Alarming News: I like Morgan Freeberg. A lot.
American Digest: And I like this from "The Blog That Nobody Reads", because it is -- mostly -- about me. What can I say? I'm on an ego trip today. It won't last.
Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler: We were following a trackback and thinking "hmmm... this is a bloody excellent post!", and then we realized that it was just part III of, well, three...Damn. I wish I'd written those.
Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler: ...I just remembered that I found a new blog a short while ago, House of Eratosthenes, that I really like. I like his common sense approach and his curiosity when it comes to why people believe what they believe rather than just what they believe.
Brutally Honest: Morgan Freeberg is brilliant.
Dr. Melissa Clouthier: Morgan Freeberg at House of Eratosthenes (pftthats a mouthful) honors big boned women in skimpy clothing. The picture there is priceless--keep scrolling down.
Exile in Portales: Via Gerard: Morgan Freeberg, a guy with a lot to say. And he speaks The Truth...and it's fascinating stuff. Worth a read, or three. Or six.
Just Muttering: Two nice pieces at House of Eratosthenes, one about a perhaps unintended effect of the Enron mess, and one on the Gore-y environ-movie.
Mein Blogovault: Make "the Blog that No One Reads" one of your daily reads.
The Virginian: I know this post will offend some people, but the author makes some good points.
Poetic Justice: Cletus! Ah gots a laiv one fer yew...
Blogger friend Alan, who you may know as Seablogger. He speaks for me, on the issue of same sex marriage, with each word (except, of course, for discussions on how it involves him personally). And that is noteworthy since his post is five years old.
I suppose it’s past time for me to sound off, in my usual contrarian fashion, since I disagree with almost everyone on both sides of this issue. As far as I can see, this debate is a tug-of-war over the meanings of words. I’m more concerned with substance: the laws pertaining to civil unions, child-custody, taxation, and inheritance.
In older usage, marriage is not a contract; it’s a sacrament, and as such it is properly defined by religious texts and sects. When gay couples demand the right to marry, they are committing a trespass that drives some insecure believers batty. What’s the point? A lot of gay activists seem to cherish confrontation for its own sake: they seek to humiliate and ultimately eradicate scripturally-based, anti-gay viewpoints. This is a dangerous game for a small minority to play, and it’s completely unnecessary.
As a neo-libertarian, I want to see individuals treated equally under civil law. Ecclesiastical law is none of my business. Disapproval is not discrimination. I really don’t care whether some yahoo fundamentalist dislikes gays. If he throws a rock through the window over my desk, however, he may get shot. The Second Amendment and many legal precedents secure my right to self-defense. But I don’t spend my days thinking up ways to enrage ignorant people (none of whom read this weblog), so it’s pretty unlikely that rock will fly in my direction.
Under U.S. law there is nothing to prevent a gay couple from establishing joint property, power-of-attorney, and other legal protections. In this sense, gay people can “marry” right now. Furthermore, pressured by employees, firms in the private sector are rapidly rewriting pension and insurance plans to extend rights and benefits for unmarried couples of any sexual persuasion. Alas, many inequities persist in tax and child-custody laws at all levels of government. If our solons insist on rewarding procreation through the tax code, they should provide financial incentives for households to remain intact, regardless whether parents or guardians were wedded in a house of worship.
It seems to me that gay organizations ought to direct their efforts toward altering religiously-rooted laws that discriminate in favor of married people, rather than seeking the status of marriage for gays. That way we would have a lot of heterosexual allies, and we’d probably get most of the reforms we want, without inducing such fits of hate and hysteria among sectarian opponents.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
“It seems to me that gay organizations ought to direct their efforts toward altering religiously-rooted laws that discriminate in favor of married people, rather than seeking the status of marriage for gays.”
There’s another important point that should be made. Whenever the government discriminates in favor of (that is, subsidizes) something, the quality of whatever is being subsidized decreases. When people are being pressured to make a decision they may not really want to make, they’re not going to try to make it work. This is true for any subsidy, because even subsidizing carrots reduces the quality that those carrots must be at in order to compete with the alternative.
- JohnJ | 11/02/2008 @ 13:21