Posts Tagged ‘gay marriage’

Alabama’s Elegant Solution to Gay Marriage

Posted by Troy on 29th June 2015 in Current Events

Alabama is getting out of the marriage license business, a business that the government really didn’t have any business being in anyway.  They will not tell you who you can or cannot marry.  The only real requirement is that you cannot be married to more than one person at a time.  I have always said, “Why do you have to get permission from the government to marry someone?  It never should have been a thing anyway.  It is a bit fascist, when you really think about it.  The neat part is that it also takes a matter out of hand.  Previously, those who opposed gay marriage were going to have to live with their government sanctioning something that they viewed as abhorrent.  Alabama has found a way to satisfy the requirements of the Supreme Court while maintaining their constituent’s desire not to sanction such unions.  Very well done, Alabama!  A very Libertarian solution to the problem.  Gays can marry and receive the rights as such, but the people do not have to sign off on such unions.

Long Live the Constitution!

Gay Marriage: Be Prepared for Buyer’s Remorse

Posted by Troy on 26th June 2015 in Current Events

First, let’s get one thing out of the way.  I am a Libertarian.  If gay marriage had come up for a vote in my state, I would have voted for it.  However, I cannot agree with what the court did today.  What the justices said is “the five of us are overruling the 150,000,000 of you.”  These are unelected officials that have just completely re-wrote several laws with a wave of the hand with no recourse from the voters whatsoever.  That being said, all they did was hit fast forward.  If you had been patient, over the course of ten years, you would have gotten the same thing as more and more states decided to allow gay marriage.

Again, I am not against gay marriage.  I am against the way it was brought about.  And I am very much against what is going to come next, as I will explain.

I believe gay marriage was the Save the Whales of the 2000′s.  It was the trendy thing that Hollywood and the cool and the “tolerant” could jump on the bandwagon.  I say “tolerant” because I haven’t met a Leftist in a LONG time that has been able to contain their temper when having a rational discussion.  It always seems to devolve into them yelling and screaming.  For thousands of years in most cultures, marriage was between one man and one woman.  Everyone seemed okay with this it seemed.  If you were gay, you were together, and that was it.  Suddenly, there is a movement.  Gay marriage is plastered on TV shows and advertisements and movies.  This is the way Hollywood works.  Essentially, brainwashing.  That’s fine.  All’s fair in love and brainwashing as it were.  They do the same thing against the patriotism and capitalism and guns.  Whatever they decide is good or evil, you too must accept as good or evil.

I truly believe that the entire movement is based on “getting” gay marriage, not gay marriage itself.  It’s about the attention and the spectacle.  It’s the “Hey!  Look at me!”  Something I generally hate.  Where you lost me was when you started forcing florists and bakers and others to bow to your will.  If you were really just concerned about marriage, you would find a florist and a baker that wanted to service your wedding.  Seriously.  Do you expect me to believe you can’t find a gay florist?  [That's a joke, develop a sense of humor!]  Instead, you ruin the lives of these shop owners just to force them to do your bidding.  It’s a sickness of the mind and soul.  Do you think you are going to win over their hearts and mind that way?  Again, if you just wanted marriage, you would just marry the person you love and be done with it.  This is about force.  This is about attention.  And that’s where you lose me.

So, you have it now.  Welcome to Hell.  Here’s something you will get to hear now: “Why aren’t we married?  So and so is married.”  And you also get to find out about divorce.  ”Shit, we can’t just ‘break up?’”  Most heterosexual couples that marry have some child aspect (either wanting one or having one) that helps keep the relationship going.  Most gay couples will be missing this, and will face a heavier divorce rate.  I predict that gays will soon hate lawyers more than any other group.  You will also learn that there is a difference between being together and marriage.  I hope you like what you got.

Again, I would have voted for ya, but I don’t like how it was done.

Long Live the Constitution!

Where the Gay Marriage Crowd Lost Me

Posted by Troy on 4th May 2015 in Current Events

The baker that refused to bake a cake for a lesbian wedding is being ordered to pay the couple $135,000 in damages for mental suffering.  Let’s let that sink in.

“I won’t bake you a cake.”


“I don’t like you.”

“Ow!  That hurt my feelings.  Give me $135,000.”

What kinda of p****a** people are we raising in this country?  That’s how hurt you were by this?  Really?

