Why you are wrong on Amendment 1, the “Gay Marriage Amendment” (language warning)

Here is your official language warning. If you want to avoid naughty words, go elsewhere.
Are you voting for or against the “Gay Marriage Amendment?” The latest iteration of this amendment is here in North Carolina. It reinforces NC State law that bans same sex marriage from being recognized. That State law could be overturned by the NC State Supreme Court on whatever grounds that they might dream up, kind of like how the US Supreme Court made up some silly reason why they should overturn laws against birth control. All they really have to do is squint hard enough to find an umbra or penumbra under an emanation and they can twist the Constitution into saying whatever they want to say. With this Amendment, the NC courts can’t overturn that law.
So, Yes, the State should recognize same sex marriages or No, they should not?
WRONG! You are so fucking WRONG!
Before we have a discussion of which side to take in an argument, we need to carefully explain both positions. We basically have two sides
A.      The State has the power to determine who is and is not lawfully married, and can not extend that to persons of the same sex.
B.      The State has the power to determine who is and is not lawfully married, and it can, must, shall extend that to  persons of the same sex.
You’ve got to chose one side or the other, right?
Fuck no you don’t! Look at the premise! Where did the a government functionary wielding a pen get the power to declare my marriage to my wife valid? Who gave that asshole the power to say anything at all about my relationships? Fuck him, his wife, his boyfriend, and everyone he ever knew! Get the hell out of my personal life!
When you start from false premises, you cannot possibly arrive at correct conclusions no matter what you end up deciding. The NC requirement to have a marriage license appears to date from 1871. So this State bumped along for 100 years in and out of the Union and for another 50 years prior as a colony without it being required for an official to issue a piece of paper calling a marriage valid.  Does anyone know what was happening in the 1871 time frame? Can you figure out what they were trying to achieve with this paperwork requirement?
In this we have two sides who are both arguing that the State has a power. I don’t believe that the State should have that power. Instead of having the reasonable argument of “should the state have the power to decide what is and is not a valid marriage” we are stuck arguing who gets in to the tent. It’s a classic way that statists convince two groups to fight each other while increasing the power of the statists.
-Some will argue that we need marriage licenses to prove to the IRS that you should be filing married rather than single.
Fuck you, fix the tax code.
-Some will argue that we need marriage licenses so that employers will pay for your spouse’s health care.
Fuck you, pay and benefits are a private contract between you and your employer. Figure it the fuck out without involving a bunch of assholes in the State House.
-Some will say we need marriage licenses to prevent too close of relatives from marrying or too many people from getting married to each other, or people of the wrong sex from getting married to each other.
Fuck you, MIND YOU OWN GODDAMN BUSINESS.
That’s the long and short of it. Get the fuck out of my personal life. You are too much of a pussy to do it yourself (this is a gun blog, you can work out for yourself what the consequences would be) so you send a government agent to be a snoop for you. Well double fuck you, you nosey coward.
All you gay people who want to get married so you can live just like me, go fuck yourselves. You are just getting suckered into propping up a bureaucracy. You aren’t getting a marriage, you’re getting a piece of that bureaucracy. Hold hands, declare to one and all that you are married, and set up shop. Get the necessary legal paperwork together naming each other as beneficiaries and get some health care powers of attorney done up. Then enjoy irritating the assholes who disapprove. Stick it to the Man! (that’s not what I meant!) If you need firearms training so you can handle those who do more than simply disapprove, let me know.
All you anti-gay people who want to make sure that none of the fags get to live just like me, fuck you too. The asshole statists who want all power and permission to flow from them have suckered you into arguing FOR statists. You have accepted that those assholes have the power to determine what is and is not a valid legal relationship. You added to their power and subtracted your own. YOU GOT PLAYED, Fucker! Don’t you feel stupid?
Here’s the deal. I’m married because I chose to stand before my family, my wife’s family, and our friends and declare that I was married. My wife is married because she made the same declaration at that same time. It pisses me straight the fuck off that some shithead in the government thinks that the stupid piece of paper we signed constitutes a marriage. I don’t see his stupid ass paying the bills or cleaning the toilet around here.
If two people wish to have a  relationship, that’s their business. If seven people want to set up a household together, raise their kids, pay their bills, and have wild group sex every Tuesday, that’s also their business. (assuming they leave the kids out of the group sex part) Mind your own fucking business.
You know, so many problems can be solved if people would just remind themselves that they should just
MIND YOUR OWN FUCKING BUSINESS
No one is dying. No one is being enslaved. No one is getting raped, robbed, or tortured. It’s not a crime, so keep your nose out.

This rant brought to you by dumbasses like this.

===================================================

Do you RSS? Don’t know what an RSS Feed is?



Save time and read all the latest blog news first.

12 responses to “Why you are wrong on Amendment 1, the “Gay Marriage Amendment” (language warning)

  1. “All you gay people who want to get married so you can live just like me, go fuck yourselves. You are just getting suckered into propping up a bureaucracy. “

    I couldn’t disagree more.

    If the bureaucracy provides YOU and your WIFE with certain protections under the law, as a sole result of your marriage, then should I not be afford the same protections?

    My same-sex wife and I co-own a home. Under the protections of marriage, if I die, our home stays in her possession under the rights of survivorship. Without marriage, she must “inherit” the house, and pay a huge inheritance tax — huge enough to make keeping the house cost prohibitive.

    Our business? Same shit. Gone.

    There are almost 1200 federal protections granted to heterosexual marriage couples that are not granted to same-sex couples. There are about the same number of state protections for married couples in New York State.

    You started out on the false premise that it’s all bureaucracy and failed to see the real truth and that is that the federal government, as well as those states which have passed mini-DOMA’s, are discriminating against a group of people based on their own “ick” factor with those people. Pure and simple.

    If you think it’s just a piece of paper, or just an act of propping up a bureaucracy, why are you married if that’s all it is? Why don’t you get divorced, free yourself of that bureaucracy and take the same chances you seem to think same-sex couples should take? There’s a part of me that’s tempted to shriek “Go F*&% yourself” right back, but I believe in civil discourse.

    “Fuck you, pay and benefits are a private contract between you and your employer. Figure it the fuck out without involving a bunch of assholes in the State House.”

    I think this statement is very short-sighted as well. Union contracts are not private contracts, especially for civil service workers. Those assholes in the state house (and the governor’s mansion), continually cut our pay and benefits, and cut services to the public while our private sector counterparts often do much better in their compensation packages. And, if your employer offers health insurance to married heterosexual employees, it’s discriminatory to refuse to offer it to same-sex married couples based on the gender of the couple.

    “Get the necessary legal paperwork together naming each other as beneficiaries and get some health care powers of attorney done up. “

    Again, very short-sighted. I point out the case of a married lesbian couple who did just that. They had wills, living wills, health care proxies, the works. When one took gravely ill, the hospital refused to allow her spouse AND HER CHILDREN to see her because the state they were in did not recognize same-sex relationships of any kind. That woman died ALONE, with her family a few yards away, because of bigoted assholes.

    I also cite the case of the married gay couple who also had wills and powers of attorney and all the fancy legal documents that money could buy. When one of them died, his family challenged the will that left everything to his partner, claiming that their relationship wasn’t legal and that they had legal claim to his estate. The court agreed with the family and this man’s partner was left with nothing to show for the 40+ years they had been together.

    “If two people wish to have a relationship, that’s their business. If seven people want to set up a household together, raise their kids, pay their bills, and have wild group sex every Tuesday, that’s also their business. (assuming they leave the kids out of the group sex part) Mind your own fucking business.”

    Now that, you and I can both agree upon!

  2. Here’s the problem. All these benefits were available to people without the license up to a certain point in time. The laws were written to take into account the situation as they found it. Instead of rewriting the marriage license laws, how about doing the harder task of rewriting the other stupid laws that the marriage license laws prop up?

