriage itself.
The whole argument that marriage is solely a covenant between man and woman is not supported by the etymology of the word, which is from the Latin
, or maritatre
, which means to wed, marry, or to give in marriage. To wed means to pledge, or make a covenant, and is an
Old English word that comes from a Germanic origin of wadjojanan, or a derivation of that which is; wadh, and this seems to be rooted in the Latin
version, which is vas, or vadis, which means bond, or security. No where in this etymology is there a distinction made about a man and a woman and
Subjectively speaking, the only reason I want to marry is for the purpose of having and raising children with my soul mate. I would like to think
that this family planning would be done the old fashioned way with some good old fashioned sex, and my wife gets pregnant from my sperm. However, not
all men can impregnate a woman, and some have to rely on other means in order to have a family. Conversely, not all woman can be impregnated, and
then adoption becomes about the only viable option, failing any new technology that would accommodate that. My point with this, is that this
standard view that marriage means the bond between a man and a woman for the purposes of propagation gets muddied up quite a bit, when fertility
therapies and adoptions are brought into the mix.
Should gay people be allowed to adopt? Well, they are now, and ironically are allowed to adopt, but not allowed to be married. How stupid is that?
Subjectively speaking, I am not so sure how good it is for a child to be deprived of a maternal, or paternal influence, and under gay parents, it is
arguable such a deprivation would exist. Objectively speaking, divorce is quite common in these modern times, and too often a child borne of
heterosexual parents winds up being deprived of either a paternal, or maternal influence. There is also the matter of widows and widowers.
Subjectively speaking, I get uncomfortable with "gay issues" and would rather not have to think about people in that way. I do not care if Tom
Cruise is "really gay" or not, and would prefer to not have to think about him in this way when watching Mission Impossible. I do not know why I
should have to identify with myself by my heterosexuality, and I do not understand why gay people identify with homosexuality. Then again, I don't
wake up every day and think to myself; "Hey! I'm white!" and don't understand why African-Americans should have to wake up every day and think to
themselves; "Hey! I'm black."
Further, this whole gay issue has brought about some wacky political correctness, and I all too often hear someone who enters the discussion of "gay
issues" open with the qualification; "As a proud parent of a gay son", or "As the proud parent of a gay daughter", and every time I hear this I
find the language of that kind of odd. Do they mean by proud parent of a gay son that they raised their son to be gay, and are proud to say he is
what they raised him to be? Of course not! What they mean is, my son is gay, and I am just as proud of him as I would be if he were not gay. I
suppose it is easier to say "As a proud parent of a gay son", but it begs the question.
Honestly Janky, I get uncomfortable when heterosexual men feel compelled to share their exploits with women. I do not want to have to hear this
stuff. I mean, I suppose every now and then it is fine, but as a standard point of discussion, I find it puerile and limiting. This holds equally
true with homosexual men who feel compelled to talk, (incessantly if you ask me), about their sexual escapades. I am a little more tolerant of girl
on girl stories, but...well...never mind.
Regardless of my own prudish nature, the right to marry seems to be a fundamental right between two people, or even if your Mormon, I would suggest
that this religious belief trumps any law that say's polygamy is illegal. Although, since it is the religious belief that trumps polygamy laws, I
would think here is where a licensing scheme becomes appropriate, but to license a bond between two people, regardless of their gender? I just don't
see that as having any legal validity. People have the right to contract. A marriage is just that, a contract. I think it is a sacred contract,
but this is my estimation of marriage, and based on the etymology of the word, objectively speaking, marriage does not necessarily have to be sacred,
and could be just a business arrangement. Indeed, throughout history arranged marriages seem to be more of a business nature, than of a sacred bond
between two people. Ironically, arranged marriages seem to have lower divorce rates than "sacred bonds", so what do I know?
In terms of complex problems being broken down to their simplest parts, if the government would just butt the hell out of marriage, then this whole
issue of gay people getting married is moot. I mean, there are always people who will voice their opinions on the matter, and those who don't like
the idea will say so, but they couldn't spend millions of dollars on political campaigns just to prevent it. Also, on a purely health related issue,
and speaking to the general welfare of the state or nation, in the advent of AIDS, it seems to me, that gay people getting married is a damn good
idea, and one would hope that this marriage encourages some fidelity, and that the sex they have is under carnal knowledge. This would be best for
the nation, or state. But...what the hell do I know?
Separation of church and state? Try to find a church that will marry you without you first obtaining a license from the city in which you marry. How
the hell is that a separation of church and state? Of course, there is no Constitutional mandate of separation of church and state, and this is what
makes 501c3's legal. Separation of church and state my ass! You sure as hell won't hear Wukky bemoaning the cozy relationship between church and
state when it comes to the IRS, or licensing schemes, I'll tell you that much.
I want us all to be free, and to accept responsibility for our own actions, and if we all did this, then what need would we really have for
government? Very little and this would surely allow for the limited government I am constantly advocating. I do not think I am asking too much that
we all accept responsibility for our own actions, unless, of course, it is my turn to do the dishes, or make my bed, or put the toilet seat
down...Sigh. A true warrior poet accepts full responsibility for their actions, even when it comes to putting the toilet seat down, because in my
world, the only real authority comes from the woman I love. If this would be the same in a gay marriage, then what the hell is wrong with that?