geektels logo

Washington Court Says Legislature Can Discriminate

Let’s start this post out with a quick question: Are you against gay marriage? If you are, but you limit your "against" to disapproval, or even blanket condemnation, I’ll fight and die for your right to have those opinions, no matter how strongly I disagree (or agree) with them.

If, however, you want to legally ban gay marriage based on your own backwards religious beliefs, I posit that you’re an un-American ignoramus whose values threaten the very fabric of the United States of America. If you are of that persuasion, however, you can at least be confident that you are surrounded by million of other idiots who don’t understand what freedom means or what what civil liberties are.

Case in point, Washington State Supreme Court just ruled that the state legislature has the power to limit the rights of some of its citizens, while it extends those same rights to others. More specifically, the court ruled that the legislature has the power to restrict marriage to being between a man and a woman.

How is that even vaguely possible in a country allegedly based on freedoms and inalienable rights?

And that doesn’t even get into why in the world so many frightened Christians are running around screaming about how gay marriage threatens them or their idea of marriage.

"Today’s decision was a decisive and absolute victory for marriage as it has always been," the Seattle Times quoted Pastor Joseph Fuiten as saying in response to today’s ruling.

"Always been?" Are you kidding me you ignorant yokel?

"As a college student who’s not married but does want to be married and have a family sometime, I’m grateful the court isn’t redefining marriage," one Cassie Crawford, 20, told the paper.

For the love of [the lack of] god(s), why are you glad? What does two men or two women marrying each other have to do with you? Why is it that Christians are so threatened by this issue?

I’ve heard most, if not all, of the reasons for people against gay marriage:

  • By tradition, marriage has always been one man, one woman – That’s a lie. I can’t specifically cite any examples of homosexual marriage (Rictor Norton says he can, but I can’t vouch for any of it), but marriage has certainly often been considered a union of one man and many women (rarely the opposite), or even between many men and women. Brothers and sisters, fathers and daughters, and all manner of incestuous unions have also been called "marriage" since the dawn of recorded history. Marriage has even at times included property, animals, and who knows what else.
  • The State has a vested interest in preserving marriage as being a vehicle for procreation – That’s a red herring, at best. Marriage has seldom ever required children to be issued from the union to make it official, and today we have many people choosing to remain childless. In addition, allowing Gay people doesn’t bloody well have any effect on heterosexual couple’s ability to have children in the first place. The truth is that with as many parentless children as there are in the world, having some marriages out there without natural-born kids isn’t a bloody bad idea.

    And, is the lack of kids really a problem in the U.S.?

  • Homosexuality offends God – So what? The U.S. isn’t a theocracy, at least not yet, and limiting the rights of some in order to assuage the ego of a supposedly omniscient being is still un-American!
  • Homosexuality is not natural – Says who? Your religion? See the above note.
  • First gay marriage, then polygamy – Who gives a flying frack?

Etc. (Here’s an amazingly deceitful and twisted list of 10 reasons to oppose gay marriage.)

As a person who obsesses over understanding the little pieces of missing information that can make one person’s act appear irrational to another person, the fright spewing forth from the anti-gay marriage camp just escapes me.

I mean, I get the fact that some conservative Christians, Muslims, Jews, and maybe even Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, and Worshipers of the Great Rock (OK, scratch the last three, as it truly seems that radicalism is more common in the first four religions, and particularly in the first two) want to force everyone to live according to their, and only their, vision of the world, but there are an awful lot of otherwise sane Americans who are slavering at the mouth over this issue.

I just don’t get it.

History won’t get it, either. It may take 10, 20, or a 100 years, but time is going to eventually condemn all of you as the hateful, frightened, backward dolts that you are.

One Response

  1. You pointed me here, I blame you for having me find such a topic that I’ve debated on for years over.

    Love should be free. Man/Woman, Man/Man, Woman/Woman. There should be no laws to prohibit it (well, domesstic violence is one thing) and the current ones that stand are (quite frankly) nothing more than bullshit.

    I may be straight, but I rejoice for my gay friends when they find someone right for them, a partner in life that they can share things with and love one another in an honest light. I still have my “Marriage for all” button somewhere in my house for a reason.

    Really, when you think of it (Although my mind is fuzzy, excuse me) Most straight marriages (over 50%, I believe) end in divorce or seperation. Where is the sanctity in that? If marriage is supposed to be a holy binding between a Man and a Woman before God, when why is there such a thing as divorce lawyers? Most straight marriages fail to succeed for whatever reasons there may be, but that should not prohibit same sex marriages from emerging and blossoming.

    I live in NYC and I see a lot of gay couples walking around, hand in hand. I don’t see a grotesque and ungodly act, I see love and true companionship. Why should we as a political state and country ban and disuade from that? Why should we try to prohibit it? I don’t get it, and I never will.

    Blatant hypocricy! Marriage is for procreation? Screw that with 14 – 17 year old girls getting knocked up and dealing with their “Baby’s daddy’s.” There’s procreation for you in an overly seen scenario from recent days, yet there is no sanctity!

    A man and a woman can only be wed. Suuuure. As you said there have been many forms of marriage in the past and history. Incest, male/male, polygomy, ect. And at one point and time in some area, they were considered legal.

    I did rant a bit in this, your own fault! But I really do not and will not die without a fight over this controversy and issue. Marriage should be noted as a union between two people whom love each other, regardless of race, sex, sexual orientation, and culture. And I do not want to stop believing in what I believe until I see that come true one day.

    So, there’s my story.

Leave a Reply

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

Follow me: