Watched a video this morning over coffee. Kid needs to learn that where the video on the iPhone is set when he pushes the record button is where it will stay orientated when you flip said phone and begin to talk. Also there is an edit feature on YouTube where you can correct that, but I'm digressing.
The subject of the video was gay marriage. Now, I want to state at the onset that I've been married five times and there's nothing gay about it. It's a gamble where you bet half your possessions that you will love someone forever with no deviance. Friends, I have never made this proposition succeed. That's why I DATE three women now if various colors and ages. Ever notice how there's always a lot of different chocolates in a box of candy? Life is like a box of candy . . .I'm digressing again.
I'm well schooled on gay lifestyle and politics. Being from Austin, I have many gay friends. Their advice and input has helped me over the years. In Austin you quickly learn the best waiters and hair stylists are invariably gay. Now I'm not saying gays don't make good doctors, but I eat and get my hair cut more often than I get my heart cut out so I encounter gay waiters and hair stylists more often than I do gay doctors, though I might consider a gay proctologist over some guy who starred on the football team in college, but that's another story.
Anyway, where were we? Oh yes, gay marriage. The guy in this video launches into the separation of church and state. And, he explains that although the constitution never uses that phrase per sae, it implies it by securing religious freedom, i. e. the government has no right to restrict or govern our choice of god (s), He makes a point about marriage being a religious situation, and "legalizing" gay marriage would only open a Pandora's box of licensing, divorce legal fees, and lawsuits against clergy who refuse to cooperate. Then he launches into the Bible, and I stopped listening at that point because I've read the book.
I would like to say that the line between church and state began to blur when the first marriage license was issued. That's right. Think about that. If you got married in the church, why did that priest, pastor, or Rabbi have to fill out and sign that state form to register your union with the government? And, if it's solely a religious right, why don't we just go to the church if we ever decide to untie the knot? Catholics, sit down!
The moment that first marriage license was issued marriage ceased to be as much spiritual as fiscal. See, that's the government's interest. Follow the money, folks. Between licensing fees, divorce costs, and income taxes, gay marriage will be a windfall for those inside the beltway. Now, if it flies, the money will last about two minutes before the Democrats find a pigeonhole to throw it down, but that's another article. My point is simply this; the government, at all levels, is already in the marriage business. That's a done deal. And your religious revulsion to gay lifestyle is a mute argument. What if you have a gay church performing gay marriages? Never considered that one, huh?
Myself, I choose not to get involved with anyone's sexuality except Miss Right Now. I don't like to watch, or think about anyone having sex except me. I take that back. I don't mind seeing two University of Texas Coeds kissing, but I'm not perfect, ok? I would venture to say that if gay marriage is upheld by the Supreme Court it would just extend the government's involvement in private and religious affairs that much more and if it doesn't, and the justices say they cannot be involved, then we need to ask why the hell are they still selling marriage licenses? This question is a lot like sex when you look at it. You're either in or you're out.
Gay people want the protection of law for their civil or religious unions. No more, no less. They want to be able to buy a house, have a deduction on their taxes, and be able to probate in the end. They are not going away no matter how hard you thump that Bible. When the ruling comes down there will be a great debate, there always is, with everyone not realizing that closing the gate when the horse is already gone is useless.
I think you mean "moot point"... But other than that, right on, Wilbur!
ReplyDeleteNo, I said what I meant. I never liked the word "moot" preferring "mute" because it says what it means. Moot seems so "gay."
ReplyDeleteWhatever makes your hammer swing.
ReplyDelete