Addendum regarding comments:
Marriage is so Gay
: There is no such thing as gay marriage. Of course most people understand that the phrase simply means legal marriage as hypothetically practiced by a couple who are gay, or, who incidentally share the same type of sexual organs.
The prospect of two same sexed individuals marrying each other is terrifying to some, mostly religious people because, reasons. What? It will lead to global warming? It will drive fuel prices up? Ruin the property value in your neighbourhood? Perhaps a newly discovered species of pine beetle will go extinct.
No, seriously, this is the part I don’t get. There is, in the United States, a federal law called the Defense of Marriage Act. It came into effect in 1996, defining marriage as the legal union between a man and a woman, and was only deemed unconstitutional by a narrow 5-4 vote in the Supreme Court in 2013.
The interesting question arising from this law’s name is – defence against what?
Is the institution of marriage under threat from the prospect of two men or two women marrying each other? A better question might be – where were all the righteously indignant defenders of that foundational social institution when no-fault divorce became a legal norm in the mid 80′s?
They were, at the time, nowhere to be found. Indeed, the apparent defenders of marriage have been, until about a year ago, almost completely silent on no-fault divorce, which alters marriage from an institution of family and community and turns it into a business model for wealth appropriation and female hypergamy.
So, the self appointed protectors of family values have, after 3 decades, finally decided to do something. To do exactly what is not yet clear, as what politicians say has, from time to time, differed from what they later do.
Where were the defenders of marriage when challenged by legal innovations facilitating the dissolution of their (ahem) sacred institution was commandeered for profit by women – the majority initiators of divorce? Where were they while divorce was monetized by a money driven family court system?
Perhaps the defenders of “family values” were too busy profiteering in the divorce industry to notice the carnage. What the American political right presently intends remains a matter of speculation but marriage, whatever it used to be, is now a business of wealth appropriation.
Recognition of that fact provides a solution for what is, apparently a matter of such great contention to opponents of “gay” or “same sex” marriage. Marriage, as it exists, is a form of prostitution, coercion, indentured servitude, with the State in the role of pimp.
The solution to this problem for both the advocates and opponents of same sex marriage is painfully simple: Let the government cease to recognize marriage as a legal institution entirely.
So you want to get “married”?
Recognize what you want is a partnership. Address the formation of the legal family entity between a man and a woman, or any two adults of either sex, using the same set of laws which govern business. Whether we want to admit to it or not, marriage is a business partnership.
It is a business partnership in which resources are pooled to mutual advantage – in which a family is formed, and in which assets are acquired. The only difference between conventional business partnerships and ones include fucking is the occasional production of itty bitty children.
However, since children are not property, they are people, some protections are rightly afforded to them by the law.
A marriage is a contract, and for those whose cultural or religious sensibilities require a church, or a ceremony – no problem, go do that. But let the existing laws governing commerce also cover the commercial enterprise of marriage. Take your personal relationships out of the hands of profiteers, whose financial interests run contrary to those of healthy families and stable societies.
No, seriously, this is the part I don’t get. There is, in the United States, a federal law called the Defense of Marriage Act. It came into effect in 1996, defining marriage as the legal union between a man and a woman, and was only deemed unconstitutional by a narrow 5-4 vote in the Supreme Court in 2013.
The interesting question arising from this law’s name is – defence against what?
Is the institution of marriage under threat from the prospect of two men or two women marrying each other? A better question might be – where were all the righteously indignant defenders of that foundational social institution when no-fault divorce became a legal norm in the mid 80′s?
They were, at the time, nowhere to be found. Indeed, the apparent defenders of marriage have been, until about a year ago, almost completely silent on no-fault divorce, which alters marriage from an institution of family and community and turns it into a business model for wealth appropriation and female hypergamy.
So, the self appointed protectors of family values have, after 3 decades, finally decided to do something. To do exactly what is not yet clear, as what politicians say has, from time to time, differed from what they later do.
Where were the defenders of marriage when challenged by legal innovations facilitating the dissolution of their (ahem) sacred institution was commandeered for profit by women – the majority initiators of divorce? Where were they while divorce was monetized by a money driven family court system?
Perhaps the defenders of “family values” were too busy profiteering in the divorce industry to notice the carnage. What the American political right presently intends remains a matter of speculation but marriage, whatever it used to be, is now a business of wealth appropriation.
Recognition of that fact provides a solution for what is, apparently a matter of such great contention to opponents of “gay” or “same sex” marriage. Marriage, as it exists, is a form of prostitution, coercion, indentured servitude, with the State in the role of pimp.
The solution to this problem for both the advocates and opponents of same sex marriage is painfully simple: Let the government cease to recognize marriage as a legal institution entirely.
So you want to get “married”?
Recognize what you want is a partnership. Address the formation of the legal family entity between a man and a woman, or any two adults of either sex, using the same set of laws which govern business. Whether we want to admit to it or not, marriage is a business partnership.
It is a business partnership in which resources are pooled to mutual advantage – in which a family is formed, and in which assets are acquired. The only difference between conventional business partnerships and ones include fucking is the occasional production of itty bitty children.
However, since children are not property, they are people, some protections are rightly afforded to them by the law.
A marriage is a contract, and for those whose cultural or religious sensibilities require a church, or a ceremony – no problem, go do that. But let the existing laws governing commerce also cover the commercial enterprise of marriage. Take your personal relationships out of the hands of profiteers, whose financial interests run contrary to those of healthy families and stable societies.
No comments:
Post a Comment