A Note For Whoever:
- Coffee shops are neither gun ranges nor the U. N. Small Arms Treaty group.
- Fast-food joints don't control who can marry.
The people who own such businesses? They have the same right to their opinions (including the right to withhold comment) as anyone else.
And you shouldn't be suggesting using the power, authority and force of the State to shut them down because of it. Should you be flocking there or boycotting (or being indifferent), depending on your very own personal opinion? Sure!
(Hell, I don't even agree with the Chik-fil-A guy about who deserves to be gettin' wedlocked* and I still enjoy their products. He's not in the marriage business, nor the opinion business, either.)
___________________________________
* Y'know what? I'm startin' to think the bar is way too low. The more I hear arguments against lettin' some folks marry, the more I wonder if State-sanctioned marriage should maybe be a whole lot more difficult for any couple to commit. At the very least, a couple of years of cohabitating solemnized by a non-government-sanctioned ceremony or agreement ought to be a prerequisite to getting a license. There's a whole pile of nice bennies to be had; maybe you otta prove you deserve them first.
BUILDING A 1:1 BALUN
4 years ago
27 comments:
Maybe we just get the state the heck out of the whole thing, with the exception of upholding legal contracts. Re-frame "marriage" (at least, in the legal sense) as simply a contract between consenting adults.
With regard to religious marriage, that would then be entirely up to the adults and church involved...and would have ZERO legal implications. You wanna get married in a church/chapel/synagogue, go right ahead, if you can convince the priest/pastor/rabbi you fit into their way of thinking.
This eliminates the conflict of people trying to force churches to marry them legally (since the religious ceremony no longer has any legal sanction), and the "state" can take no cognizance of the gender, race, or anything else about a couple wanting a legal marriage except whether or not they are consenting, legal adults.
But then I'm always in favor of getting government the heck out of things into which they're intruded themselves.
There, fixed it.
For me my only question is where does it stop, or should it stop. Are
polygamy, man/boy, marriage to inanimate objects all equally valid?
Will gay marriage lead to any of these? I personally believe that sexual orientation is hardwired, and any relationship between consenting adults is valid. I would only suggest that everybody should be careful what you ask for. Are there enough cliche there?
Panamared,
Yes, pretty much all of those. When the government's only place in marraige is to uphold legal contracts then you can marry a cow for all I care. Except, you really can't because a cow can't enter a legal contract.
As for Man/Boy? No, and Man/under age girl would be illegal also. Minors cannot enter into legal contracts any more than a cow can, and laws protecting children from sexual expliotation would apply.
Polygamy yes. As long as everyone in the "marriage" agrees to the contract where is it a bit of skin off of your ass? I have known some "poly" people and man were their kids lucky. They had 3 parents who loved them and wanted the very best for them. An increasing number of children in America are lucky to have one.
s
Bennies? *snort*
Show me the bennies. Getting married meant that we both went from getting refunds on our taxes to owing a bunch of money every April.
Oh, that's right. We didn't have deductions, er, kids, we had cats. Carry on.
"Are polygamy, man/boy, marriage to inanimate objects all equally valid?"
Polygamy: The only problem I see with polygamy is that there are aspects of 1x1 marriage (inheritance, child custody, etc.) that don't map neatly onto 2x1, 3x1, or Nx1 relationships. But I think that problem can be worked around.
"man/boy": Assuming by "boy" you mean an underage male person, no, because consent.
"marriage to inanimate objects": No, because consent, and because this would be a meaningless construct.
"He's not in the marriage business, nor the opinion business, either."
Except that he is. Not specifically because of the statements that actually ignited this tempest-in-a-teapot, but because he (and, IIRC, his corporation) contribute financial support to several organizations that actively attempt to influence the government against gays and gay marriage - which is entirely within his rights, but it means that he has inserted himself into the marriage business.
Of course, this doesn't change any other statement you made in your post one bit, and I am in 100% agreement, but it is an important distinction.
It's also irritating, because I do really like their chicken (I think their sandwiches, chicken strips, and popcorn chicken are far superior to the closest competitor's (KFC)), but I don't want to support someone who will turn around and use my money for those particular political contributions. Though I do on rare occasions succumb to temptation.
I agree with Blackwing and Stuart_the_Viking. If our government isn't performing a religious ceremony, it should only be concerned about legal/contractual 'relationships' and not spiritual or emotional relationships.
The emotional/sexual relationship between two adults should be governed by the (two or more) parties involved, not by government entities.
The legal relationship between two women (for example) should be approached in the same way as the legal relationship between two companies - at least as far as a governing body is concerned.
T'was a dark day when government intruded into what is essentially a religious/sociological construct regarding co-habitation. Licensing by the state to live a life is a stumbling block at any level.
Blackwing 1 said it for me.
Dang gummint's got its nose in way too much of my bidness as it is.
Government hardly refuses to enforce the marriage contract anyway, so what does it matter?
The whole "marriage" controversy reminds me of a couple towing three "stairsteps" who came into the county seat to get married.
"Don't you think you should have waited until you were married before you started a family?" the County Clerk asked.
"Well, we intended to but every time we got ready to come to town the roads were under water," the soon to be bride replied.
