Frankly, I'm sick of gays, specifically I'm sick of gay activists. But, if states pass gay marriage laws, they should do so through their legislatures, as was done in Connecticut and Massachusetts, and as recently done in Vermont, where it passed by such a wide margin it might well win the four extra votes needed to override a promised gubernatorial veto. There it would seem to be the will of the people at work-at least arguably. You can't make that case over recent events in Iowa, where the Iowa State Supreme Court declared that the law describing marriage as a union of one man and one woman was a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Iowa constitution-which also is, by the way, a bullshit law.
Government has no business involved in marriage, at least not at the federal level, and neither should religion. Marriage should be a private contract between two individuals that can be either civil or religious in nature according to the desires of the participants. In both cases state and local governments have the right to step in as arbitrators and mediators of disputes, and in custody and property settlements, but they don't have the right to further regulate marriage as an institution, nor do churches. With the exception of laws against underage marriages or multiple marriages, they should both stay out of it. It is and should remain a private matter between two consenting adults.
Whether those two adults are same-sex or opposite sex, I could care less. I mean that too. Technically I don't have a problem with two men or two women marrying each other. I honestly do not give a shit. Be that as it may, forgive me if I am not inclined to jump up and down in celebration over the supposed "victory" of a group of people that seem to be against most of the things that I'm for and in favor of most of the things that I'm against. I think I'll pass on the celebrations, just like I'll sit it out when there's the inevitable National Gay Holiday somewhere down the line. I mean, don't misunderstand me, I get it-all gay people are good, kind-hearted people who are all loving and positive. Don't believe me? Hell, watch any television show with a gay character and you can see it for yourself. I guarantee you that you will never see an evil gay character. One can only assume that, since Hollywood puts such great emphasis on social realism-evil gay people do not exist. Oh, they might be uppity, persnickety, testy at times, and some of them can certainly be drama queens. Oh yes, all those old stereotypes are there. No "bad guys" though, unless you count prison rapists such as Prison Breaks Theodore Bagwell-and even he seems to want to change these days.
In real life you have the numerous examples of Catholic Priest pedophiles, most of whom are seemingly attracted to young boys, in some cases young boys who are prepubescent. Oh, but don't get the wrong idea-these priests are not gay (wink, wink), at least not according to gay activists-who nevertheless seem quite at the loss to explain just what the fuck else they could be.
Mainly, I'm not just sick of gays, I'm sick of everything and everybody these days. Everybody's got a bitch and an axe to grind, and if you know how to game the political system, and you are patient enough and loud enough, you can buy enough politicians and judges to do your bidding. Gays are no worse than anybody else when it comes down to it, though in a sense they might be better than most. We seem to be trending towards a time when the United States Supreme Court will in all probability decide that restrictions in state laws against homosexual marriage are unconstitutional according to the Equal Protection Clause of the US Constitution.
When it happens, so be it. While I will not by any stretch be deliriously happy about it, neither will I really be that badly upset by it.
I'll even take it a step further. On that day when gay marriage becomes a recognized constitutional right, I will wish participants in gay marriages no more or no less than all the happiness and success of your typical heterosexual marriage. They deserve it.
6 comments:
South Park portrayed a gay abusive parent.
I'm surprised I didn't know about that, and very surprised if the show didn't catch hell over it. Of course nobody takes South Park seriously. On the other hand, how anybody can take any of this shit seriously is beyond me. To hear Hollywood tell it, gay relationships supposedly set the bar for healthy, loving, happy, and lasting relationships, and naturally everybody that sees their version is supposed to believe that shit.
So, why don't you turn off the television set and go spend time with actual gay people? It could be my circles, but most of the gays I know don't exactly oppose everything you seem to believe. It sounds like you're not talking about actual people, but what you've seen in shitty television shows and movies. Don't let bad media be an excuse to avoid real people. There are plenty of gays who are sick of overreaching state bureaucracy- in fact, that's part of what's behind all of this.
As for the law, I agree that the state shouldn't be in the business of licensing marriages in the first place. But, since they are, their saying that gay couples can't be legally wed is as stupid as saying that gay fishermen can't get a fishing license. It's just pandering to one group's religious beliefs in a secular state. There are a lot of stupid laws, frankly, and I'm fine with people agitating about them, even if it is annoying to the status quo mentality.
Also, you get money back from your taxes for being married. Having spent the last four years trying to convince the US government to give me my money because they don't understand that I really am married to a Canadian citizen (hence no social security number), I'm frankly really sympathetic to people who want state bureaucrats to shut the fuck up and accept that they really are married.
I have met plenty of real gay people, that's exactly why I'm sick of the media promotion of them, which is its own kind of stereotyping, a very unrealistic kind of stereotyping at that. I know its not real, that's just the point I was trying to make.
Would it kill them to portray some actual evil gay people every now and then? Hell, at this point I'd settle for a few that were just so-so. To hear Hollywood tell it, all that is necessary is for gay people to come out of the closet and whatever real problems they ever had will magically disappear, and their lives will be roses from that point on, because they all seem to be such good people.
