Anything worth talking about, is worth blogging about

It really is about bigotry

Fannie has a must–read post about an ordinance in El Paso, Texas, that was ostensibly intended to only impact same–sex and unmarried couples also impacts on grandchildren, foster children, and others, and how the response shows that it was really motivated by animosity towards LGBT people and cohabitating couples, and not by any desire to “protect” marriage.

Comments on: "It really is about bigotry" (5)

  1. This is kind of funny. It reminds me of that law that Texas passed two years ago, inadvertently banning ALL marriages. So, everybody that got married in Texas in the last two years and reported so on their taxes has committed tax fraud. Hilarious.

    The problem is, you can’t ban gay marriage or gay rights with direct wording. That’s forbidden under the United States Constitution (not that that old, yellow document means much to US legislature). You can’t do it with indirect wording or this kind of funny stuff ends up happening. I guess they just have to live with us.

    But here’s the thing that really gets me. They claim they’re just trying to protect marriage. Protect it from WHAT, exactly? Did you know that, in the last ten years, in the United States, the amount of couples who get married took a significant drop in protest to DADT and lack of marriage equality in the individual states? It seems that, if they were really interested in protecting marriage, they would allow us to get married.

    Now, take me for example. I don’t want to get married. I don’t want to tie myself to one person for life. That’s sort of ridiculous. But, shouldn’t that be MY decision to make? What if the next gay guy wants it? Why should HE be denied? To protect marriage? Long term relationships between same-sex couples tend to last longer because of the inherent differences between men and women. It would lower the divorce rate. Protect marriage by allowing same sex marriages.

    Or, I got a better idea. Force the government to get out of marriage altogether. I don’t want them in my bedroom and I don’t care what tax incentives people lose as a result. It’s the best thing, all things considered.

  2. I’m sorry. I said DADT. I meant DOMA, but I’m sure you know what I meant.

  3. I’m not aware of the specific numbers of people who refuse to get married in protest of DOMA, though they certainly exist.

    And I agree, the government should get out of the marriage business. What it should do is provide a magistrate to witness a contract signing, keep records of births/deaths, enforce parental obligations. A single straight-up contract can do that. If you like, you can hold a wedding in a church, temple, etc.

  4. I’m not aware of the exact numbers either or I would have cited them.

    If the government gets out of the bedroom then our relationships can be whatever we want them to be. I guess we’re going to be in agreement on this one so you’ll have a short comment list.

  5. Yes, the government should get out of personal relationships between consenting adults.

Feel free to leave a reply.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Tag Cloud

%d bloggers like this: