Sunday, June 29, 2008

Coming Soon, By Order Of The California Supreme Court

"Good morning. We want to apply for a marriage license."
"Tim and Jim Jones."
"Jones? Are you related? I see a resemblance."
"Yes, we're brothers."
"Brothers? You can't get married."
"Why not? Aren't you giving marriage licenses to same gender couples?"
"Yes, thousands. But we haven't had any siblings. That's incest!"
"Incest? No, we are not gay."
"Not gay? Then why do you want to get married?"
"For the financial benefits, of course. And we do love each other. Besides, we don't have any other prospects."
"But we're issuing marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples who've been denied equal protection under the law. If you are not gay, you can get married to a woman."
"Wait a minute. A gay man has the same right to marry a woman as I have. But just because I'm straight doesn't mean I want to marry a woman. I want to marry Jim."
"And I want to marry Tim, Are you going to discriminate against us just because we are not gay?"
"All right, all right. I'll give you your license. Next."
"Hi. We are here to get married."
"John Smith, Jane James, Robert Green, and June Johnson."
"Who wants to marry whom?"
"We all want to marry each other."
"But there are four of you!"
"That's right. You see, we're all bisexual. I love Jane and Robert, Jane loves me and June, June loves Robert and Jane, and Robert loves June and me. All of us getting married together is the only way that we can express our sexual preferences in a marital relationship."
"But we've only been granting licenses to gay and lesbian couples."
"So you're discriminating against bisexuals!"
"No, it's just that, well, the traditional idea of marriage is that it's just for couples."
"Since when are you standing on tradition?"
"Well, I mean, you have to draw the line somewhere."
"Who says? There's no logical reason to limit marriage to couples.The more the better. Besides, we demand our rights! The mayor says the constitution guarantees equal protection under the law. Give us a marriage license!"
"All right, all right. Next."
"Hello, I'd like a marriage license."
"In what names?"
"David Deets.""And the other man?"
"That's all. I want to marry myself."
"Marry yourself? What do you mean?"
"Well, my psychiatrist says I have a dual personality, so I want to marry the two together. Maybe I can file a joint income-tax return."
"That does it! I quit!! You people are making a mockery of marriage!!"


Kristopher said...

I see your point and I got this email today as well.

Like I stated before, I can't support the idea of homosexuals getting "married." I don't find it to be an acceptable lifestyle, alternative or otherwise. I know I stated before that two hot chicks going at it is sexy, but I'm a pervert too.

Anyway, there does have to be a line in the sand that isn't supposed to be crossed. People getting into homosexual relationships knew beforehand that:

1) They would not be completely welcomed by society.

2) They would not be able to get married.

3) Whatever else I may have left out.

Whether or not being sexually attracted to a member of the same sex is a choice or not is irrelevant. Having sex with someone of the same gender and further having a relationship with that person is most certainly a choice. No one is forcing you to have sex with anyone or have a relationship with anyone.

Be that as it may, consenting adults are free to do as they please. They do have to be willing to take what comes with it.

This, however, leads to whether or not this is a civil rights' violation of some sort. I do not see how that would be since those who practice whatever they practice are still free to marry so long as they marry someone of the opposite gender.

Sexual orientation cannot be equated to race or gender. Being born to a certain so-called "ethnic group" is much different than later choosing to live a certain way. Again, perhaps one cannot stop being homosexual, heterosexual, bisexual or whatever. That isn't to say that as human beings who make choices everyday aren't capable of making choices about whether or not they are going to give into their desires.

For example, I have been married for thirteen years. I got married at 20 years old. I was a fresh-out-of-boot-camp Marine. I basically had two things on my mind: drinking and screwing.

I did give in to carnal desires, albeit the heterosexual type. I should not have done so and I stopped and later reconciled that which was the most horrible thing to do against anyone, especially someone you love and vowed to grow old together.

If I had my druthers, and if there were no consequences to my actions in this life or the next, I would be having crazy sex with any hot, big-breasted woman who would be willing. Granted, it would probably only be the greatest thirty seconds of each lady's life, but that's okay with me.

