Gay marriage. The idea itself pisses off a lot of people, and understandably so. Most of this nation (the US) is Christian, and The Good Book itself admonishes against indulging in homosexuality. Heaven forbid that two men might actually fall in love, might actually want to make a life together. Afterall, The Jebus don't like that stuff, do he?

Regardless, though, that's one of the things that's so cool about this country, in theory anyway. We're all entitled to our opinions, be they bigoted and unjustifiably prejudiced or overly liberal and accepting of societal infractions or somewhere inbetween. This is not, however, justification for disallowing homosexuals and transsexuals to marry. For that, there has to be some rational, compelling reason.

Many of these people cite Biblical passages to support the idea that this country should be free for everyone except "teh homogheys." Even if the Bible does support discrimination--let me save you some time: it does--that's no reason to legislate it. Marriage is not a concept even mentioned in the Constitution. It's an artificial institution, governmentally, anyway, designed to facilitate the easy legal union between two people. The fundies and homophobes are scared that those two people could potentially be any consenting adults who are in love, not just men and women; heaven forbid!

My solution, in an ideal world, would be to abolish governmental sponsorship of marriage and create a legal civil union that any two consenting adults could enter into. If you want the marriage thing, leave that to religion: go to a church. The church should not be forced to recognize such things, especially if its founding documents oppose them. This won't happen, however.


The basic ideals of this country are predicated on the idea of "Freedom for all, with no exceptions except:" and then a list. Every item in that list must have some greater purpose than the arbitrary infringement of freedom. It should protect the greater good while limiting only a non-essential freedom (drive on the right side of the road; don't kill people; don't steal). Any freedom that it limits should pass this basic test: does permitting the freedom endanger more people than the potential benefit of limiting the freedom? If it doesn't pass that test, it shouldn't be a freedom-limiting law.

In the case of marriage, people should be allowed to choose their own partners. There are several parts to this assertion. First is that the government should have governance over the union between consenting partners. Ideally, this would be unnecessary, and such a union would be relegated only to religious circles. We do not live in an ideal world, so this ideal cannot be recognized; legal rights from one person to another are not, and should not, be simply assumed, but should rather be mutually, contractually agreed upon. Hence, marriage. (Modern American marriage espouses a number of other unifying principles between partners, but let's consider these moot; they're extraneous for the purposes of this argument.) The next part is that the government should not have say over who marries who. This only works in part: both of those partners must consent to the union. This negates the possibility of a man marrying a turtle or some equally absurd circumstance that the homophobes seem to fear so much: the turtle can't consent.

This second part of the argument is what most people have trouble with: they don't think people should have the right to choose their own partners. I recently have put out a request for some rational, logically sound argument why the government should restrict people's rights in such a manner. I have not yet gotten a response. (If you have one, please comment or eMail!)

However, from the few conversations I've had, most people's opinions center arround religious, specifically Christian, beliefs. The argument that the government, especially the federal government, should enact laws based upon the Bible is fallacious. The first reason is that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." Congress is not allowed to make a law establishing that, for example, Christianity is the mandated religion of the nation. Thus, Congress is not allowed to make a law mandating that people practice Christianity. Thus, Congress is not allowed to make a law based solely upon Christian teachings: there must be some external rationale. Some people argue with this, claiming that, despite that, the ideals of this country are founded upon Christianity. If I may quote Joel Barlow, who was commissoned by George Washington to write the document colloquially known today as the Treaty with Tripoli of 1797: "As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion..." (There's plenty more, some of it clarifying the reasons why he is making this statement, but none of it conflicting with it; Google it if you're not sure.) This document was ratified into law by John Adams. It went unopposed. The constitution barely (if at all?) mentions God, and definitely does /not/ make mention of Jesus Christ or Christianity. In fact, Jefferson reported that someone attempted to insert good ol' jebus into the constitution, and the framers voted it down. Clearly the idea that our nation is founded upon strictly Christian principles is absurd as the idea that all people of the country should be forced to follow those principles.

