Beginning as a day like any other, who suspected such a victory would be so had?
Apparently it is possible to see the light of reason and disagree with a bullish practitioner of two-dude “husbandry,” that is, as long as you have no concern whatsoever for traditional institutions—somehow “legality†remains an important exception, magically sustaining itself—nor a common sense appreciation for basic sexual physiology. All you really need is a confused nihilistic zealotry, couched in polite libertarian platitudes where anything goes. It seems that all sins of dogmatic omission are forgiven as long as said bullish practitioner of two-dude “husbandry” finds you “niceâ€.
Big fan of the Care Bears, have we?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lNm5Hqow78I
In any event, from now on, those who think the legalization of same sex marriage absurd have a strong rhetorical reference point here at The Politic. Bright says same sex marriage makes so much mince meat of the traditional definition of marriage that polygamy makes better logical sense, and that’s a good thing. I quote:
actually, i do see a continuum here, that would include legalizing polygamy at a certain point. sorry, ste… i hope that doesn’t offend you.
the thing is, i’m really trying to stick to a legal ideal. i believe that marriage is a right guaranteed by the first amendment in the united states, though i don’t believe i’ve ever seen that argued. i don’t know what legal loops you canadians are putting marriage through, but at it’s heart, my definition stems from “free association†and that mysterious right to privacy. you should be able to marry whomever you want and be however kinky you wish. now, polygamy would be a huge kettle of fish, and i know i wouldn’t personally choose it… but is there actually a reason it should be illegal?
For his part, after reams of commentary arguing against connecting same-sex marriage with polygamy, STE doesn’t have much to say to her. That is, except for, “No offense taken Bright as your intent is clearly different from George’s when bringing up the topic.â€
And what is my intent, my dear Smarter Than Ezra?
Three cheers all around!
Court upholds Md. gay marriage ban
By BEN NUCKOLS, Associated Press Writer
BALTIMORE - Plaintiffs vowed to take the fight over gay marriage in Maryland to the Legislature after the state’s highest court threw out a suit challenging a law that defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman.
In a 4-3 decision, the Court of Appeals ruled that the state’s 1973 ban on gay marriage does not discriminate on the basis of gender and does not deny any fundamental rights guaranteed by the state constitution. The court also found that the state has a legitimate interest in promoting opposite-sex marriage.“Our opinion should by no means be read to imply that the General Assembly may not grant and recognize for homosexual persons civil unions or the right to marry a person of the same sex,” Judge Glenn T. Harrell Jr. wrote for the majority.
…
In throwing out the lawsuit, the Maryland Court of Appeals ruled that denying same-sex couples the right to marry does not discriminate based on gender because the state law applies equally to men and women. Maryland’s Equal Rights Amendment, ratified in 1972, bans discrimination based on gender, but it was not intended to apply to sexual orientation, the court found.
The court also found that the state has an interest in promoting procreation and that the General Assembly “has not acted wholly unreasonably in granting recognition to the only relationship capable of bearing children traditionally within the marital unit.”
Smarter than Ezra wrote:
For a reasonable man who doesn’t take himself too seriously, this is one of the biggest ego strokes I have seen in a long time.
If you think this is a win, George, just remember: I do not and never have equated same-sex marriage with polygamy. The difference between my response to Bright and my response to you is that she is interested in expanding the definition of marriage where as you are interested in reversing that trend and making it smaller.
Next, the article you quote has very little to do with the Canadian context given the differences in our political systems and constitutional documents. These are all things you know, but things you try to slide under the radar.
Finally, I am a little bit disappointed that you didn’t have anything to say about my creative writing. Or, was it? Perhaps it was just a sad dramatization of your lonely reality. Have fun sleeping alone tonight.
Posted on 18-Sep-07 at 8:16 pm | Permalink
Smarter than Ezra wrote:
Btw, if I were to cast an actor to play your part, I would totally choose the comic book man from the Simpsons. “Worst blogger ever!”
Posted on 18-Sep-07 at 8:19 pm | Permalink
George Freeman wrote:
I don’t know you STE. But sorry, I did enjoy your perceived take on my love life. Very amusing.
As for ego strokes, no, not really, although victory is sweet.
