Oct27 |
 |
Watch Out, First-Born Sons Of Jersey
Today’s Daily News column by Christine Flowers takes on the New Jersey court’s ruling the other day, which gave the legislature six months to pass a law for gay civil unions or one for gay marriage. Flowers, of course, is against gay marriage, and even gay civil unions. I sort of get the anti-gay marriage position, since lots of people like to say “this is our ball and we’re not letting you play with it.” Lame, but whatever. But opposition to gay civil unions — i.e., letting gay partners have all the benefits of marriage if the couple wishes to — just strikes me as absurd. Oh, those queers! If they get spousal privileges in court and hospital visitation rights I will just blow my stack! To be honest, I think it’d be better if marriage wasn’t sanctioned by the government. When’s the last time the government did anything successful? Right. If I were to get married, I’d rather have it not government-sanctioned. It’d totally have a much better shot at succeeding. What’s the divorce rate right now, about 50 percent? Like most things, marriage is another government failure. But anyway, Ms. Flowers is against the New Jersey court’s ruling, because… it… it could cause brothers and sisters to enter into civil unions of their own! Uhm, okay. Not to get all John Stossel on you, but, really, who cares? (And the prohibition on cousin/sibling/etc. marriage is because of the creepy kids you’d get, right? Because no one has premarital sex nowadays!) Alright, alright, let’s finish this up: Flowers uses an interesting technique in this article. It’s what scholars of rhetoric called “calling your opponents children and then telling them they’re going to burn in hell.”
Ho ho! Get it? A plague of locusts on New Jersey for its intolerant ways of letting gay and lesbian couples share health insurance! Christine M. Flowers | NEW JERSEY COURT’S PYRAMID SCHEME [Daily News] |
|
|
|
Dude, what’s going on? This blog is getting political!
Somebody tell her that Appalachia runs North-South through the Eastern US. North of Appalchia would be Canada, and they at least have socialized medicine.
Aw shucks, Dan. I don’t anticipate brothers and sisters having carnal knowledge of each other. Most don’t even like each other much. But the justification for gay marriage is that the fundamental dignity of gays and lesbians-as sensient human beings-mandates that they must have access to the same rights and privileges as heterosexuals. That’s the reasoning of the court-you can’t discriminate against them in their individual capacity, so you can’t discriminate against the couples they choose to create.
It has nothing to do with sex, I think you’d agree, since that isn’t even at issue in the court’s opinion.
So then, let’s forget about brothers and sisters having sex and creating ‘creepy children’ as you describe their spawn.
As human beings entitled to respect and dignity, what’s to stop the courts from finding they have a right to marry? Remember, consanguinity is taken out of the equation.
But the most horrendous part about the case is the fact that it basically tells the legislature, we’ll forget about separation of powers guys…we’ll tell you what the law should be, now hop to it.
Typical for New Jersey, of course.
Try reading the whole decision next time.
Regards,
Christine
Oh, thanks to Tim McC for the geography lesson. He’s absolutely correct. Mea culpa.
Let’s change “gay marriage” to “interracial and see what happens, eh Christine?
“But the justification for interracial marriage is that the fundamental dignity of blacks-as sensient human beings-mandates that they must have access to the same rights and privileges as whites. That’s the reasoning of the court-you can’t discriminate against them in their individual capacity, so you can’t discriminate against the couples they choose to create.”
No, you’re not a bigot or anything.
I would hope a lawyer knew what “equal protection” meant, but I guess not.