Perhaps it wouldn't be one at all, were it not for fat, ugly blond femiNazi shrikes like the one I had the sad misfortune to end up sitting next to the other night while watching the Vikings manhandle the Packers. Like the typical, emasculated, married tool he had become, her husband sat there and put up with her first verbal than physical abuse with little to no response, other than to pay for their drinks and leave, followed quickly by her inconsiderate, rude, shriking and rather large, pompous ass. I hope he apologized for telling her to shut up, or he'll never get any again. Probably isn't now, either. Like I told them at work, I'm more than willing to put up with typical fe
It's not that I believe "gay" marriage is a bad idea, I think marriage in general is a bad idea that should have gone out with the Confederacy (Probably would have also, if slavery was the actual cause being fought over). In a truly free country, people should be allowed to do whatever they want, as long as it doesn't harm anyone else, or interfere with their doing the same. If it were privatized and government had no say at all in the matter it could still possibly work. The fact that the practice has its origins as a form of slavery is my primary objection. The more recent fact that it is an excuse for government to screw people out of their earnings also raises a giant red flag!
My biggest issue with the whole thing comes from feminstaaziism, which, instead of acting to end the enslavement, merely advocated reversing the roles of slave and master...Atleast such has been the practical outcome! Both the Funny-mental-ists so vehemently railing in "defense of marriage" and homosexuals insisting on the "right" to indenture one another ignore the fact love and romance are things that have gone on since the dawn of time, and nothing is ever going to outlaw it, or affirm it. It's neither a "God-given right", sacrament, nor anything that can be conferred or withheld by the state. It is strictly biological, and "karma" will always trump dogma. It's also not at all what is at the "chewy caramel center" of the problem. In America today it's not so much about romance as finance. I had suspected this forever, but when it went from being the tacit admission of more than one blogger to a news story on NPR, Galt-in-Da-Box was left without excuse for not clearing the air (or is that ERR?).
Marriage in America is nothing but a freaking license for one party and government to pick the others' pocket - especially in a divorce - which is why half of them end that way. Be glad I'm not making the rules: I'd ban it as a form of human bondage/cruel and unusual punishment because personally, I'd rather dowse myself with kerosene and strike a match than say "I do". "Well Susie, if you really love Bobby like you claim, why are you trying to - literally - fuck him out of everything he owns!?" "Gay" marriage was proven to me recently to be no exception. The story started out with a bunch of flowery, lofty talk about how Betty and Barbara's TAX-a-chusetts nuptules weren't recognized everywhere and didn't carry the full weight marriage aught to, and then went on into an extended blather about Federal handouts and gimmes that weren't available if one or the other partners got sick, died, had kids or whatever...It all about da bling-bling, peeps! Notwithstanding, as long as we're not going to outlaw or privatize marriage, and since there are hundreds of gay couples already legally married, and seeing as how the Constitution says what is legal in one state must be accepted so in all the others, what is the big deal? Religionists will rant and rail on about "the sanctity of marriage"...What's so "sanctified" about one person dragging another around by their heart-strings as a precursor to emptying their bank account? I can't argue with their reproductive assertions in any way other than to say "What about the REST of the people you don't want/don't fit your WASP CULTure/square community paradign: The orphaned children your lily-white, aryodite, OMFR/upper-middle-class asses are too "good" to adopt? There are people with no parents, and couples with a bona-fide reproductive disability...Common sense suggests they belong together...
*dons Kevlar helmet, grabs shotgun and ducks under table for cover sensing imminent incoming fire*
A flawless match? No, but how many things in the world are? Nevertheless, I don't see marriage bringing any actual benefit to homosexuality beyond a very minute financial one, but can very well forsee it destroying a lot of relationships, and more than likely the last stronghold of the sexual revolution, over nothing but little green pieces of paper! We are teetering precariously on the precipice of national bankruptcy because too many people already believe in the great statist fiction of something-for-nothing, so we really need to think this thing through in detail from the practical, unintended consequences angle.
A "defense of marriage act/amendment" stands to lose no matter what, holding all the legal water of a cardboard box, and having all the substantive, Constitutional defense of "because The Poop/The Cult/Der Holy Mother Schtaat SAYS so, dammit!" This will in no wise prevent the Papists from using it to drag out this form of discrimination as long as inhumanely possible. DOMA is like those little signs in the bathroom that tell you to wash your hands after you shit or piss:
Any nation that's gone so far down the toilet intellectually its citizens can't figure that one out for themselves doesn't have much of a future anyway!