Quantcast

«

»

Nov 09 2008

Marriage Equality

These recently passed propositions that deny marriage equality as a civil right are based solely in religiously motivated hatred, plain and simple. The solution to all of this is to get the state out of the “marriage” business completely, and give absolutely no legal weight whatsoever to religious mumbo-jumbo ceremonies.

In this legal regime, any two people who desire the traditional legal appurtenances of “marriage” need to go to City Hall (or whatever registry office) and execute a legal document that creates the legal relationship. And we can make up a cool-sounding legalistic name for it. I propose humpterdy: “YAY! We just got humptered! Let’s partay!!!”

This way, religious fuckwits can keep their “marriage” to themselves–just as they do “baptism”, “bar mitzvah”, etc–and the state can continue furthering its legitimate interest in encouraging the formation of families headed by two people, but without entangling the apparatus of the state in wackaloon religious fuckwittery.

20 comments

2 pings

Skip to comment form

  1. 1
    Lemur

    I like it! I volunteer to be one of the first to be humptered, because it sounds like something that involves large amounts of alcohol. It sounds fun, and we all know churches have nothing to do with fun. So humpterdy it is.

  2. 2
    Dr. Jekyll & Mrs. Hyde

    I’ve always wanted to ask one of these people: “Not to belabor the point, but how, precisely, would two gay people getting married damage your marriage? Or your friends’ marriages?” Then when they go off on the culture of moral decline or whatever, return to, “But your marriage, specifically–how would it be affected?”

    You know, go all Katie Couric on their asses.

  3. 3
    ambivalent academic

    An excellent plan!!
    And I second (or third) the “humptered” terminology.

  4. 4
    Isis the Scientist

    You know, PP, I consider myself to be deeply religious and I agree with you whole-heartedly. I’ve never given two tits about the state’s opinion of the validity of my marriage exccept as it relates to the legal and financial advantages it provides the Isis family. I am totally on board with you with this, except that you have to call it something different. That word sounds horrible.

  5. 5
    Enrique

    Dr. J — I come close to asking a number of my “friends” that daily.

  6. 6
    LostMarbles

    I’ve been arguing that point for fuck knows how long. But what do I know, my country’s already ruined the sanctity of marriage.

  7. 7
    Dr J

    Thanks for expanding on your comment and pushing this (http://2postdocswalkintoabar.blogspot.com/2008/11/so-as-anti-theist-should-i-also-not.html) to a larger audience CPP.

    I think you’re idea is a good one. Although I would prefer to confiscate the term marriage back from religion because it has such significance across the board to those who are religious and those who are not. They can call their unions whatever they want. This is another example of where religion and its offensive bigoted dogma are given far far too much respect. If it were not for these dogma this issue wouldn’t even be close because it is about basic equal rights.

    This is just a classic example of why religions have nothing to tell us about morality. What can be said safely is that anyone who wants to think of themselves as a moral, decent, respectable person cannot oppose gay marriage. Just cannot be done. To do so completely disqualifies you from those values.

    Those that oppose gay marriage are no better than racists and we should all vocalise our disgust about that.

  8. 8
    Professor in Training

    Who the hell decided that a legal marriage could only be between a man and a woman? I have several close friends who are gay and are in long-term, committed, loving relationships and the fact that the uptight, conservative, religious freakazoids of this country feel that legalizing my friends’ domestic partnerships would lead to the moral degradation of our society is simply preposterous. Who gives a flying fuck whether the partners are of the same gender? Aaaaaargh.

  9. 9
    Candid Engineer

    The most disappointing thing about all of this for me is that it’s fucking California. Didn’t these people get the memo before the election? That California is a gay-accepting liberal state?

    I know that one day when I’m 50, none of this will be an issue anymore. But in the meantime, my heart hurts for my gay and lesbian brothers and sisters.

  10. 10
    George Smiley

    I’ve been making a nearly identical argument for years to my lefty friends. Mostly, they act as though they don’t get it. My acquaintances on the right (relationships imposed by work and domestic partnership) actually seem to understand the basis of the argument better.

    Go figure.

  11. 11
    AG

    Well said, PP.

    My spouse and I almost did exactly that. We went to our county office, and signed on a piece of paper. Few things that were messed up in that process:

    1) The lady who helped us kept asking us where the priest was – we told her we had none; she ended up having one of her co-workers sign on the priest-line –SIGH.
    2) It had fields for groom and bride. I’d have preferred person 1 and person 2.
    3) I can’t completely remember but I think it had smatterings of the G word all over the place. But we got married for insurance purposes — SIGH.

  12. 12
    cookingwithsolvents

    I’ve also been advocating this solution since around ’04. I had the rather boring term of “civil union” in mind but I could easily get behind “humpterdy”. Anything for the gov’t to actually get this separation of church and state thing straight.

  13. 13
    whoever

    In this part of the world – you can PAX.

    Though whether “We’ve PAXED – let’s get pissed” has quite the right ring about it is open to discussion.

  14. 14
    bikemonkey

    Those that oppose gay marriage are no better than racists and we should all vocalise our disgust about that.

    Word.

    At a neighborhood party recently one person strikes up conversation with another person with “So, guess you are really happy about Prop 8….”

    I’m thinking “happy”? “Happy” about this? If you are a true believer in the sanctity of hetero marriage I can see “relieved” or something but “happy”?

    I detest these people

  15. 15
    Dr. A

    Thanks CPP and Dr. J for your posts. I still can’t believe people actually voted to TAKE AWAY RIGHTS. Disgusting.

  16. 16
    microbiologist xx

    Although, I am not a big fan of humpterdy, a new term for a legal union between two consenting adults would be kick-ass. If there were a second choice I would not hesitate to take it.

  17. 17
    tanyader

    I am very sympathetic to what you are saying physioprof. However, I do have a quibble with your assertion that the state has a legitimate interest in creating families headed by two parents. Why, exactly, is it the states’ business to promote any kind of family or give certain families benefits that other families can’t get? While I favor letting gays be tools of the patriarchy if they choose, I simply don’t understand why anybody would want to do it. For example, I can understand why a gay couple would want to get married so that one partner can get the other partner’s health insurance. But really, what the hell does that do for a single person with no one to marry? Shouldn’t health insurance be available for every human being? Don’t we have an obligation to look after each other? Well, if we don’t we should.

  18. 18
    Becca

    “Let me sum up. Buttercup is humperterdy’ Humperdinck in a little less than half an hour.”
    WANT!

  19. 19
    NM

    Fly to New Zealand and get a civil union.

  20. 20
    D. C. Sessions

    The really odd thing is that the theoconservatives are the ones who should be pushing this. Say what?

    Simply put, the game is over. Thanks to the “full faith and credit” clause, Loving v. Virginia, and several international treaties the individual States really have no say in the matter. All it takes is one State (currently Connecticut) or even one foreign country and it’s all over.

    And they can’t stop liberalization everywhere.

    So, referring to a previous comment, one would think that at least one of them would have enough functioning neurons to recognize that their best bet is to keep the State out of the game altogether.

    But noooooooooooooo they have to have the State enforce their religion.

    Alas, even Isis seems unable to get them out of the rivers in Egypt.

  1. 21
    w00t! « Comrade PhysioProf

    [...] have the constitutional right to wed rather than accept a civil union. Comrade PhysioProf has asserted that the state should not be entangling itself in wackaloon religious fuckwittery, but if it is [...]

  2. 22
    Blog Against Theocracy Repost « Comrade PhysioProf

    [...] April 11, 2009 Here is a repost of some of Comrade PhysioProf’s thoughts about marriage: [...]

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite="" class=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>