Sometimes you have to be pragmatic

Despite my objections and my inner feelings on the issue, I have come to a conclusion on an issue that might surprise some of you.

I believe gays should be allowed to marry.

There. I said it. Never let it be said I toe any party line.

The reasons for this change of heart? Well nothing specific. I mean, I didn’t one day go, “Holy crap, that needs to be done because x…”

Jay and I were chatting today about the new attempt the Bush Administration is making to pass a law that not only violates the Full Faith and Confidence clause, but also codifies a ban on judicial review. The law states that the Federal Courts and the Supreme Court cannot overturn or otherwise rule on the law, and that the states can decide for themselves AND that no state has to honor another state’s interpretation of marriage.

Think of what we’ve come to, here. Not to put on a tinfoil hat, but we have hit the point where we are starting to shred the constitution, and I don’t like it. The idea that states don’t have to recognize the laws of other states at all coupled with the theoretical ban on judicial review are frightening actions to be taking in general, but think about it in terms of gay marriage.

What are we fighting over? I’m starting to rethink the arguments against gay marriage and they just don’t make sense anymore.

It doesn’t devalue marriage for anyone. Oh sure, it’s a change in the definition. So what? If Bob marries Joe, am I any less married to Beth than I am now? Obviously not. In fact, I’m moreso married because my committed relationship is still recognized and the institution is preserved by extending it to others. I think the highest form of love that a couple can share is a lifelong commitment to each other that is recognized in the proper manner.

It doesn’t hurt children. I’d rather see a gay and loving couple raising children than some of the sorry sacks I see on the subway everyday. Two good parents beats these “baby-mammas” I see every day feeding soda and cheetohs to kids who aren’t even old enough to get around without being pushed in a stroller. Maybe a mother and a mother can’t offer what a mother and father can together, but so what? There are plenty of single mothers who do a hell of a great job raising a child. Adding another parent, whether it’s a another man or another woman cannot possibly be bad for children.

Pragmatically speaking, the idea of gay marriage makes much more sense than the stupidity that’s going on now. Face it. You can pass all the laws you want, and they’ll never be enforced. Elliot Spitzer of New York refused to prosecute the mayor of New Paltz, even though he clearly violated the law. Gavin Newsome of San Francisco doesn’t care at all about the law, and no one in California is going to stop them even though they clearly violate the law.

You can go on and on, but the truth is that passing all the laws (including this new one that’s being bandied about) in the world aren’t going to stop anything.

Then there’s the issue of adjusting laws. Visitation in hospital emergency rooms. Custodial rights in the event one parent dies. Survivor rights for social security. Estate rights for spouses. And so on and so on. And why are we rewriting these laws? To help out whom?

Look, I don’t like who’s on the anti side of this issue. The Fred Phelps’ and the Rev. Billy Grahams… Those types make me a bit uneasy. While emotionally, I don’t think I can wholeheartedly fall in line with the Gay & Lesbian community on this one, I just can’t find myself arguing wholeheartedly against gay marriage when Tom Keane comes out and does a news conference that basically said, “Hey America: News flash. We’re going to be hit again by terrorists… We’re working on it…” I can’t be bothered arguing about whether or not two people who love each other should or shouldn’t be married.

Let it be. There are much more pressing issues in this country that have a much deeper effect on all of us. Let gay people marry each other, and let’s move on to more important things like keeping terrorists from ending the existence of thousands of Americans. As long as we’re hung up on the definition of marriage, we’re not paying attention to any other issues, and frankly that’s more frightening than Leslie marrying Martha would ever be.

At least in my eyes.

This entry was posted in Silly. Bookmark the permalink.
  • http://stageleft.crow.ws stageleft

    Right on Vinny.

  • Belf!!!

    After 6 years, you never cease to amaze me. :-)

  • http://www.chapel-perilous.net/ bsti

    good post.

    “As long as weíre hung up on the definition of marriage, weíre not paying attention to any other issues”

    this implies Americans can only consider one issue at a time, and you might be right about that. But I wholeheartedly agree with you on this post. It’s really a non-issue made into an issue by people who fear change.

  • http://nonannystate.blogspot.com The Other Mike S.

