On Gay Marriage

Marriage is a religious institution. Marriage, whether it is mine or someone else’s, has nothing whatsoever to do with our government. Rest assured, though, if there is money to be made from any proposal brought before congress, it will surely pass. There might be resistance, but it will pass.

The conservative right will be all up in arms. This is not because they believe it is a legal issue, but because it goes against their religious beliefs.

The left will claim victory. This is not because their religious beliefs have been substantiated, but because it coddles their political perspective.

But just you wait. The lawyers will rejoice. Champagne corks will be as loud as the fireworks on the Fourth of July.

Political expedience will always surpass religious agendas, in congress, every day of the week. Let’s not forget: an enormous conglomerate of politicians have already passed the bar. They know what is good for the goose is good for the gander.

And the gander are flocking to be fleeced by the geese.

Divorce: You just can’t have it without marriage. There is no money to be made on a gay couple who separates. For that you need ‘legality’. Once the courts become involved, the money will flow into the hands of lawyers like oil spilling into the gulf. The environmental impact from the Gulf spill will be nothing compared to the lawyers impact on the bank accounts of divorcing gay couples.

Although nobody gets married to get divorced, the courts cannot benefit until gay marriage becomes a legally sanctioned financial sieve.

Religious practices aren’t governmentally sponsored, condoned, condemned, or restricted. In the United States, laws aren’t supposed to be made which violate any religious practice. From a purely legal perspective, there is no reason gay couples shouldn’t have equal legal rights.

I’m just not so sure they deserve equal rights to the legal fleece.

8 Comments (+add yours?)

  1. Konfusing Kancer
    Mar 26, 2013 @ 22:22:49

    Don’t forget that there is money to be made in marriage too – both in licencing as well as the ceremonies!


  2. UK Atheist
    Mar 27, 2013 @ 02:50:23

    Rubbish … marriage is an institution between two people (a social or legal contract according to Wikipedia).

    In fact I am of the opinion that marriage should become a solely state oriented concept. Sure priests and rabbi’s and so on should still be able to marry others BUT would have to do so as a distinct qualification and, by doing so, agree to follow the relevant laws of the country in which they qualified and are practicing. Divorcing marriage from religion (from the celebration itself) would have the advantage of allowing people to be married (the ceremonial part) by whomever they want be that Elvis Presley, Captain Kirk, their best friend or their dog … all they would require would be a registered state official legally able to perform marriages. Job done and another nail in the coffin for religion’s inflated view of their own importance.

    There is no reason apart from the usual religious bigotry that gay couples should not marry.



  3. tildeb
    Mar 27, 2013 @ 08:12:30

    Just curious: what positive value is it that you’re trying to uphold by supporting marriage of opposite couples only?


    • arthuriandaily
      Mar 29, 2013 @ 23:46:23

      Not sure what you are referring to.


      • tildeb
        Mar 31, 2013 @ 10:18:42

        I’m just not so sure they deserve equal rights to the legal fleece.

        So you’re suggesting that perhaps we should ‘protect’ same sex couples from legal costs while allowing massive estate double taxation because these couples are not granted equivalent legal protection as married couples not so subjected? And you <i.still think marriage has nothing to do with government?

        No. You’re either just trying to be inappropriately funny, or you have no idea what you’re talking about. That’s why I asked if you have anything, anything at all, to suggest that there is some positive value about upholding opposite gender marriages only, because otherwise it’s all negative and unjustifiably discriminatory. And that has everything to do with the legislative bodies that impose legal inequalities through discriminatory marriage statutes.

      • arthuriandaily
        Mar 31, 2013 @ 22:10:21

        Sorry, you’ve lost me.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: