Friday, March 11, 2005

Red State Stupidity

I live in a blue state, but it's not exactly a state that is firmly blue. Aside from Seattle, Olympia, and parts of Bellingham the rest of the state is 50/50 or heavily red. (about 4% of Washington voters are Libertarian --hooray for us!)

My state's superior court is hearing arguments regarding same sex marriage. Many red staters want the superior court to rule that marriage is between a man and a woman and support the "defense of marriage act." Even more red-state nut jobs support President Bush's suggestion to amend the US Constitution on the matter. Almost universally do red-staters declare their opposition to gay marriage on religious terms...and rightfully so.

My question to you red-staters is simply this:

Why do you want the government to weigh-in on anything you see in religious terms? Why in God's name do you want the government to be put in a position to have an opinion about anything that resembles a religious opinion?

It is because of my own beliefs about gay marriage that I want the government to issue no opinion on it whatsoever. In fact, I'm still not sure why it is the government has a position on marriage of any kind.

For a long time, I've felt very uneasy about marriage certficates being used as official documents or baptismal certificates being used as a piece of identification. What I practice and perform as a matter of faith is really no one's business and is certainly not the business of Washington DC or Olympia.

If you go to a judge or a ship's captain and get married, that's fine too. It shouldn't be a matter for the state to worry about. Also if you're gay and want/need the type of paperwork that says you can visit your "partner" in the hospital or whatever...you should be able to do that too.

The role of government should be to enforce contracts, not disqualify them on religious terms.

When it boils right down to it, the only reason the state wants to be involved in your marital status is so they know how to tax you. And that should disgust both blue and red staters.

4 comments:

Robert the Grump said...

Make up your mind. The last entry you were a Canuck hating, global warming is BS, redneck Republican shill. Today, you're a Godless communist, gay rights activist.

You sort of remind me of George Dubya Bush, who is a Canuck hating, global warming is BS, redneck Republican President, but who used to be a Godless communist (okay, a moderate), gay rights activist (well, tolerant of them) when he was governor of Texas.

Confusing? Hell yes. But you bring up a touchy subject that is steeped in controversy. In other words, right up my alley.

If memory serves, 12 different states had gay marriage up for a vote during the last election. More specifically, they voted on whether to recognize gay marriage or to define marriage as between a man and a woman. All 12 states voted to shun homosexuals and burn the bill of rights in their face. The last time I can remember an entire minority being slapped in the face like this was the Jim Crow laws of the '50s and the internment of Japanese Americans in WWII. You know, sometimes the majority is wrong, and that's why we have the Supreme Court. And also why Bush is President.

Interestingly, one of the states to piss on the civil rights of gays was Oregon, a blue state that voted for Kerry in the same election. I guess the people have spoken: gays are still a legitimate target for hate and abuse in this country.

I've always laughed at the central argument that the Republicans use when railing against gay marriage, which is, if you let men marry men, you have to let men marry sheep or maybe women can marry wolverines. My God, that's stupid. How does allowing same sex marriage translate into legalizing bestiality? Besides, unless you can train your dog to say, "I do", it won't work anyway.

You Libertarians like to fence sit, picking the Democratic side one day, and the Republican side the next. You know what fence sitting gets you? Splinters in the sack, my friend. But at least you picked the right side on this fight.

I guess I'm just tolerant of people who are different than me. Except for Republicans. I have zero tolerance for their bullshit.

Tracy said...

It's not fence sitting when you can recognize that there are areas where government should have no role. I have personal views on the subject but I think it's a more noble position to support someone's freedom even if you don't agree with what they do with it.

Robert...are you gay?

Robert the Grump said...

NO. But there is nothing wrong with being gay unless you live in Wyoming. I am merely tolerant of alternate lifestyles and make no judgements. That's why I can stomach Libertarians.

PS - what's the difference between a Libertarian and a Branch Dravidian?

Not a joke, just want to know.

Tracy said...

I can tell you the difference:

Libertarians are political activists that routinely lose elections...

...and Branch Davidians are a religious sect that broke off of the Seventh Day Adventists that just happen to also resemble charcoal briquettes.