Tuesday, July 15, 2003

Gay "marriage" potpourri

Is there a right to be married? It's nowhere in the Constitution - not even within the emanation of a penumbra. Last I knew state govts could restrict it for various ways for straights. So it would appear to my non-legal mind that no such right exists even for straights. So what is up with this civil rights crapola we keep hearing from Andrew Sullivan?

Oh, but the govt has an interest in pairing us off; for once we have gays telling us promiscuity is a Bad Thing. Well, what about the other nonmarrieds, who by choice or otherwise remain single? Why should they pay any more so Gerald FitzPatrick and Patrick FitzGerald can share each others' health benefits? Should the feds buy match.com and set up the rest of us?

Hey, aren't most gays in the US white males? Is this some backdoor way to take something away from women and racial minorities?

And aren't there more gays than lesbians? Aha, another way for white males to extract benefits at others' expense.

Are handicapped people married at the same rates as everyone else? If not, doesn't this favorable treatment of marriage further handicap them?

And don't singles die younger even while they spend time covering for the marrieds who come in late after taking Johnny to school, or leave early to take Muffy to soccer practice, or stay home with sick kids, or just disappear from work for months at a time at their discretion to have kids? Maybe that shorter life expectancy is the excuse for taxing them at a higher rate, eh? Why make the remaining singles carry more?

And seriously now - when so many straights are getting divorced every year, what would possess gays and lesbians to want to get in on the act? And that's not enough - they want to adopt too, so they can have child support and visitation grief too.

Why must we pervert the traditional concept of marriage just to accomodate the whims of that fraction of the 2% of our population that is gay and is interested in marriage? With the brigades of lawyers and lobbyists involved in this, they could have drafted one hell of a code covering "civil unions" that could be adopted by statute by every state interested in doing so. Why not take that approach instead of doing what amounts to spitting in the eye of marriage traditionalists?

I'll tell you why. I'm sure there are some gays out there who are sincerely interested in their conception of a marriage. But IMO the gay marriage movement at its core is really about delegitimizing and ultimately destroying marriage.

No comments: