Gay Marriage & Prop 8 - My position & why both sides are wrong. - LIBERTY OR DEATH - axiomtek's Blog - Bakersfield.com

May 28, 2009 at 05:05 PM : who said this was...

who said this was about religion? It has nothing to do with religion. If religion had anything to do with it, there would be gay marriage, polygamy (which gays absolutely abhor) and bestiality. It has to do with boundaries. If there are no boundaries, there is chaos. People in this state decided that there needed to be a definition of marriage, since some people were defining marraige as between a man and a man, a woman and a women, a man and a horse, a woman and a sheep, and a man and multiple women. There needs to be a definition of marriage. The people chose to simply define marraige as between a man and a women. Pretty damn simple. Doesn't prevent homosexuals from any of the rights that heteros enjoy. Although, the poor polygamist and bestiality fiend have to live in fear of going to jail if they are outed......interesting.. And the gays say they are persecuted...

May 28, 2009 at 05:05 PM : Of course it's...

Of course it's about religion. There's no other reason for anyone to oppose same-sex marriage. Well, except for bigotry. But we covered religion already.

If you're concerned about boundaries, draw them so *NOBODY* can get married. Problem solved.

May 28, 2009 at 05:05 PM : So if you are against...

So if you are against state involvement then you should be for Prop 8. As I pointed out in my own blog on the subject. Gay marriage is really not about individual rights ,but the manipulation of public opinion and the government to use the state to force a deviant subcultures values on society as a whole. The hard evidence from places that have legalized gay marriage is that gay activist next step is to use those same laws to attack peoples religious freedoms.

May 28, 2009 at 05:05 PM : ...

“That government is best which governs least” and I tend to agree with him."

Your post tends to wander.

OK, you're against the state, and most government sanctioned contractual obligations. Less is more.

However, a Civil Union is still a government sanctioned contractual obligation.

Most people that voted no on prop 8 were for exactly the reasons you've defined. That state should provide just the legal "stuff".

That does not abolish the states involvement with marriage or civil unions, or the obligations involved, and people presently practice any tradition they wish for the ceremony.

Tossing off the "yoke" of state enforcement of contractual obligations has it's disadvantages.

Question: If a client company gives you a hot check to pay a large invoice, and won't make it good, what would you do?

Assuming no government backed contract law, would you hire goons to beat the money out of them, personally take assets of like value from the client, just do nothing, or something else?.

The rule of law does have real advantages.

May 28, 2009 at 05:05 PM : The...

The hard evidence from places that have legalized gay marriage

Like where? The examples put up to oppose Prop 8 turned out to be misrepresentations at best, and outright lies at worst. There are exactly two good examples of same-sex marriage to draw from: Massachusetts and Canada.

What gets attacked is the acting-out of religious bigotry, not religious freedoms.

And now I'm really out of here...

May 28, 2009 at 05:05 PM : The facts Rf are their...

The facts Rf are their in the links on my blog on the issue;)

May 28, 2009 at 05:05 PM : donmaster, you dont...

donmaster, you dont understand at all what i've said. Of course I agree the state can be used to enforce contracts, did you read where I wrote one of the proper functions was to provide courts?

I'm not against the state defining contracts, im against marriage being one of them.

May 28, 2009 at 06:05 PM : Well said, Ronmexico....

Well said, Ronmexico. You are at least partly right about this issue having nothing to do with religion. As Princeton U. law professor Robert George put it in an article that came out today (see: http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=16128), marriage is an institution that exists even apart from both religion and polities. His fellow Catholic (perhaps an apostate at that), Pepperdine U. law professor Doug Kmiec, has the same idea as axiomtek's, which George calls a "terrible" and "very, very bad one."

May 28, 2009 at 06:05 PM : Interesting link...

Interesting link Pax. So we can infer that the basis of all politics is in fact, the family unit since it is the most basic of social structures.

May 28, 2009 at 06:05 PM : donmason -...

donmason -

"Question: If a client company gives you a hot check to pay a large invoice, and won't make it good, what would you do? Assuming no government backed contract law, would you hire goons to beat the money out of them, personally take assets of like value from the client, just do nothing, or something else?."

In a world withOUT government-rule-of-law, that is probably exactly what would happen. But it's really no different from a world with government enforcement of contracts.

Government is a group of people with guns that make people follow the rules.

Goons are just a group of people with guns that make people follow the rules.

There is no difference between the two in that respect. But, while I'm stubborn, you're steadfast, right?

May 28, 2009 at 07:05 PM : So true, Wayfarer. I...

So true, Wayfarer. I presume the quote that caught your attention as it did mine was this: “The family is the original and best Department of Health, Education and Welfare."

We certainly don't see any benefit from having the family structure, built on the rock that is marriage between one man and one woman, redefined by the homosexualists and their lackeys. We like things the way they are, thank you.

May 28, 2009 at 10:05 PM : the reason they always...

the reason they always bring up religion is because they have no other argument to justifiy what they are doing so they go for the juglar by attacking opposing peoples inner core. They cant face the fact it just repulses people on different levels. They dont want to admit its as simple as that because to them' Life' has to be complicated or its no fun.

May 29, 2009 at 07:05 AM : The tribe would be the...

The tribe would be the most basic social structure. A "family" would simply not have had all the skills required to survive.

This is an area in which I tend to agree with you axiomtek.

May 29, 2009 at 07:05 AM : That is a very good...

That is a very good comment, Sage. The tribe is the most basic social structure. Even today we instinctively form tribes.

Child rearing has always been a distributed process that was never performed exclusively by the parents.

May 29, 2009 at 04:05 PM : RF - As much as I...

RF - As much as I appreciate your sarcasm & quick wit, I'd like to give the folks who say it has nothing to do with religion a chance to justify an answer.

I'd love to see that too. I've never seen a valid non-religious reason for opposing same-sex marriage. Never. (Unless you count "it's icky."

That goes double for Buffoo's fantasies.

May 29, 2009 at 05:05 PM : Very good post...

Very good post Axiom! I agree with you about keeping the state out of marriage (good Payne quote btw), but I'm curious what you think of the term "gay marriage"? State condoned or not, as a gay atheist I'm against the use of the word marriage to define any union I would want to form with another guy. The old fashioned part of me also hearkens back to the notion that yeah, marriages (traditional ones at least) are between a man and woman, and marriages between gays are still identified as "gay marriages" and that would thus distinguish them from their traditional counterpart.

I can see from your post that you advocate limiting the government's intrusion into our personal lives, and I agree, however, I have as much of a desire to keep the church out of my life as I do the state. The quote I had in another blog sums it up: "you don't swim in my toilet and I won't piss in your pool". I don't want any lingering religious meanings to cloud the bonds that I form thus I won't call it marriage. To me, that would be like the Germans creating a new Democratic government and then calling it the "4th Reich". The word "marriage" is tainted to me - marred by divorce, ignorance and fear. Not to say that others can't be married and miserably happy ;-) but it's not for me!

I'm appalled sometimes when I see gays clamoring for an institution that has traditionally denied them equal rights, and I'm not talking about the right to marriage either, I'm talking about killing or ostracizing you for your sexuality. Like mindless sheep they line up at the pew, discreetly eyeing the altar boy or priest. The spitting image of the wedding cake toppers of two men in tuxes except in this case one is a bottom. Wedding bands chain them together as they spew out their meaningless vows. Do I see this all as needlessly meaningless and pointless because I am an atheist, or because I'm gay, or both? Does anyone else view this (as I do all marriages) as farcical and nonsensical? I mean, one gal blogs on here week after week about everything from the church she chooses to the cut of her hair to the color of her toenails, and I'm like - why all of this preparation, minutae, and money just for a one-time deal on someone you'll probably detest in a few years anyway? I don't get it. Do something kinky like handcuff our hands together, write a sonnet in one another's name or share a lingering French kiss on the beach at sunset - all of this would mean more to me than marriage or it's twisted equivalent.

Great blog though and I congratulate you on speaking your mind and sharing your point of view.

May 29, 2009 at 06:05 PM : Marriage: The Unholy...

Marriage: The Unholy Alliance of Church and State

Get our government out of the marriage and special civil union businesses

“By the power vested in me, by the state of California, I now pronounce you Husband and Wife.” declared the minister in front of the altar of God.

We have heard it so many times at weddings, movies and television that we forget
the significance of this pronouncement and how it blurs the vast difference between the government meaning of marriage and the popular meaning of marriage.

The word “marriage” conjures in our minds and emotion the promise of love, caring, committed relationship, living together, making babies, families, and continuity. A government marriage license does not require or address any of those things. The couple does not even have to declare that they intend to like each other or live together. In this respect it is a hollow document, only a voucher for a bundle for exclusive government benefits and privileges. These subsidies have grown with little thought, challenge or debate during the 20th century.

There is a popular misconception that marriage in the eyes of the government is a contract between the bride and the groom. This is not quite true, “Though mutual assent is necessary to enter into a marriage, the marriage itself is a status or relationship rather than a contract, the rights and obligations of the parties thereto being fixed by the law instead of by the parties themselves” There are three parties: The bride, the groom and the government. The bride and groom merely agree (assent) to be governed by the government’s rules. The government reserves the exclusive right to itself to change the rules at anytime. No one reads the unsuspecting couple their “Miranda rights” or informs them about what they are agreeing to.

Our minister conducting the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony is a government official, an “agent” of the State of California. There is a conspiracy of Church and State. If a couple wishes to have the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony in their own local church they will be forced, as a practical matter, to get a government marriage license in which they assent to this contract with government which binds them to whatever marriage laws the government wishes to enact or change.

The controversy over same-sex marriage should cause us to ask: Why is the government involved in marriage? Equality? Fairness? Why is the government giving exclusive financial benefits to people with marriage licenses and not to people without marriage licenses? I submit that people will fall in love, live together, make babies and perpetuate families with or without the government. Why do we want the ministers of our faith to be government agents?

I recommend that churches stop being agents of the government; that the state governments stop issuing marriage licenses or special civil unions; and that the federal government stop giving exclusive subsidies to people with marriage licenses. Benefits for all or benefits for none.

The elements of “government marriage” are the exclusive financial benefits, the exclusive privileges, and the legal responsibilities of the husband and wife. We can imagine that the financial benefits were originally motivated by concern over the “little woman” staying at home raising the children with no career, and not having any Social Security. That concern is not so applicable in recent years and makes even less sense for same-sex marriage. The exclusive privileges such as hospital visitation and exemption for testifying against a spouse could be made available in some form to all people, single or married. The legal responsibilities, in any case married or not, are better managed by explicit documents such as wills, durable power of attorney, living wills and partnership agreements.

The arguments against getting government out of the marriage and special civil union business break down into convenience; singles can get married if they want government benefits; and that single people don’t need the benefits. Pretty weak arguments compared to the passion generated in the recent marriage debates.