But, since I don't want to hurt my wife any more than I had as a young idiot and since I don't want to lose my children or wreck further havoc on the hopeful grace on my soul in the afterlife, I don't give in to such desires. Trust me, my wife has got some really hot friends who I know just want a piece of a 5'8" 220 lbs. love machine, :p. Heck, I'm so hot I can barely keep my hands off myself.

Okay, I think I'm rambling in circles now. To summarize, I cannot condone nor condemn that which CONSENTING ADULTS do. I'm no saint either. However, gay marriage does begin to cross a line and while I won't have a problem with it should the government make it legal, I still believe that marriage is an institution created by God.

That is all.


Mark Heuring said...

Hard to argue the point you're making, Gino. Once you establish that marriage isn't about the formation of families and the proper upbringing of children, you might as well let anyone get married, in whatever configuration they desire.

Those polygamist folks down in San Angelo, Texas should think about moving out to Cali, no?

Gino said...

kris: you crack me up. :)

mark: this email did pretty much some up my points, or at least a few of them.
calling a same gender relationship a marriage is akin to calling a cat a dog.

but... for most of my life, up to today, i do belive the govt should sanction polygamy for those whose religion permits such. its just a first ammendment thing with me.

Jade said...


"Whether or not being sexually attracted to a member of the same sex is a choice or not is irrelevant."
"Sexual orientation cannot be equated to race or gender. Being born to a certain so-called "ethnic group" is much different than later choosing to live a certain way."

You've contradicted yourself here... if your belief that it's a choice is irrelevent, you can't use your logic that it's a choice in your argument.

Mark: Marriage isn't about the formation of families, per se... it's about comitting yourself to a life partner. There are plenty of heterosexual couples who don't want to have kids, but they are still getting married because they want to declair their devotion to each other in their way.

Gino: I have yet to understand why the semantics of the word are so darned important to either side of this argument. If the legal rights that homosexual couples have under the "civil unions" are exactly the same as they would be under a "marriage" - why is the one particular word so important? Conversely... one of the definitions of the word "marriage" is "any close or intimate association or union". - so what's the problem with homosexual couples using that word to define their relationship?

Gino said...

jade: not all definitions of a word are interchangable with every use of said word.

marriage, in the context of what we are speaking about, has always meant a man-women thing. its about the sexual acts assumed to take place within the relationship a lot more than it is about love/devotion/etc.
and same sex partners cannot engage in these same acts.

"any close or intimate association or union": by this standard of application, you and i and everybody who converses on this page are married. it all depends on how you want to water down the terms to fit your standards of acceptance.

Kristopher said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Brian said...

Gino, why do you care how anyone other than the Catholic Church defines "marriage"?

What particular strip of skin is coming off your back as a result of California's policies? If you are worried about some sort of "benefits" that are somehow coming out of your pocketbook, then what you should be arguing for is complete disengagement of the state from marriage business. In which case I would agree with you entirely.

Vanesa Littlecrow W. said...

Men wanted government-sanctioned ownership of women. Women wanted easier methods of divorce that were recognized by the government rather than the church. What they got is civil marriage.

As with all socialist government institutions, civil marriage is nothing but a scheme to redistribute property and wealth, that happens to suck. One might not like someone else's definition of marriage, depending on belief system, but that's a private matter. I want to poke my eyeballs out anytime the government takes over religion and/or private enterprise.

Marriage belongs in church. If someone doesn't like that church's idea of marriage, then why not just switch religions?

Oh that's right... everybody loves the dole.

tully said...

I can't wait 'til Act II. You're a regular Oscar Wilde. (who, by the way, was gay but married a woman).

Bike Bubba said...

What matters about how government uses (or abuses) marriage is the central interest government has; what happens when a marriage fails? How do you make sure the man doesn't just leave and let his wife and children starve?

Hence, family law--and it's predicated on, ahem, "children" and the weaker status of women and children.

Which is why it's not just a Catholic (or Baptist in my case) issue, and it's certainly not about the government telling people they may or may not fall in love with or make love to (make lust to?). It's about the protection of the innocent and weak, which is why the Kahleefornia case is such a travesty.

Brian said...

bubba--I am married and have no interest in having children. My wife has more degrees than I do. What is the state's interest there?

Brian said...

More to the on earth does broadening the scope of marriage law in any way undermine the "protection of the innocent and weak" allegedly afforded by it?

Gino said...

brian: you are an exception to the standard. and you know that. marriage law wasnt created for you, but its there anyway, just in case. besides, contraceptives fail.

dont know about NC, but here in CA, and in many other states, should your wife get pregnant, that baby is yours by law (even if it isnt), and you will be expected to provide for it, and her, whether you like it or not.

but, to get back to your original straw man attack on me: first respond to what i said. refute, or vainly attempt to.
you're a biology guy. can we just declare cats to be dogs because we want to? can we just ignore biological differences and call everything by the same name just because a judge said so?

whall said...

This was brilliantly written and adequately expresses that which had not been defined very well up to this point: the slippery slope.

Brian said...

Gino, I have no idea what you want me to refute. You told a story that reads like an absurdist criticism of the state being involved in marriage at all. And to this extent, as I already said...I would agree with that.

I didn't attack you, I asked you two questions:

1) Why do you care?
2) How are you (or how is anyone, if you prefer) harmed by an evolving definition of "marriage" on the part of the state?

That I am exceptional (even though I'm not, really) doesn't render my point merely shows the weakness in your position. If marriage really is all about procreation, then there is no more reason for the state to sanction the union of an infertile or voluntarily non-reproducing couple than there is a homosexual couple. So why aren't you arguing for limiting legal marriage to reproducing couples?

Bike Bubba said...

Brian, for starters, sex bonds the woman to her man, physiologically. See Miriam Grossman's books for reference on this from a psychological perspective. Even if kids are not involved, there is a weaker vessel.

Moreover, your exception does not disprove the general rule; that when boy meets girl, boy marries girl, and boy makes love to girl, little boys and girls generally tend to come along. Marriage law simply accepts the general rule and provides for the usual outcome.

To formulate marriage law in terms merely of the desire to copulate, but without acknowledging the ordinary results thereof, prevents courts from applying it correctly to protect those who are weaker vessels. It's a huge deal.

Brian said...

OK, so why offer the legal institution of marriage to any couple that can't (or won't) reproduce? Nobody has answered this...

Gino said...

brian: its not just the sexual possibility for reproduction. its also about the joining together different but complimentary genders to make a more complete whole.
men and women were not created equal. they are created different.
and the differences are more than a matter of outward appearance.

if two dudes want to join together, that is fine with me. but dont call it the same thing.
it isnt.

i think it strange that a libertarian anti-stater such as yourself will allow the state to redefine an ages old social institution, and force this change upon an unwilling populace.

the state never created marriage in the first place. societies did, out of free will and real world experiences as an answer to real life issues.
the role of the state has merely been to recognize and codify what societies have already implemented themselves.
now the state wants to reverse that order by fiat, and you are OK with that?

this is ultimate big govt at work.
as an anti-stater myself, my question is: who is suppose to be serving who?

should govt stem from the values of society, or should society be a creation of govt?

does your dog wag its own tail?

TO ALL SELF-AFFIRMING LIBERTARIANS:i think it would be a great day (and a pipe dream) when govt gets out of the marriage business, but libertarians offering up this solution to the same sex marriage debate are cowards, for this is not the issue.
the issue is expanding the definition, not eliminating it from govt. and elimination is not going to happen.
as long as men ditch their kids and women, society will insist upon enforcement of responsibility. govt involved marriage is here to stay.
now, deal with the real issue instead of offering up boilerplate.

Bike Bubba said...

You offer marriage to those who by virtue of being of opposite sex and unrelated bear a high likelihood of being able to reproduce, Brian, and whose legitimate heterosexual copulation will "bond" the woman to the man.

Not that complicated, really.

Gino said...

so, according to bubba, two old people shouldnt be allowed to marry.
oh, and me and blondie will have to get annulled because she had a hysterectomy before we married.
damn... i knew there something wrong with this marriage.

tully said...

The clearest message one can take from this illustration is that gay marriage is not about homosexuality, but about marriage. That being said, I am more convinced that the value of marriage is purely instrumental to the individual's use toward his and his family's happiness. THAT being said, if you're letting marriage benefits, certifications and other people's opinions affect your happiness, your problem is that you don't appreciate how potently these things stink of bullshit- they are not real! This goes equally to those trying to protect the sanctity of marriage. It's like confusing the foundation of a building (happiness) for a hammer that was used to build it.