    Right on, brudda!

    Can I call you a fellow Libertarian yet?

  • http://www.insignificantthoughts.com Vinny

    God no! lol

  • http://chapel-perilous.fetishize-me.com/caiterwauling/ Cait

    Kudos to you for having the heart and mind to re-think your position and to change when you thought change was called for. Your careful consideration of ALL sides is one of the reasons I’m a regular here (and I don’t even want gmail from you!)

  • Kevin

    Despite my objections and my inner feelings on the issue, I have come to a conclusion on an issue that might surprise some of you.

    Huh? Either you believe this or you don’t.

    The reasons for this change of heart? Well nothing specific.

    Huh?

    Jay and I were chatting today about the new attempt the Bush Administration is making to pass a law that not only violates the Full Faith and Confidence clause, but also codifies a ban on judicial review. The law states that the Federal Courts and the Supreme Court cannot overturn or otherwise rule on the law, and that the states can decide for themselves AND that no state has to honor another stateís interpretation of marriage.

    Admittedly a bad idea, and I fully understand being against it. However it doesn’t change how I feel about marrige or the price of tea in China.

    Maybe a mother and a mother canít offer what a mother and father can together, but so what?

    Yea so what, I have no problem comprimiising my values. Come on man…

    Look, I donít like whoís on the anti side of this issue. The Fred Phelpsí and the Rev. Billy GrahamsÖ Those types make me a bit uneasy.

    Yea these freaks make me uneasy too, but even a blind Hog finds an acorn every once and again.

    Let it be. There are much more pressing issues in this country that have a much deeper effect on all of us. Let gay people marry each other, and letís move on to more important things like keeping terrorists from ending the existence of thousands of Americans. As long as weíre hung up on the definition of marriage, weíre not paying attention to any other issues, and frankly thatís more frightening than Leslie marrying Martha would ever be.

    So are you for Gays marrying or are you afraid you can’t concentrate on more than one important issue at a time? Or is it that it’s not important enough to argue about?
    Be carefull, it a slippery slope when you start to let your principles slid.
    Basicly I’m confused reading this post.

    Now before everyone gets their nickers in a twist and start thinking ” that insensitive Redneck bastard, he’s a homophobic asshole who doesn’t know his ass from a hole in the ground!” My middle sister lives w/ a lovley woman in Michigan (of all places). They have a home together and have been happily cohabitating for years and as long as they are happy, I hope this continues forever. I love my sister and I love her significant other for the joy, love and happiness she brings to her life. They are however not married. They are what they are, two women in love, living their lives together. They live there lives according to their principles and I live mine according to mine, yet the world still spins on it’s axis, the sun comes up each morning and we still love each other.

    People, wake up! There are others in the world that are not the same as you! This is not a bad thing!!! Not everyone has to fit in your little box or carry your label. It is OK to be different!
    A man and a woman get married. A woman and a woman get something else. This is not a good or a bad thing in and of it’s self, it’s just different!

  • http://www.insignificantthoughts.com Vinny

    No slippery slopes here. Just the realization that this isn’t worth the effort being put into it any more.

    On the day when the world was handed the 9/11 Report, the House voted on a bill to defend marriage.

    If that doesn’t categorize what’s fucked on both sides of the aisle, I really don’t know what is.

  • Kevin

    Vinny, have faith brother, we as a nation can handle more than one contentious and troubling issue at a time.

    It is always worth the effort to adopt a principle (if not you become as Senator Kerry, a man without principle). If you believe in that principle, defend it. If on the other hand you have come to the realization that the principle you hold is wrong, than by all means change your belief. Nothing is worse than defending a principle you belive in your heart to be wrong.

    If in your heart you believe that couples of the same sex are the same as couples of different sexes and perform the same function in nature, than by all means stand up for same sex marriage.
    If on the other hand if you believe as I do that it does not serve the same natural function as a union between a man and a woman, than say so.

    Do not abandon your beliefs just because something comes along that seems more important at this particular time.

