There was one I ran across some time ago who was of a distinctly libertarian bent. He made what I thought was an excellent point that the entire gay marriage debate misses the much larger and more general issue that the government has transitioned from protecting inherent individual rights to granting them, or not as the case may be.
Singalism may be a problem, but people aren’t banished from their families for being single, at least not at the rate gay youth are. Get a grip, singalism is a choice while homosexuality is not. We should own our choice.
While I heard that the full text of the judge’s ruling on Proposition 8 was accessible, I put everything else aside and dug into the 136-page file. Prop 8 had banned gay marriage in California. Adjudicator Vaughn Walker said that unconstitutional.
First, those statements about the transformative power of getting married that I’ve been trying to bat down for so long – they get taken seriously in the ruling. That was disappointing. The Judge did not need to claim that marriage makes people healthier or happier or any of the rest of it in order to rule that same-sex couples should be allowed to marry.
Another gloomy side of the story: In order to argue for the potential importance of marriage to same-sex couples, the ruling, I believe, added to the discourse of singlism and matrimania.
Now here’s the more interesting and less depressing part. The judge maintained that the opposition to same-sex marriage was based largely on untrue stereotypes and private moral views, and that neither could provide the basis for legislation. “California’s obligation is to treat its citizens equally,” he said. So shouldn’t singles be treated equally, too? That’s what I argued.
I’ll save them for later. So it was just moments ago that I caught up with the lively discussion of the post on dealing with put-downs. I loved discovering that readers were mulling over the same concept I was blogging about at the Huffington Post marital privilege. The title of my post over there was, “Does the Prop 8 ruling make the case for ending marital privilege?”
I think if people can find a church who will marry them, then there should be no government interference, or encouragement. Instead of trying to get the state to grant equal rights, we should be trying to get the state out of meddling in the marriage business and people’s private affairs all together.
Though I paraphrase to a large degree based on memory, I pretty much agree with this take. That’s the real argument against federal marriage promotion programs, not that they’re founded on bogus research and false claims, which is taking the idea behind such programs seriously and as a given that the government would be justified in promoting marriage if the claims were sufficiently demonstrated to be true, or if enough people believed they were true.
Singalism may be a problem, but people aren’t banished from their families for being single, at least not at the rate gay youth are. Get a grip, singalism is a choice while homosexuality is not. We should own our choice.
While I heard that the full text of the judge’s ruling on Proposition 8 was accessible, I put everything else aside and dug into the 136-page file. Prop 8 had banned gay marriage in California. Adjudicator Vaughn Walker said that unconstitutional.
First, those statements about the transformative power of getting married that I’ve been trying to bat down for so long – they get taken seriously in the ruling. That was disappointing. The Judge did not need to claim that marriage makes people healthier or happier or any of the rest of it in order to rule that same-sex couples should be allowed to marry.
Another gloomy side of the story: In order to argue for the potential importance of marriage to same-sex couples, the ruling, I believe, added to the discourse of singlism and matrimania.
Now here’s the more interesting and less depressing part. The judge maintained that the opposition to same-sex marriage was based largely on untrue stereotypes and private moral views, and that neither could provide the basis for legislation. “California’s obligation is to treat its citizens equally,” he said. So shouldn’t singles be treated equally, too? That’s what I argued.
I’ll save them for later. So it was just moments ago that I caught up with the lively discussion of the post on dealing with put-downs. I loved discovering that readers were mulling over the same concept I was blogging about at the Huffington Post marital privilege. The title of my post over there was, “Does the Prop 8 ruling make the case for ending marital privilege?”
I think if people can find a church who will marry them, then there should be no government interference, or encouragement. Instead of trying to get the state to grant equal rights, we should be trying to get the state out of meddling in the marriage business and people’s private affairs all together.
Though I paraphrase to a large degree based on memory, I pretty much agree with this take. That’s the real argument against federal marriage promotion programs, not that they’re founded on bogus research and false claims, which is taking the idea behind such programs seriously and as a given that the government would be justified in promoting marriage if the claims were sufficiently demonstrated to be true, or if enough people believed they were true.
没有评论:
发表评论