Yankee Pitching (UPDATED) »« Schadenfreude

Blog Against Theocracy Repost

Here is a repost of some of Comrade PhysioProf’s thoughts about marriage:

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.

Comments

  1. Physiogroupie IV says

    I liked this one protester’s sign that said, “I did not ask her to ‘civil union’ me!”

  2. says

    And while we are on the separation of church and state, can we please start taxing the shit out of these fucking religious institutions that have obscene coffers and put those billions to good use?

  3. says

    Better yet, give equal weight to both religious and civil ceremonies and allow people to chose one or the other. Oh wait, a lot of states are already doing that.

    I don’t see the fucking point, especially if you have all the legal trappings of a civil union (which I believe everyone has a right to). So why do you NEED to call it a marriage? Who gives a fuck? Call it a marriage all on your own if you want, who the hell is going to stop you?

  4. says

    I still think it’s interesting that people have to be joined at ALL to obtain certain rights. And should it just be limited to two people who are romantically involved? Why not five friends who want to start a collective? I guess the two people with a sexual relationship comes from our history of marriage in general, but I think it’s interesting that single people are actually denied rights like shared health care just because they aren’t in love/can’t find a marriage buddy.

    I wonder if gay marriage would also start a trend of marriages of convenience among same-sex couples who are in a platonic friendship? I think that could be really interesting.

  5. says

    I wonder if gay marriage would also start a trend of marriages of convenience among same-sex couples who are in a platonic friendship?

    If it’s not happening (to a large degree) in the states which permit same sex civil unions, I can’t see it being a big concern. Besides, if this is used as an excuse to limit gay civil unions it’s silly because any pair of heterosexual platonic friends can get hitched for benefits as well.

    In the reverse aren’t a lot of elderly “living in sin” because they want a relationship but don’t want to lose the social security benefits that they received from their deceased spouse?

    With that said, I disagree with the “collective” argument as a way to spread out benefits especially for those who are unlucky in love or just are inept at finding a suitable situation to help them share health care costs. Besides wouldn’t Obama’s “universal health care” plan solve some of those problems?

  6. says

    I wonder if straight marriage would also start a trend of marriages of convenience among opposite-sex couples who are in a platonic friendship? I think that could be really interesting.

  7. says

    Besides, if this is used as an excuse to limit gay civil unions it’s silly because any pair of heterosexual platonic friends can get hitched for benefits as well.

    A la Office Space‘s Michael Bolton:

    “Thumbs up their asses, thumbs up their asses.”

  8. says

    I never thought that marriage should be a legal matter at all, but as long as it’s available for opposite sex couples, it should be available for same-sex. I agree with you though that if the law recognized something for any couple but didn’t call it “marriage” we might at least accomplish equality.

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=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>