Political rant

[cnoocy]

Apparently the right has their, um, undergarments in a twist over the idea of gay marriage. It's just so dumb. Though I suppose if I can make an electronic copy of a song and that counts as stealing from the person who still has the original, then for, say, Ian McKellen and his partner to get married somehow reduces the power of my cross-gender marriage. Feh, I say. If you want to defend marriage, enact the following law:
A couple who wishes to become married must allow two weeks to elapse between getting their marriage license and their wedding. At no point during this period may either of them appear on a television show that deals in any way with their marriage. That deals with attention-seeking celebrity marriages and marriage reality shows. It means it's harder to elope, too, but I don't know that that's a bad idea. I suppose I'm actually fairly conservative about the purpose of marriage, but liberal about relationships.
Perhaps I've offended somebody.that would be interesting.

Comments

belated response

[(Anonymous)]

why does the "cause" of homosexuality have any bearing on the subject of gay marriage? under the us constitution you are not allowed to discriminate on the basis of race or religion. under the americans with disabilities act you are not allowed to discriminate against handicapped people.

race is genetic. religion is environmental. those both have equal protection. some handicaps are genetic. some are environmental. same protection.

do people really like the idea that society can tell you who you can get married to? sure, it's just a man and woman now - but maybe it should only be a fertile man and woman? statistically, more black people end up in jail. maybe they shouldn't be allowed to marry?

if alice wants to form a commited relationship with eve, and adam wants to hook up with dave, good on them. they should be able to get the same rights from the state as frank and gertrude.

poly was mentioned above and i think the legitimate complaint about that is that it overcomplicates the courts when the partnership breaks down. marriage as a civil institution (which grants a couple certain rights two single people on their own lack) is logically justified to assist in childrearing. one or two parents are sufficient to raise a family so the state only goes that far. the costs (in terms of court time and expense) of a civil union of 3 or more people breaking up would be too high compared to the benefit society might gain from their child rearing.