  • pete from astoria

    Vinny, I agree with you on many points, however there are still many practical potential problems with the idea of same-sex marriage. It would really have to be done right. I don’t have enough confidence that it can right now. Following the legalization of such a practice, ther will be many more people standing in line demanding equal treatment. For instance, heterosexual couples living together but who are not recognized as “married” by either the government or the church. Or people who are just roomates. We would need a slew of new and wise legislation just to deal with the economic issues such as private company provided insurance and rental regulations. Then of course there is the subject of polygamy. If it’s ok for John and Joe to marry, then why not John and Mary and Susan and Lisa and Nancy? Surely a child would get more than enough attention in a polygamous family. I fear that same sex marriage would ultimately get the government and trial lawyers more involved in our lives. I agree, there are many more pressing issues in our society. That’s more of a reason to perhaps put this one on the back burner for a while, perhaps indefinitely.

  • http://onefinejay.com OF Jay

    Vinny, it turns out that Congress can make the exceptions it wants under III-2 of the Consti. It still seems darned tacky to me.

  • http://www.insignificantthoughts.com Vinny

    I’m not abandoning my beliefs on the issue itself, I’m just tired of seeing my government pre-occupied with it.

    The truth of the matter is that there are more important issues out there, and while most citizens are capable of walking and chewing gum simultaneously, our government most certainly is not.

  • http://heather.sokols.us Heather

    If itís ok for John and Joe to marry, then why not John and Mary and Susan and Lisa and Nancy?

    One has nothing to do with the other. Marriage is still a committed relationship between two people. The idea that same sex marriage is going to destroy the sanctity of marriage or lead to immorality is simply an excuse to judge and discriminate against another human being.

    It is not our right, as mere humans, to judge the morality of one another. Nor is it prudent, as Americans, to discriminate against any group of people for any reason.

  • pete from astoria

    Heather, I hear you! I don’t want to get into the whole concept of “judging”, that’s a whole broad new subject. When you say we shouldn’t discriminate against anyone for any reason, that goes a bit far. Should we not judge or discriminate against pedophiles or NAMBLA members? Though we all live individual lives, we do not live in a vacuum. Our actions also affect others and society in general.

    P.S.
    I’m sure Mormons who practice polygamy would consider their relationship committed ones.

  • http://www.alwaysvictoria.com Sweet N Sassy

    One of the things I love about you Vinny, is you are open to re-evaluating things, acknowledging when you have changed your position, and the resons you have made the change. That to me is very important qualities in people and some I like to find in them these days….You still remain high on my list and Rock man!!!

  • http://pam pam

    Kevin- I have a sister-in-law that has been in a monogomous 20 year relationship with another woman here in Michigan. They have built a nice life together. But unless they have some type of recognition, They are left with the thought that partner can’t leave her pension to sisinlaw, medical decisions upon death can not be made by anyone but family, if one wants cremation, which they both do, a family member must sign off on it. That is not right. There are many things a heterosexual couple takes for granted here. As for opening the doors to people just living together, they already do have rights. The only thing an unmarried woman or man can not collect in a heterosexual nonmarried union is Social security.
    I just feel that in a society, that has a 50% divorce rate, we may not be best to decide who can or can’t marry!

    I will place money that if this does go, and it will, before the Supreme Court, we will see gay marriage. I will go further and say they will use the 14th amendment to the Constitution under the equal protection clause!

  • http://www.andrewhagen.com/archives/2004/07/24/744/ Andrew Hagen

    Argument for upholding classical marriage as the exclusive matrimonial form, linking to this web log.

  • John “Akatsukami” Braue

    “Full Faith and Credit“, damnit.

    And a quick review of the situation indicates that the courts have never held marriage to be a “full faith and credit” matter; they’ve viewed it analogously to a State recognizing a partnership.

    First-cousin marriages, miscenegation laws, polygamy, you name it — the judicial record is that just because the State of Confusion recognizes a marriage, there is no Constitutional requirement that the State of Tightassia must do the same, even though the marriage could not be celebrated there.

  • Pingback: Anonymous

  • Pingback: Anonymous

  • http://stageleft.crow.ws/ stageleft

    Right on Vinny.

  • Belf!!!

    After 6 years, you never cease to amaze me. :-)

  • http://www.chapel-perilous.net/ bsti

    good post.

