Comments are closed.
Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.
However: it occurs to me that the state entering into marriages at all is probably a violation of the Establishment Clause, and probably all legal unions should be civil unions. Marriage is largely a religious thing, though that's changing too.
Since there is no rational basis to privilege hetero couples over other types of couples, the government shouldn't get to discriminate. Either give every married couple privileges, or don't privilege any married couple over any other. Why is that so hard?
Steed's dickbag church is left free to do whatever the fuck it feels like, and the rest of us are equal in the eyes of our government.
Everyone should have the right to marry the person of their choosing. Slowly but surely this is going to be happen -- the road is clear -- and people like stjohnsrules will be dragged, kicking and screaming, into the future.
The Mercury's been looking for a new tag line, and this is it! Yay!
(Don't expect us to pay you.)
Second, you need to do a little research on your hallowed religious history of marriage. I know this may come as a surprise/controversial point to you, but there are other cultures than yours, and other religions. In some of those, they have [forever] practiced different manifestations of marriage, including one culture that practices group marriages! Go fucking figure!
Even if the bible is the ONE TRUTH as you seem to assume, you only have to go back to Martin Luther, who handed the practice of marriage over to the state because it was a "worldly" institution.
If you insist that it is "selfish and greedy" for someone to have differing reasons than you to get married, I'd say that you are, by definition, a bigot. Take your narrow worldview and shove it.
Second, I'm not addressing what happens in Syria or Uganda here. If you actually read any of my statements above, you'd clearly understand I was being specific about our country. This is what I mean about innuendo. Thanks for proving my point.
Third, the selfish and greedy comment came from replying to another poster above who specifically expressed they want to marry for the tax breaks. I didn't make that person greedy.
As far as your bigot comment goes? It holds no weight. You are so blinded by your ideology that you cannot see past the end of your own self-important nose. People can oppose gay marriage and not be a bigot and I will continue to call out people like you who think you're going to win any points doing that. Keep in mind that not everyone who lurks around the Merc thinks like a sheep. I don't need your approval to tell me what to believe. I'm here to bring balance to the issue, not deflect retarded and absurd comments from people like you who can't think for themselves.