I Heard it Downtown

I was sitting in Wendy’s two nights ago, trying to eat my chicken sandwich in piece, but the TV was distracting me. It was turned to MSNBC, and some commentator had a few talking heads on to discuss the recent developments in Iowa and Vermont, two states that recently made gay marriage legal. The commentator breathlessly said that “now is the time for a national discussion about gay marriage”.

You know what? I agree. But to save time, I’m just going to go ahead and do all the talking. Hope thats okay with you guys.

Q: These arrogant activist judges! Who do they think they are, striking down legislation that is clearly the will of the people?
A: Uh…maybe they think they’re judges? Isn’t that the entire concept of Judicial Review? Populists might clamor that this is elitist…and they’re right. Parts of our government were established to be a check on popular sentiment. If “just being popular” is enough of a reason for laws to escape judicial review, whats the point of having a judiciary? That “judicial activism” gave us Brown v Board of Education and Baker V Carr.

Plus, if we define “judicial activism” as “the supreme court voting to overturn a ruling”, then the Conservative wing is more likely to be activist. I’d like to suggest another definition of “Activist Judges”….”When judges make a decision that I disagree with”.

Seriously. How many people who are mad at the Iowa Supreme Court are basing their arguments on their knowledge of the Constitution of Iowa?

Q: Legalizing gay marriage and civil unions will doubtless start us on a slippery slope towards legalizing polygamy, pedophilia, animal marriages, and marrying Janet Reno.
A: I beg to differ. Animals and children cannot consent, so they cannot be married. Full stop. The United States doesn’t have the legal tradition of some place like Pakistan, where marrying off 11 year olds seems to be okay (and, oddly enough, Pakistan doesn’t allow gay marriage). Gay Marriage/Civil Unions, an agreement between two, consenting adults, is not analogous to any of the other aforementioned acts.

Polygamy may involve contenting parties (maybe, some sociological research on how relationships work on polygamous compounds might beg to differ), but its pretty easy to justify denying some legal benefits to multiple parties, as it would be easy to set up “families” as tax sheltering devices. The boondoggle dividing up benefits after a polygamous divorce might be a boon to lawyers, but it would be a huge hassle for our courts as well.

Besides, take it from a Mormon, polygamy ain’t worth it. Last time we tried that, mobs kidnapped and killed our leader, drove us from our perfectly good town in Illinois, drove us across the wilderness, and forced to settle in Utah. Gross. Where would the mobs send you if you tried to be polygamous now? Alaska, to live in Sarah Palin’s kingdom? (I can see this….polygamous families welcome in Alaska, so long as every child gets an assault rife, and has a stupid name. . Hi, these are my wives Kara, Lisa and Emily…and our children; Tuscaloosa, Microwave and Battlestar Galatica)

Q: I don’t want a gay marriage.
A: I am unaware of any judicial ruling or legislative act requiring anybody to get one.

Q: Allowing Gay Marriage will threaten the institution of marriage.
A: I hear this one a lot, and I have yet to really get a satisfactoy answer from anybody, be they commentator, ecclesiastical authority, or anybody else as to exactly why that is. Lets say that we believe that Marriage is a unique institution specifically created for a Man and a Woman, and that any other union should go by a different name. Okay, lets call the other one’s civil unions, and let them have the same benefits. Is that okay?

Many who oppose GM also oppose that idea, and I’m exactly sure why. Knowing that dudes are holding hands somewhere in San Fransisco doesn’t in any way cheapen or damage the wonderful (heterosexual) relationship I have now. When I’m out with my girlfriend…I’m not thinking about gay people. Like…ever. If you are, well…I’m no Dr.Phil, but I suspect your relationship may have other issues.

Is  Marriage under attack? Sure, I believe that, but not by the gays. Divorce rates are high, and there are lots of possible culprits. Financial insecurity/worries have damaged lots of relationships. Pornography certainly has. Poor communication, infidelity, health problems….I can think of lots of things that might be contributing to marriages breaking down. *That* is a very important topic that we *should* have a national conversation about. The Nuclear Family is an institution worth defending.

But Gays? How often do you think this happens?
Honey, I know we’ve been married for 10 years, and I know we loved each other. But Iowa just legalized Gay Marriage, and I really think I should use that opportunity to take my Bro-mance with Chad to a new level. Before, it was just our weekly poker game and phone calls about fantasy baseball. Now….we can share Social Security. I just think its a better deal.

Really? I doubt it.

Q: Homosexuality is clearly a sin, and as such, we should oppose GM/CU
A: Personally, I think Theology doesn’t really enter into it. My own theological views on homosexuality are kind of moot as far as the debate over hospital visitation rights and pension sharing is concerned. My religious faith also teaches me to abstain from the consumption of alcohol and coffee, but it would be wrong to try and force that on everybody, no?

There is not a legal reason to think that allowing Civil Unions would require churches to marry gay people if they didn’t want to. Certainly, if there was, I would vigorously oppose it. Churches should have the freedom to marry/allow in whoever they want…but there is no credible reason to think that that would change. If somebody says otherwise in church, they are not speaking out of any understanding of the law.

At the end of the day, I may have my own theological belief about homosexuality, but why should that mean that gay people shouldn’t have hospital visitation rights?

Q: Thats about all I can think of.
A: Me too. Good talk.