Saturday, February 26, 2011

More Stupid Conflicts: Defense of Marriage Act

This week, President Obama decided to deflect attention away from his mounting failures by declaring that the Defense of Marriage Act was unconstitutional and that the Justice Department will no longer contend it in the court system.  Naturally, all those on the Christian conservative Right went bat-shit crazy and completely and utterly forgot about the more important issues facing our nation, such our misplaced priorities in foreign policy and our growing fiscal insanity.  Obviously, the ploy worked.

While I consider the whole matter a minor issue, there are some fundamental observations I’d like to make about this whole non-issue because even in the mundane there are kernels of wisdom:

  • Firstly, I’d like to point out that within the scope of the Western world, homosexuals make up maybe two percent at most.  I know the lie that we’ve all been told that its about ten percent, but that comes from the lying sexual deviant known as Alfred Kinsey.  Kinsey was a man whose sexual activities went far beyond basic sodomy and was more obsessed with bugs than people by trade.  This is significant because a person’s personal beliefs and biases will always permeate their research.  In any case, given that this is the truth, that gays and lesbians make up no more than 2% of the population, why is there so much fuss over them?
  • Why the Left-wing Statists continue to impose their circular morality upon the general populace is beyond me.  When I say “circular morality” what I mean is that we have a special interest that wants to change the moral code, which is defined by the State in their view.  However, the leaders of the State are elected by those very people.  And round and round it goes.  Seriously, why do you need the State to justify your actions?
  • While I was opposed to gay marriage for a while, I never really understood what marriage really was.  Now that I do, I oppose marriage as defined by the State entirely.  The fact is, marriage licenses were originally issued to prevent Mormons from engaging in polygamy.  This was around the mid-1800s, though I couldn’t give you a specific date and my estimation could be off along with my reasoning.  I admit this is more educated guessing than actual historical research because I really don’t care all that much about the history.  My general point is to contend that the State has no business in the personal relationships of individuals any more than it has any business in the health of individuals.
  • From my perspective, having the State act as an arbitrator in marriages only serves to cheapen what I view as a sacred union between two people.  Marriage is largely a religious covenant in the Western world, and throughout much of the known world in spite of modern movements and ideologies.  It is not something that individuals should enter into lightly, as so many have done, and it is not something you should simply give up when you’re unhappy.  You want something that isn’t so confining then simply don’t get married.  Heck, if anything, gays have more freedom in not getting married because they won’t lose half their stuff when one of them decides to move on to greener pastures, which is at least just as likely as straight marriages.  This of course assumes that gay relationships are the same as straight relationships, as we keep on being told.
  • Finally, the Defense of Marriage Act was constitutional, President Obama and Attorney General Holder’s opinion notwithstanding.  What the act does is say that states do not have to recognize marriage licenses from other states or other countries if they choose not to.  It asserts that the several states maintain their own sovereignty, which is supported by the 10th amendment.  The legislation itself is supported in Article IV Section 1 of the United States Constitution.  Regardless, it doesn’t matter because a State can simply state that the Federal government has no standing on this matter and not be forced to recognize contracts they don’t want to.  In other words, the several states are allowed to nullify unconstitutional acts of the Federal government in the spirit of Thomas Jefferson.

Truth be told, whatever the outcome of this mess, it won’t matter all that much.  I do not believe that this civilization was built on monogamous, heterosexual marriage, as so many Christian conservatives claim because that claim never has sat well with me.  Of course, that’s another blog post for another time.


  1. It is distressing how many idiots equate “marriage” with “sex” when in fact it is a personal partnership.

    From time to time you get both right and left delusional who will say something completely stupid like the following dripping stupidity...

    "Gay marriage ought to be legal, and marrying your horse ought to be legal, too. Yeah, I said it. Get the fuck over it. Is the world going to end if some psycho marries an animal? Chances are he was going to fuck it anyway, so who cares?”

    Two sentient creatures in a mutual agreement to become partners is not some freak wanting to bugger his farm animals... Only a fuckwit would post something like the above quote...

  2. It's amazing how only the religious seem to be so opposed to providing gay people with equal opportunity and protection under the law.

    The only thing this is fundamentally about is employers and insurers having to provide benefits to gay couples. The "morality" of it is nothing but a method of playing off of deep-seated religious bigotry to the benefit of the bottom-line for the wealthy.

  3. Of course the stupid in the left are fucking it up for homosexuals and possible freedom with partnerships when fuckwits equate a partnership with fucking livestock - yep bret the above quote about fucking livestock is yours and every libertarian I know wants partnership freedom...

    I cannot say that about liberals, lots of help you are statist fuckwits.

    There is morality then reason and logic too bad you cannot understand any of the three - jobless parasite.

  4. I could have sworn I read something about "jobless parasite," but my hypocrite filter got it before I saw the whole thing.

  5. Funny bret, I am the income in the family, fuckwit and you blathering about hypocrisy is precious. You parasitic moron. Not that I would expect you to be all that correct or honest. If your going to troll at least get some lessons on how to overcome your narcissism.

    How do you like my bret impressions lately bitch?

    So when is your host going to find a better piece of ass to replace you? No job, getting fat, depression over your uselessness, cognitive dissonance over your self image and reality... How long before a better, nicer looking, employed alternative comes along?


If the post you are commenting on is more than 30 days old, your comment will have to await approval before being published. Rest assured, however, that as long as it is not spam, it will be published in due time.

Related Posts with Thumbnails