So the Supreme Court heard arguments on gay marriage yesterday, and who knows how they’ll rule but the course we’re on now seems pretty certain. I still find this thing absurd, but with how much emotion there is and how quickly it’s come upon people, trying to talk rationally about gay marriage is like trying to talk rationally about regular marriage to two lovesick teenagers. Of course, marriage is not really a rational thing anyway — it’s a religious thing — and that’s why emotion will win out in the end. And that’s why the arguments will always get silly (such as those in front of SCOTUS trying to explain how same-sex marriage must be allowed by polygamy is still bad and icky).
As I’ve said before, the best end is to get government out of marriage all together — completely separate the religious aspects from the legal ones. No one seems to be leading us in that direction, though, and all that’s left to do is just watch as this train wreck everyone is so excited for happens (“It’s the civil right issue of our generation!”). The government will come up with a new definition of marriage — and then another and another until it’s a completely silly abstraction. And then there will be the lawsuits on churches that won’t perform same-sex marriages — religious liberty has just become an obstacle for free birth control anyway.
Oh well. We’ll muddle through it. And maybe learn something in the end… if the country is still around because it hasn’t collapsed in debt or something.
Experience is what you get when you don’t get what you wanted.
Well, since marriage is as much ‘cultural’ as it is ‘religious’ (worldwide), and since our ‘culture’ is now run by government and controlled by statists from both parties, I guess it makes sense to make marriage 100% government-controlled and sanctioned. We must never again allow any cultural or religious supremacy over government.
The only way around our problem, of course, is Islamic Sharia, where government, religion and culture are one and the same.
Um, yeah. That’s were we’re headed.
I mentioned it in a previous article’s comments, but it’s more appropriate here: Have we given up on the idea of civil unions as not really allowing the power of attorney and insurance benefits of marriage, or has everyone just forgotten about it?
Are there any useless icons those of us who want the government out of marriage can plaster all over social media to annoy our friends?
No matter what the SCOTUS decides, gay marriage is still a contradiction in terms and homosexuals’ love lives are still covered in fecal matter.
@4 – I’m imagining the red “no” symbol over a picture of Uncle Sam in a bed between 2 people.
if only gun owners would push their agenda on the nay-sayers as passionately as gay rights advocates do…I think we can learn something from them.
The biggest problem with children (which, these days includes college kids and liberals) is that they haven’t been alive long enough to know what they’re talking about, as they haven’t lived through societies cycles. Things that are a certain way for thousands of years, are that way for a reason. And, the reason that the Founding Fathers designed our government to be dysfunctional is so that every whim and fad could not become law and risk destroying society. Unfortunately, democrats keep finding ways to ignore the Constitution, and ignore the rules of passage of bills with no opposition (Boehner? Boehner? Boehner? Has anyone seen Boehner?), and get help in the Senate from useful idiots like McCain and Graham to pass fads into law. If “gay marriage” passes, in time society will right itself like it always does…even if we’re no longer around to see it. And all these nonsensical liberal ideas will be undone, as has happened time and time again since before the days of the Roman empire. So, despite liberal children believing that they are the one true enlightened generation, in time all of their destruction to society will be reversed, as people rebel against the stupidity of generations before them. Especially since, their ideas have – in reality – very limited support from the people even today, and only daily propaganda disguised as a 24/7 news “reporting” cycle is allowing them any cover. But, again, in time people will laugh at this generation as being perhaps the stupidest since the days of Sodom and Gomorrah, and all of their liberal ideas – including gay marriage – will be laughed at.
Laughed at? And/or scoffed at in disgust, Son of Bob.
Christianity and Libertarianism are NOT compatible in any way shape or form.
And accepting Gay Marriage, even by using a phony “get the Gov out of the marriage business” excuse employed by Rand Paul, will ELIMINATE the Evangelical vote! Forever. Evangelicals will never vote for Gay marriage supporting Libertarian/Tea People. Never!!
They won’t sell their souls to the Devil just so you can have lower taxes
Carpenter,
Your argument needs more words in all caps.
OK…
THERE ARE FAR MORE EVANGELICALS
than there are GAYS
Its one or the other
make your choice!
would I go to Hell for suggesting that maybe freeing the Republican party from always having to pander to the evangelical vote may not be the worst idea ever?
How about we compromise: we allow gays to get married but we don’t allow them to get divorced!
@14 – Man… and I thought *I* had a mean streak… 🙂
As an evangelical, I’m all for the third option of getting government out of marriage – and that’s simply because it’s the reasonable choice.
My beliefs (and the laws of reality) make it unreasonable to change the definition of marriage. It’s like saying the color blue is the color red. Government didn’t invent marriage. It simply recognized it and its implications on property rights.
It is ALSO unreasonable to limit individual’s rights to legally bind themselves for the purpose of achieving those same property rights. Whether it is a heterosexual couple, homosexual couple, or same-sex hetero people who could benefit from such a system (two widows living together for instance), there is no compelling reason to limit their ability to enter into such an arrangement. Granted, there are a plethora of existing legal instruments by which to achieve the economic equivalent to marriage, it is far more expensive and complex then the marriage license.
Once you separate those two concepts, you’ve eliminated the very likely type of backlash that we’re going to get with so-called “gay marriage.” As it stands, if and (the way things are going – WHEN) we lose this argument, we will be compelled by the force of government to comply to the new definition. I’d much prefer to simply take the word out of the government’s mouth, never to let them utter it again.
I don’t see it as an abdication, but as a reclamation of marriage by the church.