    Inheritance tax? Repeal it. It’s wrong on it’s face and not an argument for marriage.

    “Special Protections” for married couples – Rewrite the law. Stop trying to “join” a club that shouldn’t exist in law anyway. Smash the state power to exclude you instead of propping up the power that excludes you now.

    Piece of Paper means married? – You clearly didn’t read what I wrote. I’m married by virtue of my declaration to be so. Not because some government functionary slapped his rubber stamp on a piece of paper. I’m married for the same reason you are. To be with her.

    Public Sector Compensation – I’m not going to get into the argument about relative pay scales. I’d put all public workers out of a job if I could. But those that work for the .gov should understand that they are not any different than anyone else. They knew what was being offered and accepted it. Feel free to find better employment elsewhere.

    Contracts being abrogated – This is a serious issue and should be grounds for huge civil lawsuits and public ass whippings. I’m serious about the ass whippings. When two (or more) people make a legal contract, that is binding. Anyone who interferes with that contract should suffer, and anyone who violates a health care power of attorney is guilty of criminal assault upon the patient. It should be treated identically to violating a Do Not Resuscitate order. It’s a crime. I’m OK with delaying the jail time long enough for the public ass whipping, though.

    Like Scott said on Facebook, your relationship is just as valid as mine. I just think you are falling into the trap of demanding more government in order to solve the problems created by too much government.

    Love to you and your wife.

  3. A government big enough to give you everything is big enough to take it all away.

    You think the gay community would get this, but they do not.

    Keep .gov out of people’s lives and we won’t have to argue about who can marry whom.

    And thus the schizm between small government conservatives and balanced budget liberals (aka the rest of the GOP) continues on.

  4. “That woman died ALONE, with her family a few yards away, because of bigoted assholes.”

    I find it odd that a hospital has denied someone the right to visit them in the hospital. I work in many hospitals and I have never came across a patient who was denied a visitor for non medical reasons. That’s just a shitty hospital.

  5. Your. best. post. ever.

  6. I’m with you 100%, profanity and all. ::G

  7. Amen brother. Preach! I stoled it by putting the link on my FB page…

    Good stuff!

  8. Bingo

  9. Damn straight. I don’t want them to have that much authority over my private life.

    And besides, why shouldn’t gays get to experience the joys of divorce court?

  10. I am in agreement ethically. I think that if two people want to get married they just need to find a religious institution to marry them and be done with it. Why bring government into it at all?

    Given the two options on the ballot I would really like to abstain just for the reasons you mention but there is one more piece to the puzzle.

    The “progressives” want gay marriage laws so they can use the law to attack religious institutions.

    The plan is to get gay marriage legal then sue the Catholic church (and then all other churches) for refusing to perform gay marriages.

    Think not? Think again. They’re already doing it with abortions:

    http://www.citizenlink.com/2010/08/20/aclu-hhs-try-to-force-catholic-hospitals-to-perform-abortions-becket-fund-threatens-lawsuit/

    Regardless about what your moral perspective is on abortion this just reeks of nanny-state progressiveness. First you make it legal, then you make it mandatory.

    Given the two options on the ballot I therefore voted FOR the amendment to make marriage in NC for one man and one woman, that being the current status quo. I wish there was a third option: Should government just butt out? But their isn’t.

    Giving the progs another foot in another door is always a mistake. Adding gay relationships to the list of things government can regulate is the wrong direction.

  11. Traditionally, a “citation” includes a reference to a primary source — a hyperlink, let’s say — to expedite everyone’s discovering who and what you’re referring to.

    Otherwise, see, “the case of the married gay couple” may as well be a Scooby Doo episode.

    —-

    A package-deal of parliamentary law, under the superlative auspices of House Wettin, killed the only Alan Turing we’ll ever get, at age 41.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_Law_Amendment_Act_1885

    “Look at the premise.”

  12. Well said. Marriage is a religious institution and should stay so. Anything that allows the sate more power is by definition a Bad Idea.