As for the stuff they for the most part (not all, I know that) seem to be for or against, that's fine, they have that right, but then again, they can't expect me to get all that worked up wanting to vote for the people that tend to support them when I know pretty much what the unintended consequences will be in so many other areas.
Basically, what it all boils down to, is in the grand scheme of things, they make up a very small, almost minuscule portion of people's political thought processes. Its not all about them, however much they might want it to be so, and it would help them a great deal if they would reach out in positive ways to the "homophobic" "gun nuts" and "Bible-thumpers" of the world. You know, the people they tend to stereotype.
Seriously, gay marriage issues don't impact elections that are any further apart than a two-point polling spread. That should tell you pretty much how important this is with the majority of Americans, and when times are bad (or good, depending on the party in power), they're not even that important.
Also, by the way, I don't particularly think anyone should get a tax break for being married, not when there are no children involved, unless one of the parties is not employed, but that's beside the point anyway. As I said, I don't care one way or another whether they get married, I just get sick of heating all the drama about it, and I especially don't like judges making decisions against the will of the people, who in some cases might have some very legitimate reasons for not wanting to rush into this thing blindfolded.
Again, if the people, or state legislatures vote for it (as has happened in some states, as I pointed out) I'm completely cool with it. I still get sick of hearing about it, but fine with it nevertheless.
At one time in the long-ago, gay people were *always* portrayed in the media as criminals, child molestors, sick individuals, or pathetic souls just biding time until their inevitable suicide or murder. Even as late as 1985 when An Early Frost aired on ABC TV, a network censor wanted the gay protagonist's lover to be portrayed as evil so that there wouldn't be a positive representation of a gay relationship on TV. That the tide has finally turned should be celebrated, not castigated. There are still many less positive portrayals of gays in the media. You need look no further than Party Monster (murderers), Another Country (traitors and spies), and Queer As Folk (drug addicts) to see examples of this. Btw, if you are disgusted about the coverup of pedophile Catholic priests, my advice would be to place the blame where it belongs - on the Catholic Church that enabled these events to take place and covered them up - and not on the media or the gay community.
I find the libertarian argument against gay marriage to be specious. One may well argue that the government has no business inserting itself into the mechanics of marriage, yet the fact of the matter is that it IS in that business because of the civil functions associated with marriage, i.e., the contractual issues that would still have to be handled dealing with property rights, inheritance, hospital visitation, insurance, childcare, etc. I would argue, rather, that it is religion that has no place in the business of marriage, given that marriage as far as the government is concerned is only a function of all of these contractual issues which have nothing whatsoever to do with religion.
Blessings,
Garan du
I forgot about Queer As Folk. That's cable television, though, commercial network television still has a way to go, and I'm sick of the way they try to insult people's intelligence over this issue. They are pushing their own preferred stereotype, out of the assumption that people are so easily manipulated and weak-minded they can be "taught" their preferred version of the "reality" of homosexual life.
How gays used to be portrayed thirty or forty years ago is irrelevant. We are living today, not back then, and do not deserve to be preached at or lied to. Ironically, they are actually hurting their cause, because frankly I'm not the only one that calls bullshit on this. A realistic portrayal of not just gays but of any group would do more to advance their cause than the bullshit which is counter-productive.
But then again, this is another perfect example of how a group of people who look down their noses at the rest of us are in reality dumber than a box of fucking rocks themselves. That should be cause for concern, seeing as how these people tend to exert a greater influence on not just culture, but indirectly even public policy, than the majority of us Joe Schmoes they consider to be so stupid they can convince us its just raining while they're pissing on us all.
As for the legitimacy of government involvement in marriage due to contract law, custody issues, etc., I'm not sure why you brought that up, because I said as much myself in the post. My concern is the influence of the judiciary and its drive to subvert the will of the people, even as expressed at times through their legislatures. So Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Vermont have passed laws legalizing gay marriage-big whoop, if that's what the people want, so be it. I don't know how to make myself any clearer.
Judges arbitrarily deciding the people's vote counts for nothing, however, is a different matter.
It's just one more step toward the US federal government and/or its Supreme Court exerting its will over the states, and over the people that comprise the individual states, in a matter that has traditionally been the prerogative of states and local communities. Just another encroachment, in other words, on state sovereignty.
And for what? For an issue that is relatively unimportant by comparison. I would feel the same way, and did feel the same way, when conservative activists wanted to push the Defense of Marriage Law, or if they wanted to declare homosexuality a federal crime. As far as I'm concerned, its no difference, just another blatant example of the federal government or a judiciary thwarting the will of the people in a matter that is not or should not be the concern of the feds, but is and should remain the domain of state governments.
Hasn't the fucking federal government and/or the courts taken enough power away from the states? Where in the hell does it end, with a federal agency in every town charged with the responsibility to insure that we're all kind to each other?
Post a Comment