Monday, June 05, 2006

Not In Defense Of Marriage

Iraq is burning. An energy crisis is looming. Healthcare costs remain untenable. The country's fiscal policy is so counterintuitive (and severely flawed), it is almost amusing. Almost. So, today Bush decided to tackle these problems by pushing for a constitutional ban on gay marriage.

Here is my view on gay marriage: I am against it. That is because I am against all state-sanctioned "marriage." Our country supposedly separates church and state, but religious figures are empowered to create an institution with significant social consequences. Everyone, gay, straight, whatever, should enter into civil unions if it makes sense to them.

Everything became screwed up when a socio-religious institution (marriage) was melded into the state. We took a religious instatution and transformed it into a social contract. Yet, your socio-religious bent determines who you think should be "married." (Or, in my case, some terrible lapses in judgment). Consequently, who should be married and to whom is a relative notion. And hence the red herring-laden "debate" about the "defense of marriage."

Objectively speaking, why does the state need to recognize "marriage?" To determine certain property rights? To empower a partner to make health decisions for another partner? What else? Really. It is of minimal objective value.

The other rights married people have been created by the state to sanction relationships. Tax reasons? Why is that, in the abstract, necessary or fair? Frankly, I don't know why we give tax breaks to people who have kids. Why should my portion of the national tax burden be determined by a choice to have x number of kids? Do I really need to be married to purchase property with a spouse? Why does some woman need my last name? To raise kids? Please. How many male-female households do you know that are NOT fucked up? Help me here.

There really is no reason for even civil unions except to facilitate certain limited social transactions (see above). Otherwise, the state doesn't need to be involved with relationships. If you want to get married, go to your church or synagogue or mosque and have at it. But, it should have no more social significance as, say, a baptism. No reason for that institution to have a direct nexus with any state apparatus. No reason for it to have any social meaning or impact on my life.


Blogger Earl Cootie said...

You know, this has always been my view, too, but I never speak out on it, since everyone already knows that part of my agenda is to destroy traditional marriage.

12:50 AM  
Blogger Joseph K said...

Bro, you are destroying nothing. Traditional marriage is a complete fiction.

9:45 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home