Bear in mind, this is no longer about their business.  The court has said that the owners PERSONALLY owe this.  They cannot file bankruptcy for their business and just end their business.  Nope.  They are being destroyed financially.

Also bear in mind that this was NEVER about a cake.  The lesbians in question would have had worse suffering if they had gotten the cake they wanted.  They wanted to be denied so that they could have this court case.  If all they wanted was a wedding cake, they could have gone to pretty much any other baker in town and gotten a cake.  It would have been far less trouble.  This is about forcing others to their will.  It is also about the attention they crave.  This is why I predict this to be one of the first gay divorces you will see as well.  It is about the spectacle.  It’s not about the relationship.

So that is where they lost me.  They are willing to destroy someone just because they can.  If this is how the pro-crowd is going to conduct themselves, they have lost my support.  It is sickening and abhorrent.

Long Live the Constitution!

Rapist sends “thank you” flowers to victim – Court forces shop owner to comply

Posted by Troy on 3rd April 2015 in Current Events, Political

I was rather sickened today.  A man raped a 15 year old girl.  Due to a technicality, he got off.  To celebrate, he ordered flowers sent to the victim to thank her for causing him to get off without any punishment.  The shop owner was outraged and kicked him out.  The rapist went to the courts and said he was denied service.  The court agreed.  They said the shop owner offered his services to the public.  He is not allowed to say no to anyone that can afford his services.  As such, the shop delivered the flowers.

Are you outraged too?

Probably.  Of course, I’m lying.  This didn’t happen at all.  (The difference between me and the mainstream media is that I will tell you when I’m lying to make a point).  The point I am making is: we LOVE it when people discriminate.  We just don’t like it when they discriminate against people we don’t think should be discriminated against.

I am, of course, talking about the rights of gays to force people to serve them.  I’m sorry, their right to purchase services.

There are only two ways you can come down on this: either you believe in the absolute right for anyone to buy any goods and services from any vendor they please OR you believe in the absolute right for all transactions to be voluntary.  Before Obamacare, I would have commented that you can’t FORCE people to buy anything…but times do change.

Of course, you’re gonna throw the Civil Rights Era in my face.  To whit, I will respond, “I really don’t give a damn.”  There, I said it.  Don’t bother bringing it up.  It will not sway me.  Because you have to have a consistent thought pattern to have any semblance of order in your life.

Would you force a Jewish band to perform for Neo-Nazis?

In Vegas, where prostitution is legal, would you force a prostitute to have sex with a patron she didn’t want to?

We can come up with hundreds of cases where you would approve of the proprietor’s decision to deny service.  So why not in this case?  Well…because in this case YOU don’t approve.  This is pretty freaking fascist.

I went into a barber shop to get a haircut.  When I went in, it turned out it was a black barber shop.  If the owner had turned to me and yelled, “Get your honky ass outta here,” what would I have done?  I would have shrugged and gone to another shop.  I wouldn’t WANT to give them my money.  Screw them.  What wouldn’t I do?  Drag them into court and force them to cut my hair so that I could say, “There, see?!  I can force you to do what I want you to do.”  [For the record, they did a great job cutting my hair and were very nice.]

Coming to that, I have to have severe suspicion about these relationships.  A strong relationship would say, “I don’t care what people say.  I am going to be with you.”  Instead, they seem much more interested in “making a statement.”  As such, I’m betting a lot of these cases are going to end in the first gay divorces.  Why?  Because I think it is more about the novelty, the spectacle, the attention…it’s not about the relationship.  If it was, they would go down and get a Wal-Mart cake, smile at each other as they cut it, laugh, and be happy with just each other…the only thing you really need for a successful marriage…each other.

It’s a sick state of mind…the desire to subject someone to your will.  That’s all this is.  Nothing else.

Long Live the Constitution!

Support for Gay Marriage at All-Time High

Posted by Troy on 22nd May 2014 in Current Events, Political

I think I’ve been mostly silent on the subject of gay marriage.  Why?  Because I largely agree with Michael McDonald: it’s about as pressing as “are we eating too much garlic as a nation.”  However, since it will soon be shoved down our collective throats (and make no mistake, it will be…sorry gay marriage supporters, but at least 40% think it should be illegal, and legitimizing it by legal recognition is, in fact, shoving it down their throats), I’ve decided to give my full opinion on the matter.

