What's happening here is that I'm taking quotes from the justification of the Alabama supreme court's ruling that gays shouldn't be able to get marriage licenses. This isn't me disagreeing or agreeing, just pointing out thta the justification is a bit silly in its foundation. There are some reasons, states' rights and such that figure into this; but the underlying glorification of marriage is a little overdone and what good is having a blog if you can't poke fun. For that matter, what good is having people like Roy Moore (who I like in his own backwards way) if you can't poke fun of them.
Let's go back to the opinion and talk about marriage some more.
It "creat[es] the most important relation in life, ... having more to do with the morals and civilization of a people than any other institution." Id. at 205.
NOW let's accept this argument. This reminds me of how much more cool everyone was in the 60's. We were in a war then too, we were losing that one, really losing it. Thankfully, a republican surrendered and we ended up with another ally even though a lot of people were killed in the chaos before and after, but we were cool for a while.
Anyway, if we want to increase the morality of gay people, why this suggests we can morality them all the way to being bi-sexual if we get them married enough! I'm not sure we can civilize them, they dress better than us and war less, so they may have been secretly married all along!
"'[Marriage] is not then a contract within the meaning of the clause of the constitution which
prohibits the impairing the obligation of contracts. It is rather a social relation like that of parent
and child, the obligations of which arise not from the consent of concurring minds, but are the
creation of the law itself, a relation the most important, as affecting the happiness of
individuals, the first step from barbarism to incipient civilization, the purest tie of social life, and the true basis of human progress.'"Id. at 211-12 (quoting Adams v. Palmer, 51 Me. 480, 484-85
(1863)).
HERE we are again. We want to control gays, well if they are so Barbarossa (that sounds pretty gay) what better way than to get them "purified" with marriage. But that's not really the importance of this paragraph. My gosh, if it isn't a contract, then what's the whole purpose of it? It's supposed to be a life sentence, not really a social relationship. Parent and child is a lot more serious than husband and wife in terms of obligation. Also, the parent and child is non-consensual, marriage requires the constant renewal of agreement.
And is marriage really the first step from barbarism to "incipient civilization"? Not fire? the planting of crops? hunting in packs? I'm just not convinced the probate court of Alabama issuing marriage licenses predated all of that.
NOW let's accept this argument. This reminds me of how much more cool everyone was in the 60's. We were in a war then too, we were losing that one, really losing it. Thankfully, a republican surrendered and we ended up with another ally even though a lot of people were killed in the chaos before and after, but we were cool for a while.
Anyway, if we want to increase the morality of gay people, why this suggests we can morality them all the way to being bi-sexual if we get them married enough! I'm not sure we can civilize them, they dress better than us and war less, so they may have been secretly married all along!
"'[Marriage] is not then a contract within the meaning of the clause of the constitution which
prohibits the impairing the obligation of contracts. It is rather a social relation like that of parent
and child, the obligations of which arise not from the consent of concurring minds, but are the
creation of the law itself, a relation the most important, as affecting the happiness of
individuals, the first step from barbarism to incipient civilization, the purest tie of social life, and the true basis of human progress.'"Id. at 211-12 (quoting Adams v. Palmer, 51 Me. 480, 484-85
(1863)).
HERE we are again. We want to control gays, well if they are so Barbarossa (that sounds pretty gay) what better way than to get them "purified" with marriage. But that's not really the importance of this paragraph. My gosh, if it isn't a contract, then what's the whole purpose of it? It's supposed to be a life sentence, not really a social relationship. Parent and child is a lot more serious than husband and wife in terms of obligation. Also, the parent and child is non-consensual, marriage requires the constant renewal of agreement.
And is marriage really the first step from barbarism to "incipient civilization"? Not fire? the planting of crops? hunting in packs? I'm just not convinced the probate court of Alabama issuing marriage licenses predated all of that.
**
We need to get to why its such an emergency to get this done both by the Federal government and that state of alabama surpreme court, but by the time I get there with all this material, those decisions will have been reached and I'll have moved on.
No comments:
Post a Comment