    “As long as weíre hung up on the definition of marriage, weíre not paying attention to any other issues”

    this implies Americans can only consider one issue at a time, and you might be right about that. But I wholeheartedly agree with you on this post. It’s really a non-issue made into an issue by people who fear change.

  • http://nonannystate.blogspot.com/ The Other Mike S.

    Right on, brudda!

    Can I call you a fellow Libertarian yet?

  • http://www.insignificantthoughts.com/ Vinny

    God no! lol

  • http://chapel-perilous.fetishize-me.com/caiterwauling/ Cait

    Kudos to you for having the heart and mind to re-think your position and to change when you thought change was called for. Your careful consideration of ALL sides is one of the reasons I’m a regular here (and I don’t even want gmail from you!)

  • Kevin

    Despite my objections and my inner feelings on the issue, I have come to a conclusion on an issue that might surprise some of you.

    Huh? Either you believe this or you don’t.

    The reasons for this change of heart? Well nothing specific.

    Huh?

    Jay and I were chatting today about the new attempt the Bush Administration is making to pass a law that not only violates the Full Faith and Confidence clause, but also codifies a ban on judicial review. The law states that the Federal Courts and the Supreme Court cannot overturn or otherwise rule on the law, and that the states can decide for themselves AND that no state has to honor another stateís interpretation of marriage.

    Admittedly a bad idea, and I fully understand being against it. However it doesn’t change how I feel about marrige or the price of tea in China.

    Maybe a mother and a mother canít offer what a mother and father can together, but so what?

    Yea so what, I have no problem comprimiising my values. Come on man…

    Look, I donít like whoís on the anti side of this issue. The Fred Phelpsí and the Rev. Billy GrahamsÖ Those types make me a bit uneasy.

    Yea these freaks make me uneasy too, but even a blind Hog finds an acorn every once and again.

    Let it be. There are much more pressing issues in this country that have a much deeper effect on all of us. Let gay people marry each other, and letís move on to more important things like keeping terrorists from ending the existence of thousands of Americans. As long as weíre hung up on the definition of marriage, weíre not paying attention to any other issues, and frankly thatís more frightening than Leslie marrying Martha would ever be.

    So are you for Gays marrying or are you afraid you can’t concentrate on more than one important issue at a time? Or is it that it’s not important enough to argue about?
    Be carefull, it a slippery slope when you start to let your principles slid.
    Basicly I’m confused reading this post.

    Now before everyone gets their nickers in a twist and start thinking ” that insensitive Redneck bastard, he’s a homophobic asshole who doesn’t know his ass from a hole in the ground!” My middle sister lives w/ a lovley woman in Michigan (of all places). They have a home together and have been happily cohabitating for years and as long as they are happy, I hope this continues forever. I love my sister and I love her significant other for the joy, love and happiness she brings to her life. They are however not married. They are what they are, two women in love, living their lives together. They live there lives according to their principles and I live mine according to mine, yet the world still spins on it’s axis, the sun comes up each morning and we still love each other.

    People, wake up! There are others in the world that are not the same as you! This is not a bad thing!!! Not everyone has to fit in your little box or carry your label. It is OK to be different!
    A man and a woman get married. A woman and a woman get something else. This is not a good or a bad thing in and of it’s self, it’s just different!

  • http://www.insignificantthoughts.com/ Vinny

    No slippery slopes here. Just the realization that this isn’t worth the effort being put into it any more.

    On the day when the world was handed the 9/11 Report, the House voted on a bill to defend marriage.

    If that doesn’t categorize what’s fucked on both sides of the aisle, I really don’t know what is.

  • Kevin

    Vinny, have faith brother, we as a nation can handle more than one contentious and troubling issue at a time.

    It is always worth the effort to adopt a principle (if not you become as Senator Kerry, a man without principle). If you believe in that principle, defend it. If on the other hand you have come to the realization that the principle you hold is wrong, than by all means change your belief. Nothing is worse than defending a principle you belive in your heart to be wrong.

    If in your heart you believe that couples of the same sex are the same as couples of different sexes and perform the same function in nature, than by all means stand up for same sex marriage.
    If on the other hand if you believe as I do that it does not serve the same natural function as a union between a man and a woman, than say so.

