Gay marriages are illegal. Still.
I can't believe it took this long to figure out that a mayor can't ignore the Rule of Law and issue marriage certificates to gay couples when the law clearly states that it isn't legal.
Do I have a problem with people being gay? No. Do I have a problem with them commiting to each other? No. But I do have a problem with them breaking the law because it suits them. The Rule of Law must be respected. Unless you're a popular Democratic President and you think perjury and rape aren't really crimes. Or you don't know what "is" is.
Anyway, I digress.
So, I'm looking at the news, when I see this pile of tripe:
Their nullification by the high court dismayed Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon, the first same-sex couple to receive a marriage license in San Francisco.
"Del is 83-years-old and I am 79," Lyon said. "After being together for more than 50 years, it is a terrible blow to have the rights and protections of marriage taken away from us. At our age, we do not have the luxury of time."
Well, let's look at this systematically. First of all, the lack of marriage hasn't prevented them from a 50-year commitment to each other. So why do they suddenly need marriage? Isn't a marriage more about the commitment than the piece of paper?
OK, so there's still some comfort in that paper. But what about her rights? (highlighted in yellow above)
Well, it turns out that contrary to what the mis-informed 79-year-old says, there is no Right to be married. Marriage is a state-sponsored rite (notice the spelling) that conveys the legal right to procreate. It is sanctioned with legal status since it affects the legal status of minor children in many ways.
So, she has no Right to marriage. How about the protections she talks about? I think that's where we need to look at the implications of the renegade mayor's decisions.
The protections afforded married people relates primarily to offspring. Since gay couples can't have offspring, that's not exactly a strong argument.
However, since adoption is a legal way for couples without offspring to acquire them, I see it as far-impacting the area of child-rearing.
Now, I am not against gay people. I don't care what they do in private (just like they don't care what I do in private). However, I feel that it is not an appropriate thing to place a child with two parents of the same sex. Why? Because we want children to grow up with values instilled from men and women together. I don't care how capable two men are, it's not the same as a man and a woman. It just isn't.
So, it's not really about the couple. It's about the children. And I'm sure that the gay couples could be very loving. However, I don't think that placing children in that setting is in the best interest of the children, and that is the purpose and function of adoption.
It's not about hate. It's not about gay rights. It's about what's in the best interests of the children, and if the gay population really values children, they should not press the issue of gay marriage. They can have their own little ceremony to commit to each other, just don't call it marriage. That term is reserved for a special purpose.
Previous day's rant
Go to Top
If you have ideas, comments, or criticisms, tell me about it.