1) Marriage isn't a zero sum game, either within the relationship or in society as a total. In fact, it's an institution that gains strength from having more people committed to it. Again, for both in the relationship and in society.
2) "Being against same-sex marriage doesn't necessarily make you a bigot." Um, actually yes, yes it does. You might need to reread the definition of bigot.
3) "But the Bible says…" is never a defense unless you support rape, slavery, multiple marriage, kingship, wholesale slaughter of innocents, misogyny and keeping a strict kosher home. Diverge from any of those and either you accept the new covenant that the Christ cemented (and said, "all that stuff that came before, not important anymore") or you're willing to negotiate on any and all of those topics.
4) Switching topics, anybody else think that maybe the new underwear bomb was glommed from the wreckage of the car we blew up last week and all this "double agent" talk (which, btw, is the wrong term with an understanding of the current narrative) is psych warfare?
5) The inner me is practically giddy about only having a day job (ie. 1 job, no classes, no meetings).
6) Not to question the President's commitment or anything, but have you had the thought that the President made the announcement supporting same-sex marriage (note, no new policy direction) just to get Romney on the record against it?
7) "My view is that marriage itself is between a man and a woman… this is a very tender and sensitive topic, as are many social issues, but I have the same view that I've had since — since running for office," said Mr. Romney. "…Since running for office"? WTF does that mean? All while implying the President has flip-flopped. That is pure comedy. I'm sure it would be better if we also only discussed this in "quiet rooms."
2 comments:
You know, I've never understood why the government is involved in marriage anyway. When I look at all the political party crap going on in Washington, I think I'd rather keep them out of my personal life.
Well, marriage is a public contract (contrary to what any minister might like to tell you). It involves obligations, responsibilities, liabilities, rights and privilege. Just ask anybody who has gone through divorce or a pre-nup. Also, to be married, you must register that marriage (which is when you're really married, not when someone in a robe says, "I now pronounce you…"). That the religious people are involved is only a matter of them being the local government representative for a few hundred years and people like ceremony and a reason to party. And, YMMV, at least in Ohio for a minister to perform marriages, they also must be registered with the state (it's not an onerous registration/vetting process).
With all that comes with marriage, I just don't understand why the state wouldn't be involved. Hell, just the inheritance rights would be enough of a mess if they weren't.
Post a Comment