Tuesday, May 12, 2009

Do What You Want--Leave Me Out Of it

All the stuff I've been hearing/reading about the lovely Carrie Prejean doesn't make me regret my vote against Stalag California's Prop 8--well, it kind of does after watching those bloody fools go crazy protesting the way the vote went. If you live by the ballot, you die by the ballot. As I gradually follow many of my libertarian friends toward non-voting, I actually think maybe I should give it up as one of my many filthy habits.

Carrie Prejean was asked a question, answered it honestly--if a mite hesitantly--and has been getting verbally bludgeoned for it ever since. Why can't (certain) homosexuals accept the fact that not everyone likes them?

Proposition 8 allowed anyone who can vote decide how a minority should live. This is the precise practical application of the old definition of democracy: that democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner. I wouldn't have advocated putting Prop 8 on the ballot. The proper initiative would've been "should government have any role in marriage." The answer is no. There is no clause in the US Constitution allowing government to be involved in this area. There is no rational justification for government involvement here.

The whole thing is simply conservative christians deciding to write christian doctrine into law--already forbidden by the First Amendment. Any couple--or group--wanting to declare themselves married should do so, with whatever ceremony they can put together and with whatever vows they can agree upon.

Marriage is first a religious tradition. It's a rite of passing, a blessings to a couple's union and and, I guess, permission to conceive, birth and rear children. Not being a religious sort, I don't fully understand the concept (in view of the religious persons' oft-exercised propensity to end the lifelong vows exchanged in the ceremony) and probably never will.

Marriage is second a "contract" between the couple for mutual support and division of labor. And for division of property and responsibility in the event of the end of the relationship. In practice, this contract should be explicitly negotiated, agreed 'pon, and rendered fully legal and enforceable prior to the beginning of the union, and should become the first issue to be settled prior to the union.

Terms should be any that can be agreed 'pon by a couple or group, regardless of the sexes, orientations, or degrees of wealth and success of the parties involved.

Once government is thrown out of the equation (except if the parties name government courts as arbiters) , there would be no more arguments over who can marry and who can't. Anyone can declare himself married to anyone--or more than one. The only requirement would be sentience to the degree of being able to sign a contract.


Warm regards,

Col. Hogan
Stalag California


MK said...

"Why can't (certain) homosexuals accept the fact that not everyone likes them?"

The thing about marriage between 1 man and 1 woman is that it's been shown to be the best environment, where possible, to raise the next generation of citizens. It's not just some christian belief based on nothing.

Children raised in single-parent or homosexual marriages are less likely to succeed in life and society needs their children to succeed.

Everywhere in the world where society does not support and encourage 1 man - 1 woman marriage, and i'm not just referring to homo-marriage is a shithole in some form or another.

i know i haven't explained it very well, but you should seek out other conservatives who are far more capable of explaining it better than me.

Col. Hogan said...


For the kids, it's obvious that a man and a woman is the best situation. Kids living in a "two mommies" household don't have a father, just as kids living with "two daddies" have no mother.

I'm at a loss, though, to accept the notion that law, usually a one-size-fits-all proposition, should apply to any association or cohabitation of any sort. All mankind has the right of association and of contract (though government attempts to violate these rights, along with many others.

If any religious sect wishes to make requirements along these lines--well, one can follow the rules, or one can leave.