And the downfall of America continues...

So, I suppose all you gays are celebrating your newfound ability to devalue straight marriages and marry your sons for tax purposes. Well, let me tell you a story:

Once upon a time there was a man. Then various things happened.

Actually, I should probably have developed the story a bit more before committing to writing this post, but anyway, it's supposed to be like a metaphor and stuff, and then you think that you could be the man, and then... suddenly you realise I'm talking about an issue and it causes you to rethink your position.

What do you think of it so far?

 

How many Americans are actually on here?

I know I'm planning on marrying my son as a tax shelter. I just have to have him first.

 

You have a nice "flow", but I think you might be missing "content". I don't feel that those 30 seconds I lost reading your text were a total waste, so I guess I'd give it a 2/5 with potential to turn into a 4/5 if you actually, you know, wrote something.

 

Here's one.

 

I'm glad that the arbitrary definition of marriage has been arbitrarily extended to cover same-sex unions, but disappointed that the majority wasn't represented in this decision.

 

I have long since come to terms with the fact that my beloved country will eventually morph into something I detest. I don't think any court ruling or executive order, no matter how outrageous, could surprise me at this point.

 

I suppose the prevention of the whole thing was good. But it's a bit silly that one can prevent a vote on something by stalling it long enough.

 

Re:

The majority of what?

Did you think that this was an outrageous court ruling?

The filibustered vote concerned a different issue from the one I alluded to in the story in my first post. I guess TP was right and I should have developed the "content" more, to make it clearer. Having said that, I agree with everything you wrote.

 

That's a good idea in theory, but in practice it won't please anyone. The religious right will object because they want the government to give a legal mandate to their religious ceremony, and the gay rights movement will object because they want the government to force society to give civil unions the same status as marriage.

Actually, while I say it won't please anyone, in practice it would probably please most people, but the two groups above are the ones that make the most noise on this issue, so it wouldn't feel like it.

 

Let's call pair-bonding 'pair-bonding' and marriage 'super-fun happy-God magic breeding-license pair-bonding'.

 

Well, a) I think civil unions make the most sense and marriage should just go the way of the horse and buggy. Not a popular opinion, probably. And b) Marriage pre-dates church involvement so it irritates me that any religion thinks they own it.

Equal rights for all - who cares what it's called, but right now it's called marriage so that's what everyone should have.

Now I'm off to wed my dog.

 

Well, the good news is that younger generations don't give two hoots about any of this stuff, so by the time we're all old men the issue will have just gone away.

The bad news is that until that happens we're going to have to put up with the current generation of old men whining that they feel threatened by change.

More bad news is that when we're old men, we'll be whining about some new upcoming change that we in turn feel threatened by. In other words, we are all the Rush Limbaughs of the future.

 

Well, Smuel, your post certainly makes me glad I'm a woman and therefore exempt from turning into Rush Limbaugh.

Now get off my lawn!

 

I am now enlighted by what internet has forced on me. Which is little. But yea, what Vorak said. Also, more filibuster discussion in here to validate my previous post.

And I was so sure that America couldn't do two good things in the same week.

THANKS OBAMA!

 

Re: Re:

As I understood it, the majority of the population of California was against something that had to deal with same-sex marriage. This is from a factoid I heard from NPR that I don't completely remember. I heard a bit of news that I didn't research, reacted to it, and commented about it online. Isn't that how the Internet works?

 

At the risk of sounding like an elitist snob - just because the majority wants something, that doesn't mean they should get it.

Also, a majority in the State of California is a farily arbitrary measure. I suspect that a majority of the population of Los Angeles had the opposite view. What about the opinion of the majority of the US? I mean, sure, it's the way the legal system happens to be set up, but there's no moral imperative to ensure that the opinion of the majority in any one given region is reflected in laws specific to that region.

 

I'll concede that what the majority wants may not actually be right in an absolute sense or even in the majority's best interest, so majority rule isn't a perfect system. I think that it is a pretty damn good system and sufficiently close to perfect for the time being.

Whatever my individual opinion of same-sex marriage might be, if the majority is not in favor of it, then it should not be allowed. Perhaps the majority just isn't ready for the change yet. The attitude of the majority can and will change, and even if the majority's whim isn't consistent, if the law of the land is majority rule then I would prefer that at least it be practiced consistently.

 

Nope.

 

Zanza's point is that it wouldn't have been practised consistently, because while Proposition 8 was in effect the law for gay couples in California was different from the law for gay couples in the rest of the country. If you care about majority rule then you should be pleased that one subdivision of the US was not allowed to change things in their region to suit their whim.