    Do not abandon your beliefs just because something comes along that seems more important at this particular time.

  • pete from astoria

    Vinny, I agree with you on many points, however there are still many practical potential problems with the idea of same-sex marriage. It would really have to be done right. I don’t have enough confidence that it can right now. Following the legalization of such a practice, ther will be many more people standing in line demanding equal treatment. For instance, heterosexual couples living together but who are not recognized as “married” by either the government or the church. Or people who are just roomates. We would need a slew of new and wise legislation just to deal with the economic issues such as private company provided insurance and rental regulations. Then of course there is the subject of polygamy. If it’s ok for John and Joe to marry, then why not John and Mary and Susan and Lisa and Nancy? Surely a child would get more than enough attention in a polygamous family. I fear that same sex marriage would ultimately get the government and trial lawyers more involved in our lives. I agree, there are many more pressing issues in our society. That’s more of a reason to perhaps put this one on the back burner for a while, perhaps indefinitely.

  • http://onefinejay.com/ OF Jay

    Vinny, it turns out that Congress can make the exceptions it wants under III-2 of the Consti. It still seems darned tacky to me.

  • http://www.insignificantthoughts.com/ Vinny

    I’m not abandoning my beliefs on the issue itself, I’m just tired of seeing my government pre-occupied with it.

    The truth of the matter is that there are more important issues out there, and while most citizens are capable of walking and chewing gum simultaneously, our government most certainly is not.

  • http://heather.sokols.us/ Heather

    If itís ok for John and Joe to marry, then why not John and Mary and Susan and Lisa and Nancy?

    One has nothing to do with the other. Marriage is still a committed relationship between two people. The idea that same sex marriage is going to destroy the sanctity of marriage or lead to immorality is simply an excuse to judge and discriminate against another human being.

    It is not our right, as mere humans, to judge the morality of one another. Nor is it prudent, as Americans, to discriminate against any group of people for any reason.

  • pete from astoria

    Heather, I hear you! I don’t want to get into the whole concept of “judging”, that’s a whole broad new subject. When you say we shouldn’t discriminate against anyone for any reason, that goes a bit far. Should we not judge or discriminate against pedophiles or NAMBLA members? Though we all live individual lives, we do not live in a vacuum. Our actions also affect others and society in general.

    P.S.
    I’m sure Mormons who practice polygamy would consider their relationship committed ones.

  • http://www.alwaysvictoria.com/ Sweet N Sassy

    One of the things I love about you Vinny, is you are open to re-evaluating things, acknowledging when you have changed your position, and the resons you have made the change. That to me is very important qualities in people and some I like to find in them these days….You still remain high on my list and Rock man!!!

  • pam

    Kevin- I have a sister-in-law that has been in a monogomous 20 year relationship with another woman here in Michigan. They have built a nice life together. But unless they have some type of recognition, They are left with the thought that partner can’t leave her pension to sisinlaw, medical decisions upon death can not be made by anyone but family, if one wants cremation, which they both do, a family member must sign off on it. That is not right. There are many things a heterosexual couple takes for granted here. As for opening the doors to people just living together, they already do have rights. The only thing an unmarried woman or man can not collect in a heterosexual nonmarried union is Social security.
    I just feel that in a society, that has a 50% divorce rate, we may not be best to decide who can or can’t marry!

    I will place money that if this does go, and it will, before the Supreme Court, we will see gay marriage. I will go further and say they will use the 14th amendment to the Constitution under the equal protection clause!

  • http://www.andrewhagen.com/archives/2004/07/24/744/ Andrew Hagen

    Argument for upholding classical marriage as the exclusive matrimonial form, linking to this web log.

  • John “Akatsukami” Braue

    “Full Faith and Credit“, damnit.

    And a quick review of the situation indicates that the courts have never held marriage to be a “full faith and credit” matter; they’ve viewed it analogously to a State recognizing a partnership.

    First-cousin marriages, miscenegation laws, polygamy, you name it — the judicial record is that just because the State of Confusion recognizes a marriage, there is no Constitutional requirement that the State of Tightassia must do the same, even though the marriage could not be celebrated there.