So we've established that, if there will be governmental sanctions towards marriage, Congress is not justified in prohibiting certain people from marrying based on any religious convictions. The next argument that the homophobes make is that their own marriages will crumble if them gays can get some legal buttlovin' goin' on. This begs the question, then: does our freedom-limiting test pass? Does permitting people to choose their own partners endanger more people than the potential benefit of limiting the freedom? Well, the answer to this question is dependent upon why their marriages will crumble, why the sanctity of marriage will be overturned. I'm willing to learn another reason (comment/eMail me!), but every reason I've heard goes back to religious beliefs. The obvious solution is the civil unions for all, marriages--sponsored SOLELY by the church--for fundies idea. Barring this, the idea that the sanctity of marriage will be overturned is simply a perception: it does not genuinely introduce any limitations to anyone else's safety or personal freedom. It fails the test; there is no genuine endangerment.

The final argument that I've heard is that allowing gay marriage is a "slippery slope," and will permit marrying dogs, cattle, and fifty other people. I've already addressed the issue of marrying non-consenting individuals. Slippery slope is a logical fallacy--again, look it up if you're skeptical. There has to be some basis for going from A to B; simply saying that "Gays shouldn't marry (A) because then men will marry fifty women (B)" does not explain why A implies B. Without that implication, even if B is a perfectly legitimate reason, it is a logical fallacy. The issue of polygamy is outside the scope of this rant, and I can think of several reasons why it should not be allowed as well as several why it should, but ask yourself this before blindly screaming "NO:" if all 50 partners are fully consenting and of sound mind, why shouldn't they be allowed? I'll leave this question for later.

The conclusion can only be this: the government should not introduce any laws specifying who should be allowed to marry.


If you have a rational rebuttle to this, I would honestly love to hear it, because I haven't heard anything except vitriolic screams that gay people are gross, so PLEASE comment or eMail me.

I gotta say, I'm addicted to LowBrow. Anybody who's clicked Reload more than a few times knows about LowBrowLimbo. Tonight, idly clicking through, I read probably his best post ever, indeed, the best post on LowBrow ever:

===
BrewPub, late at night. I walk in, but there's only two customers there, and the barmaid is the same one who I asked to play my Biker Joe Warren CD, enticing her with some of the song titles, like "Hershey Highway," and "I Just Wanna Fuck You One More Time." I figure that barmaids' skin must be an inch thick, given their work environment, but hers wasn't.

So I've got some work to do before she and I are level again.

I turn to leave, but the couple in the corner beg me to stay and talk. No problem -- the woman is exactly my type: tall, skinny, intelligent, strong-featured, lots of unkempt dark hair... yum.

Early on, I realize that these two guys are crazy for each other, and sweet as hell to watch together, so I back off and go into pure, weightless flirting mode. This is not the sports bar, no arm-wrestling here.

So of course I offer to arm-wrestle for her. She giggles and loves it, but it's hard to get a 31 year-old to blush.

I ask if they're married. They are.

Me: "You just lucked out then, buddy. Because otherwise, she would be mine."

They both laugh at that one, looking at each other with pure love. We're having fun. This is their 4th anniversary.

Me: "4 down, 3 to go..."

She: "Everybody tells us that! Why?"

(because it's the sad truth, you gorgeous woman...)

We talk brewpubs. They're from Joisey, and on a tour. I give them some local tips. Grand time.

They make to leave. I invite them to play pool, down the street. They seriously consider it.

She: "He's very good."

Me: "I hope so. You know what the bet would have to be."

He laughs, She giggles. No blush, yet.

I shake his hand, warmly. I've enjoyed his company.

I take her hand, stare deep in her eyes, and say "enchante."

She giggles and blushes. Yes!

I whisper to her: "Don't have children, and call me in three years, OK?"

She blushes like a teenager, and won't let go of my hand...

- LowBrowLimbo@hotmail.com
===

Moments like that, my friends, are what life is all about.