|
This mini-rant was posted by a notorious anti-liberal Right-winger I know, who's rants are adored by his peers. Even HE thinks the whole issue is idiotic!
--------------------------------------------------------
So the Massachusetts' Supreme Judicial Court upheld a ruling today that gays should have the right to marry in the state of Massachusetts. This will of course lead to many a heated moments as the beer swilling Catholics in downtown Boston get liquored up and decide to voice their opinions to those who may strike them as light in the loafers, I'm sure. I had actually intended on doing a blurb on this subject about a month ago and it slipped my mind, until I received this email last week...
"I live in Indiana, and in the past week or so i have been hearing a lot of talk on the radio about same sex marragies becoming legal. Just hearing that makes my stomach drop. Could you lift my spirits for me by doing a little old fasion gay bashing? Well not really bash them, that could cause a lot of trouble, just tease them a little. It would put a smile on my face.
Thanks a lot!"
long time viewer-
Mike
Now a few years ago I used to live with a girl who had not only a spectacular pair of breasts, but a gay sister as well. I dunno if the gay sister had great boobs too because, well, she was gay. But anyway, this sister lived in California with her -- of what's the politically correct term -- life partner? Yeah, so these two lesbians have been with each other for a like eleven years and they were as committed to each other as any heterosexual couple I know. But since they obviously can't have any children without some help, they decided one of them gets artificially inseminated. They took a look at their jobs, and decided the one who had the lesser paying job would be the one to carry the baby, since her taking time off from work wouldn't be as financially straining. Nine months later, poof they've got a kid.
The first thing that struck me as a little unfair is only my girlfriend's sister -- the one who actually carried the baby -- could be listed on the birth certificate as the parent. Granted even if they could they'd either have to play paper-scissors-rock to see who gets listed as the father, but still it struck me as a little unfair that only one of them was legally allowed to be recognized as a parent. I mean hey, ya wait around for that long putting up with world class b*tchiness beyond belief, you're gonna want some public recognition, right?
The next quirk they came across was health insurance. As it so happened, the birth mother's health insurance coverage was not as robust as the her partner's insurance. You know how that goes, better job and all that, right? Well the baby's medical coverage could not be claimed against this better policy for obvious reasons -- she wasn't legally the child's parent. So this ended up costing them a lot of money out of pocket for medical expenses, and there were even some areas where the child didn't get the same level of care as she could have if she had been covered under the better insurance policy. Again, it seemed unfair not only to the parents financially, but to the baby in regards to her health care.
And suppose for the sake of argument, that while the three of them were driving home from the hospital, there was a car accident and the birth mom was rendered brain dead. If it were a husband and wife deal, the surviving spouse would have legal control over medical treatment (or ceasing of it) for their injured partner, plus have no problem securing sole custody of the baby. But in this case, the surviving lezbo would have no legal recourse despite having just as much time and energy invested as a male partner would.
All these issues because same sex marriages are currently illegal. Okay. So let me think for a minute, that if they were legal, how would they effect my life. Would I have to pay more taxes? No. Would married gay people get a special check out line at the supermarket to get through line faster than me? No. Do they get their own special lane to avoid traffic jams? No. Do they get cheaper car insurance? No. Free car? No. Free socks? No.
So my question would be... what the f*ck do I care if gay people want to be married?
They're not fighting to have two guys dressed in wedding gowns, mascara and five o'clock shadows to prance down the aisle of your local church. They're not fighting for the right to fuck on the crosstown bus. They're not fighting to have Hers-and-Hers bathrooms at the mall. All the benefits and rights they're fighting for, wouldn't impact my life one bit if they did get them, so why the hell would I oppose it? It's like going out and saying you oppose blue socks. You can't see em anyway, so who the f*ck cares?
The only people that could possibly have a valid argument against anti-same sex marriages are the religious groups. "Homosexuality is an abomination!" they say. Well, okay, that's your take on it that's cool. Fair enough. But then there's two things to consider when you enter that realm, too. One, where the hell were you when priests were treating eight year old children like fuck toys? I didn't hear you say too much then, in fact you kind of looked at your shoes, mumbled something about out of court settlements, and then wandered off into the crowds. I don't hear you protest when atheists get married. I don't hear you protest when atheists get married in a church. I don't hear you protest when religious people get married on a cruise ship snot hanging drunk after grabbing the nearest vacationer to serve as their witness. So please, if you're going to get all high and fucking mighty, at least have the courtesy to do it evenly across the board.
And secondly, this situation my friend, is a perfect example of the REAL reason behind the separation of Church and State. It's not just a springboard for some loudmouthed asshole to use and get his name in the paper when he wants to talk about the Pledge of Allegiance, but instead a genuine reason why Judge Judy needs to leave her Bible/Koran/Torah/Whatever at home.
What if I created a religion where marriage was illegal altogether, would the government have to rule all marriages null and void? What if all the 43,000 people in the United Kingdom who checked their religion as "Jedi" all decided they're never going to get laid and decided they could marry their dog? Would governments then have to recognize those marriages? The answer is no in both cases, because the whole purpose of the separation of Church and State is Uncle Sam can't pick and choose what religious movements they're going to acknowledge and which they aren't. Churchgoers have every right in the world to voice their opinions in a public forum, but when it comes time to making laws it's time to have a nice tall glass of Shut-The-Fuck-Up. The only thing Uncle Sam can do is to make sure everyone, man, woman, black, white, tall, short, cute, ugly, straight or gay, gets a fair shake.
Oh by the way, I gave that girlfriend crabs after a nights indecretion with a drunken girl in the dorms. More on that Tuesday!
--------------------------------------------------------
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