That said, I’ve never said same-sex marriage and polygamy are equivalent types of human relationships either, but the rationale behind introducing same-sex marriage can certainly be used to justify polygamy. Again, the number of persons in a marriage, if it’s just about two persons and not sex, is arbitrary.
With respect to the article, I left all references to Baltimore, MD, for all to find, and if you didn’t notice, Bright is an American. Also, judges and politicians often read jurisprudence from other jurisdictions because legal reasoning isn’t entirely relative either.
Posted on 18-Sep-07 at 8:28 pm | Permalink
Smarter than Ezra wrote:
My final thought before I hit the sack is this. I find it funny that George is astonished that a supporter of same-sex marriage actually supports polygamy; when he quotes an actual real live homosexual (not one that he made up, but one that has credentials) as being against same-sex marriage. See George, there are lots of different people with lots of different opinions. The world isn’t as black and white as you like to think it is, or want it to be.
Next, I am glad I helped you get your rocks off tonight. If you want to think that somehow this is “historic” and that the 12-13 people who will read this post will spread the word until somewhere, someday, the ripple through the blogsphere will be felt as far away as, say, Coalhurst Alberta, then yippie skippie. You are famous! Maybe it will be something you can print out and bring on a date? Oh oh, or maybe to print out and put up in the lunchroom where you work. Yeah, that will show them! You are awesome and are a mover and a shaker!
Oh yeah, and could you make up your mind, George? Am I a limp-wristed princess or am I a bullish practitioner of husbandry, because it really makes a difference you know, since I cannot decide which pyjamas to put on; in your wise opinion (since you MUST know more about same-sex marriage than anyone else here, being the bastion of reason, and all that jazz) should I put on the sparkly pink ones with lace around the ankles, or the buttless leather chaps? And, if I choose to just hang out in boxers, does that make me straight? Now I am really confused.
Help us know what to think George, please? thepolitic would be lost without you. Seriously, you could take this place over! You totally have to have more fans than, say, Matthew who professes to have a fanbase, but doesn’t give us any names to keep us guessing how many people DO read his stuff.
In fact, I am going to start blogging about how you should be in charge of the internet, sorta like Jesus or Ben Hur, but without the robes and whips.
Yes, this is one historic day. It will last as long as this page stays on thepolitic’s current section, and isn’t moved down into the “older posts”. So, seriously dude, if I were you I would encourage the other bloggers to just stay away from your turf so that your moment of triumph won’t disappear into the inter-ether, like so many of your other brilliant musings. Now I am not condoning violence, or anything illegal. Use your powers of rhetorical pursuasion. You can do it!
Wow, I am on a roll. Now I know how powerful the internet makes you feel George. I mean, it must really help you keep your mind off the depressing dating scene. Oh, sorry dude, didn’t mean to bring you down, this being your big triumphant day. So I won’t talk about you sleeping alone anymore, ok?
So, if you want to keep taking cheap shots at me, like, for example, equating me with the terrorists, then I guess I will let you. Hey, if it gets you a date, or at least a smile in the lunchroom, then I will make that sacrifice. In fact, that may just go down as something Jesus would do. Shit! You win again, George, a gay-guy channeling Jesus on the world wide inter-web. What will they think of next?
Toodles, poodle.
Your favourite whipping boy,
Ezra
Posted on 18-Sep-07 at 9:00 pm | Permalink
George Freeman wrote:
Nighty night.
Posted on 18-Sep-07 at 9:20 pm | Permalink
Aaron Unruh wrote:
“Have fun sleeping alone tonight.”
And don’t you forget to shave your husband’s back before going to bed tonight.
Posted on 19-Sep-07 at 2:05 am | Permalink
Smarter than Ezra wrote:
“And don’t you forget to shave your husband’s back before going to bed tonight.”
If that will get you off Aaron, then consider that my gift to you. How far down should I shave though? To his ankles?
Posted on 19-Sep-07 at 8:21 am | Permalink
Greg Farries wrote:
Guy, guys guys,
lets not make this personal. This off-topic banter has to stop.
I’m going to start closing the commenting in any posts that become this off-topic.
Posted on 19-Sep-07 at 8:27 am | Permalink