On a personal stance:  I don’t really care one way or another.  It doesn’t pick my pocket nor break my nose.  I think it should be a matter for the states to decide on a state by state basis.  Below, I will support why I believe this.

Every state has their own definition of who should get married.  This includes ages.  In some states, you can marry your cousin, and in others, not.  So forth so forth.  Of course, once upon a time, there were some states that prevented interracial marriage.  This went to the Supreme Court, and it was overturned.  As such, states were denied the right to limit marriage based on race.  I’m married to an Asian (I’m white, by the way), but I think that decision was wrong.  I think it should have been overturned by the long and ponderous process of social acceptance.  That’s hard to say out loud, but it is what I actually believe.  See the following important continuation as to why I believe that communities should be allowed to set who may or may not be married.

A daughter of an unwed mother grows up.  She hunts down her biological father when she is eighteen.  Upon meeting, the two fall in love and want to get married.  Should they be allowed to?  The answer most will give is “ewwwwwwwwwwww, no.”  Why not?  They are consenting adults.  By the way I have structured the argument, there was no child molestation (etc) to cause objection.  You might respond “Well, they would have birth defects.”  So what?  Shall we sterilize those who have sickle cell or “little people?”  Are they not assured to give offspring that have birth defects/medical conditions/etc?  The real reason is because it’s “yucky.”  95% of the population would agree with you.  As such, fathers cannot marry their daughters.  So, 20 years ago or so, I’d say at least 80% of the populace would say that gays should not be allowed to marry.  Now, more people say they should.  As such, they should be allowed to marry in those communities that confer such acceptance.

And here again, this proves my point about the slow process of acceptance.  Over time, more and more communities accept it until, at some point, the Supreme Court has to step in and say that it has such overwhelming approval in the vast majority of states that all states must recognize it.

So why don’t we skip the middleman and just force it down the throats of everyone?  I’m just not for that.  I think the backlash of force outweighs the mere 10 years of further social conditioning to achieve acceptance.  That’s just my personal stance on that.  As Terry Pratchett once said, “Have you ever noticed that people are always wanting to drag people kicking and screaming?  Why has no one ever tried taking someone’s hand and gently leading them?” (Paraphrased from memory)

One question I do have is “Why is this suddenly an issue?”  Homosexuality has existed for AT LEAST fifteen years or so.  At the very least.  So, why now?  I have two theories.  The first is one that supporters generally give me about secular contract law, etc (how romantic).  The second is that it has been manufactured and promoted for political reasons.

The first one I heard as I once was in a conversation about this and pointed out that, “No one can stop you from being married in the truest sense of the word,” (ie, you can devote yourself to each other and call each other your spouse and no one can stop you).  This was in response to people saying that people should not be allowed to marry those they love and spend the rest of their lives together (etc).  That is when the argument about contract law and inheritance came about.  Of course, you can always write a Will or Living Will to give all the rights that they are asking for.  A little extra paperwork, perhaps.  Now, as far as price breaks for family admission to Disney World and such…I have no response to that.  If, however, the real issue is that you cannot ensure the legal continuity via Wills and the like of community property, then I say the real issue is the over-encroachment of government into our private affairs.

So, why now?  I personally believe this is a trumped-up political-crusade meant to distinguish the “cool” from the “non-cool.”  Let one “cool” person come out saying they support “traditional marriage,” and see what happens to them.  They are ostracized immediately.  It’s the new Scarlet Letter.  Conformity through shame.  So if you want to belong with the cool kids, you best think just like the cool kids.  As I said, why now?  I suppose you could say that this is the first time in history when gays had enough acceptance that they could BEGIN to demand marriage.  Of course, you’d be wrong.  In ancient Greece and Rome and Japan, homosexuality was perfectly accepted.  No one cared, but they did not have gay marriage.  This is just a puzzler to me, and the only thing I could come up with was that this is all a trendy-political fad.  I really hope it is not because I have some bad news for gays if it is…

Marriage is not all it’s cracked up to be.  Nothing’s free.  The first thing you’re going to notice is that ONE of the partners will start asking, “Um, so why aren’t we married yet?”  Trust me, that gets old.  You will also find that you can’t just “break up.”  Divorce is a long, evil process.  It is not fast.  It is not, get you stuff and go.  It’s months or years in court, fights, lawyers, court costs, etc.  Also, marriage is a completely different mindset.  It is different that just living together.  I think there may be a bit of buyer’s remorse after twenty years or so, but that’s just speculation.  I am guessing that there will be almost V-day celebrations when the Feds force national acceptance of gay marriage.  But I just have a sense that it’s more about the demand for the thing more than the thing itself.