As long as the politically offensive do not force someone to do something against his/her principles to buy a few votes, who marries what could matter less to me.
As far as polygamy is concerned, as long as it satisfies all parties, it is not any of my business. Nor the business of the state.
As the two women in a troika I once knew told a Mrs. Grundy with a layabout man, "Having a half a husband each is a sight better than having none at all, like you do."
Stranger
Jake: I beg to differ. He is, like you and me, an amateur when it comes to opinion, and at best a spectator when it comes to performing marriages; he's in the fast-food *business.*
Yeah, I'm no big fan of his opinions on that subject; when you come right down to it, I'm not a big fan of his opinions about doing business on Sunday, either. But I wouldn't try to stop him from either one.
Holy cow, he's participating in the process. He's not sending out hit squads. Just because his opinion is unpopular, that doesn't men the guy -- or his business -- should be hounded out of town. Especially by force of law.
I think we've all missed the boat. Isn't the real question, whether or not the CEO of any privately owned business has the right to voice his opinion on a controversial issue without having Government Officials trying to throw his company out of there states. Of course individuals have the right to spend there money where they want, but 1st amendment rights restrict the Government from that kind of statement.
"Just because his opinion is unpopular"
Is it? I'm not arguing. Just asking.
RobK: The government doesn't enforce -any- contracts. Those are a matter of civil law, which means if a party to the contract thinks it's been violated he or she can sue for redress.
Panamared,
"For me my only question is where does it stop, or should it stop. Are
polygamy, man/boy, marriage to inanimate objects all equally valid?"
It's really goddam simple: Consenting adults may enter into contracts. Children, inanimate objects, those adjudicated mentally incompetent, and your dog may not enter into contracts.
Why this is so hard for people to wrap their heads around is completely beyond me.
"-" (Which is a 'nom de coward' for North at GBBL, for those wondering,)
"Is it? I'm not arguing. Just asking."
His opinion is every bit as popular as the idea of barring black folk from marrying decent white people in Alabama in 1969.
'nom de coward'?
I shut off my North blog. The dash was what I chose to stick in my name box.
I only asked a simple question. The hostility is all you.
You have a right to your opinion, even if denigrating me makes you feel superior. That, to me, certainly defines your character.
Sorry for this stink in your blog, Roberta. I'll exercise my 1st somewhere else.
Whatever, Dash; it's not a stink, just some snarking back and forth. Grab an asbestos cape and loose the dogs of doggerel! If the flamethrowers get too loud for me, I'll say so.
Is Mr. Cathy's opinion popular? Is it unpopular? Yes and yes, and why's that so hard for people to figger out? It is something about which a lot of people have strong opinions. If Rahmbo or Rushbo or both of 'em wanna get up on their hind legs and make a good strong speech about it, hooray! ...It's when they wanna make laws about it, when mayors mutter darkly of trumped up "zoning issues" based on the business-owners sociopolitical views that I get all techty and start wondering about pogroms and jackboots and re-education camps. Most elected officials and the preponderance of radio and TV talkers are deeply in love with the brute, brute boot of a brute just like themselves.
Good question, since when is 'free speech' only free for one side???
Free speech says he can open his mouth and say things that may not benefit his business. The public can be critical of it, it's their right too. It also says the government has no dog in the fight.
So in this case I protest the government official that says he can't do that.
In the end free speech is not be free, as stupid does will net a stupid return.
If I was giving him a bit of advice it would be sure you can say that but, Maybe you might consider what it does to your means of eating regular before you move your lips.
That and you have a lot of competitors
that make a mean chicken sandwich.
Eck!
Wait...they let chicken sandwiches do that now?
I'll have to look into the money-saving opportunity in being married by a sandwich.
Much ado about nuthin'.
Sold some sammiches yesterday though.
I wonder that marriage wasn't meant to be better than most other government programs - I am sure it should have been the first indication of a failure of government goodness when the first divorce appeared. We don't learn from History, do we?
It was because of the lawyers? You have to id the target before you pull the trigger. It isn't about chicken it is about me. Of course.
Tam, Panamared and that ilk don't have trouble wrapping their heads around the idea that only consenting HUMAN adults can enter into a contract. That isn't the point.
The point is that gays are icky and they don't like them. And some of them - don't know about Panamared - will take every opportunity to bash them (literally as well as legally).
And the benefits of marriage are not limited to tax consideration. (Yes you may pay some in April, but you will save millions on inheritance tax if the Dems get their way and reinstate it. You get to make medical decisions. You get to make those medical decisions even if you are traveling in a foreign country. You get to make funeral arrangements. There are at least 1100 (depends on who is counting) benefits of marriage.
Yes, we are all hardwired for our sexuality.
The only problem is, that sexuality is bisexual, for all of us.
Given the natural propensity to sin ("...and sin, and sin until I burst!" extra points if you know the quote!) we all have the duty to restrict our natural propensities so that we are not monsters, or perverts, or wastrels, or rakes.
Don: "Humans are inherently bisexual" is an unproven assertion. Some people are strongly polarized. Nature, nurture? I dunno.
Now, how one conducts oneself in relations with other people, that is another whole kettle of morality, not necessarily related to affectional programming.
Post a Comment