Who Cares? They're Going to Hell Anyway
The case of Andersen vs. King County, the Washington State Supereme Court case that upheld "heterosexual marriage rights," reflects the delightful schizophrenia of Washington state politics.
Washington, like Oregon and California, is a red state with a self-righteous and self-satisfied blue coast line. As with Oregon, both the red and the blue are shot through with libertarianism (I don't know what color this is. Green is taken. Orange?). So this ruling is a mess. On the one hand, if affirms the rights of gays to be gay (go ahead gays! the court says it's ok! Shine on, you crazy gay diamonds!). On the other hand, it argues--try to follow the logic--that because gays have gained some margin of legislative protection, they do not need the courts to affirm their rights.
If you're confused, it's because you're paying attention.
On the third hand (yeah, I know), they write:
"limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples furthers procreation, essential to survival of the human race, and furthers the well-being of children by encouraging families where children are reared in homes headed by the children's biological parents."
What? I think the logic is that if you can only get hetero-married, you will do so. And start popping out the kids. Maybe they haven't heard about the population crisis.
Of course, this is risible. The objections are too obvious to state. But also too obvious not to state: what about straights raising adopted kids? What about gays raising biological kids? What about people like me who hate kids? What about old people?
Do they really think that banning gay marriage will "further procreation"??? Who is going to be having these extra babies? Gays? Or will straight people be so damned happy to have their institution all to themselves that they will just start humping like there's no tomorrow?
But, of course, no one believes this. This "protection of marriage" thing is a sham, and everyone knows it, supporters included.
I think they should just be honest and call it the "It Squicks Me Out to Think About Two Guys Going at It (although a couple of attractive ladies are ok, but we can't let them get married because then they might not let me pay to watch) So I Don't Want Them to Get Married Bill."
Oh, and for the folks in the other Washington: in case you haven't noticed, there's a fucking war on. A couple of them, in fact. Worry about the homos after you get that sorted out. Maybe it'll be the rapture by then anyway.
And don't worry. Married or not, they're still going to hell.
Washington, like Oregon and California, is a red state with a self-righteous and self-satisfied blue coast line. As with Oregon, both the red and the blue are shot through with libertarianism (I don't know what color this is. Green is taken. Orange?). So this ruling is a mess. On the one hand, if affirms the rights of gays to be gay (go ahead gays! the court says it's ok! Shine on, you crazy gay diamonds!). On the other hand, it argues--try to follow the logic--that because gays have gained some margin of legislative protection, they do not need the courts to affirm their rights.
If you're confused, it's because you're paying attention.
On the third hand (yeah, I know), they write:
"limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples furthers procreation, essential to survival of the human race, and furthers the well-being of children by encouraging families where children are reared in homes headed by the children's biological parents."
What? I think the logic is that if you can only get hetero-married, you will do so. And start popping out the kids. Maybe they haven't heard about the population crisis.
Of course, this is risible. The objections are too obvious to state. But also too obvious not to state: what about straights raising adopted kids? What about gays raising biological kids? What about people like me who hate kids? What about old people?
Do they really think that banning gay marriage will "further procreation"??? Who is going to be having these extra babies? Gays? Or will straight people be so damned happy to have their institution all to themselves that they will just start humping like there's no tomorrow?
But, of course, no one believes this. This "protection of marriage" thing is a sham, and everyone knows it, supporters included.
I think they should just be honest and call it the "It Squicks Me Out to Think About Two Guys Going at It (although a couple of attractive ladies are ok, but we can't let them get married because then they might not let me pay to watch) So I Don't Want Them to Get Married Bill."
Oh, and for the folks in the other Washington: in case you haven't noticed, there's a fucking war on. A couple of them, in fact. Worry about the homos after you get that sorted out. Maybe it'll be the rapture by then anyway.
And don't worry. Married or not, they're still going to hell.
posted by Feemus at
8:01 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home