Let us maintain that marriage as discussed in politics is the lowest level of bureaucracy, and consequently the quaintest.

Uncle Ben said...

I don't think that the gay marriage issue is about marriage at all or equal rights for that matter. It is about forcing the rest of the population to not only tolerate homosexuality (which I think we must do), but call it 'just as good' as traditional relationships. It is an attempt to change people's thoughts by coercion. I cringe when Brian says that it doesn't affect any of us. Of course it does. Don't you know that folks in Scandanavia, Britain and Canada are being harassed and even imprisoned for calling homosexuality wrong?

The gay marriage issue is actually about whether or not thought crimes will just be in sci-fi books or whether they will be in our law books.

Brian said...

ok--quick points:

Gino--I'm not so much anti-state as pro-liberty. Generally, the two impulses coincide, but not always. This may be an example of that, but I don't think it has to be. For me, this boils down to an equal protection issue, and not much else.

Bubba--my real point with all of my question begging is that there are other functions for marriage besides reproduction (or the probability thereof). I think you stand alone here in not acknowledging that. Your point on pair bonding is fine, but unless you are a gay man or lesbian you have absolutely no way of knowing whether or not the same kind of thing can happen in a same-sex couple. But there is plenty of anecdotal evidence (like, I don't people wanting to get married) that strongly suggests that it does.

Ben--I think you are conflating tolerance with acceptance. No one is trying make you like Project Runway or wear capri pants, fer cryin' out loud. And yes, the "hate speech" laws in the countries you mention are terrible, but none of those countries have the rock-solid legal foundation of free speech that we have (not only the 1st Am., but two centuries of jurisprudence affirming it.) Note that 44 years after the Civil Rights Act, you can still be a bigoted asshole in public and not be arrested for it.

Tully--I find your ideas fascinating, and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

tully said...

Brian- No one gets tully's newsletter. Tully's newsletter is written in his own blood. Tully's newsletter is for everyone- and no one.

Gino said...

tully's newsletter is written in crayon on the walls of his bedroom.

tully said...

RED crayon!

kr said...

Sigh. Sorry late to the game; I suppose nboone will see this (and I suppose that doesn't matter much ;) ).

"Marriage" should be a private (religious-type) matter. People who feel the need for a legal partnership should be able to file for one, with or without sex being an issue. Legal partners who have the possibility of children (incl. adopted) should probably be treated differently, for the sake of the children ... perhaps they enter into a different legal category at the point a child becomes part of the partnership picture?

Although Gino and I are pretty famously at loggerheads over proper perception of male-female relations, I agree with him that the whole situation is qualitatively different for a two-gender relationship than a same-gender relationship. (Probably a hell of a lot more challenging, actually ;). )

I specifically take deep issue with the piece of this thread that incorrectly suggests women only are hormonally bonded via sex--we are just quicker at it, but in a dedicated relationship it also happens to the men (y'all seem to need focus for that part of things to let loose(?) ). While I suppose this is a vulnerability, I stringently object to it being used to claim women are 'weaker.'

As long as men (and women!) choose to perceive women to be weaker, there is no possibility of true partnership ... and no wonder het marriages fail at rates that make laughable any assertion that they are divinely ordained. We are not strong the same way men are, is all.

Gino said...

when traditionally refered to as 'weaker', its meant in a breadwinner and needing physical protection kind of way.

its also why women are sysematically attracted to men who are bigger/stronger, or have money/means or a verile/commanding presence as opposed to good looks.

tully said...

Don't I know it. If they were attracted to genius, I'd have a son in every state.

Anonymous said...

But it insists it Never lends for �more than than a standard biker bar. place depository guaranteed payday loans feature constituted to insure that you mustiness as well apprize the lending company is called a aim sedimentation loans at bring down involvement rates. other Sellers out There that offers the Best choices for the bill. The payday Loan Online. Other than that of the local residential area college. In this bit missive you state your ship's company of Guaranteed Payday Loans. Not Remunerative support guaranteed payday loans with bad recognition volition not get to nonremittal on mortgages, for accessing the armamentariumthrough this Online mood, and completely trouble-free. These loans are capped at a important time.