Advice Goddess Blog
« Previous | Home | Next »

I Know Gay People
San Diego's mayor decides, at the last minute, that he can't screw over his lesbian daughter and his gay staffers, and takes "a stand on behalf of equality and social justice” by supporting a resolution for gay marriage passed by the SD City Council. (He'd originally planned to veto the measure.) He gets teary about it below:

Posted by aalkon at September 21, 2007 7:31 AM

Comments

It's a lot of fun to squabble with people about this, but I just don't have the heart to watch that link... What value could there be in it? Gay marriage is something about which people want to take moronically simplistic stands. Eventually one throws up one's hands to say "I am not from your violent planet!"

("But the atmosphere of your world is much like that of our own!")

Also, I didn't see the flat earth woman or the tase me bro dude. Anything good happens out there, y'all be sure and speak up.

Posted by: Crid at September 21, 2007 10:24 AM

Always a shame to see this issue being debated. Such obvious questions of equal rights shouldn't need to take more than an hour, but here it is being fought over for years.

Posted by: Patrick at September 21, 2007 10:27 PM

I know, it seems so obvious. Rights for all. Who you love? Who you fuck? Immaterial. If marriage is allowed, it should be allowed for any consenting people who want it.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at September 21, 2007 10:30 PM

> If marriage is allowed, it
> should be allowed for any
> consenting people who want it.

Why?

Posted by: Crid at September 22, 2007 11:48 AM

Marriage is not a right, it's a privilege. Married homosexuals don't have anything to offer the state (the third party in the three-party contract). Therefore, they cannot marry legally.

See, the part that the married couple is supposed to bring as their "consideration" is that they will create new taxpayers. Raising someone else's genetic offspring doesn't count.

What compelling interest does the state have in granting all sorts of goodies to a couple that isn't offering anything in return?

Posted by: brian at September 25, 2007 6:31 AM

Marriage is a protection and set of benefits offered under the law, and it's only because of religious nuttery that it's denied to homosexuals. The benefit argument doesn't fly unless there's fertility testing and a must-spawn requirement for heteros.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at September 25, 2007 7:06 AM

The benefit argument doesn't fly unless there's fertility testing and a must-spawn requirement for heteros.

I'd be perfectly willing to support that concept. In fact, a gay rights group made a big thing of proposing something similar. They had proposed annulling the marriage of any hetero couple that didn't procreate within 3 years. They'd figured that the so-called 'religious nutters' would flinch at that, and then, on the basis of hypocrisy, the gay marriage people would win.

Except that they didn't get any of the outrage they expected. I never heard any more of it, but I predicted that the Catholics and Evangelicals especially would support such a measure and the gay marriage activists would find themselves in quite the bind.

Of course, I'd prefer that the government get out of the marriage business altogether. Marriage is a religious ceremony. It ought to be left that way.

Posted by: brian at September 25, 2007 1:06 PM

Also, if marriage was based on breeding, all post-menopausal women would be banned from marriage, as well as men with low sperm counts.

Gays can marry legally here in the frozen north, and so far, society hasn't reverted to anarchy.

I'm a female breeder, and I have no interest in marriage, but I'd be pretty pissed if somebody told me I wasn't allowed to because there was something wrong with me, in their opinion.

Posted by: Chrissy at September 26, 2007 7:09 AM

Leave a comment