All that being said, if it were on the ballot in my state, I’d probably vote for it.  I cannot come up with a reason why two consenting adults cannot join in a marriage legally (in the eyes of God is a different matter, but I’ll leave that up to God to judge and decide on the other side…He’s a bit wiser than me).

I will say that gays could have an almost overnight success if they just change from calling it “marriage” to “civil union” as they would pick up and addition 10% to 15% support giving them a super-majority.  That was argued against.  Again, I think part of it is the desire to force something down someone’s throat (power trip).  However, I had it put to me that it’s akin to the old “separate but equal” basically turns into “separate but not equal” in practice.  That’s fair enough, but then you sue after being denied equal rights under the law, and you’ve backdoored into gay marriage.  By that time, people would have gotten used to the idea, and the vast majority of people just flat wouldn’t care anymore.

That is my long and complete (if summarized) stance on gay marriage.

Long Live the Constitution!

Chic-Fil-A boycott

Posted by Troy on 30th July 2012 in Current Events, Political

Here comes the question: should you boycott a business just because their owners have different values than you?  Well, of course, it depends on who you ask.  The gay marriage crowd definitely thinks you should, and those who are against gay marriage think otherwise.  I think it really depends.  If you buy someone’s services, you are, in essence, funding whatever it is that they contribute to.  I should imagine that everyone would call for a boycott if it turned out that McDonald’s was donating money to NAMBLA.  Just think about your friends.  You might have a friend who turns out to have a different opinion on capital gains tax.  You might think his position is stupid, but it’s probably not enough to cause you to break off your friendship.  However, if it turns out that your friend is a member of the KKK, you are probably going to stop hanging out with him.  As such, if Chic-fil-a’s position is that important to you…yes, you should boycott.  However, if the only reason youa re boycotting is because some pundit tells you to, you’re being an idiot and you should learn to think for yourself.

Long Live the Constitution!

Obama’s Evolution on Same-sex Marriage…Just in Time for the Election!

Posted by Troy on 10th May 2012 in Current Events

Wow, at the timing!  Biden has a “slip” which causes Obama to “evolve” his position on Same-sex marriage (the issue previously known as gay marriage – God, I hate it when linguists try to shape perception with language…so annoying) just in time for a big same-sex marriage fund raising event kicking off his re-election.  It’s almost (almost!) as though it were planned in advance!

Let’s take a look at Obama’s giant leap on gay marriage:

“At a certain point I’ve just concluded that, for me personally, it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same-sex couples should be able to get married.” – Obama

It’s important to note that aides have said that the President does not want a new federal law concerning gay marriage or an Amendment.  He is for the states deciding what they want to do.  So, let me translate:

“You know, personally, I think you should be able to get married.  I’m not actually going to do anything about it, but you totally should be able to get married.”

Now let me translate the response from the gay and lesbian community (and their advocates):

“Yea!!!!  Here’s our money!!!!”

Imagine you are walking down a desert highway.  You have no water.  You’re in pretty bad shape.  Car after car goes by.  You’re probably going to be annoyed with them and wish they would stop, but you keep walking.  Should the next car come by and the guy gives you a glass of water and offers you a lift into town, you’re going to be so thankful.  If the next car comes by and he offers to sell you a ride into town, you’re not going to love the guy, but you’ll still be thankful regardless.  But Obama’s stance is more akin to the guy stopping, you giving him the money for the lift into town, and then him leaving you behind.  You would be pissed.

You’re being played, people.  He has no plan to help you and is never going to help you because he is more concerned with “evolving” us from a Capitalist system to a Socialist one.  He had the House and Senate for two years.  He could have gotten you gay marriage.  Did he?  Nope.  He went for healthcare.  You’re just a tool to be used for votes and money.

Now is your time to hold his feet to the fire.  If you’re serious, really serious, about getting gay marriage, demand that he actually take action BEFORE THE ELECTION before you pony up the bucks.  Or at the very least, tell him to have the guts to announce that he will actually DO something if he is re-elected.

There are those that say that he shouldn’t do this, that you should take it on faith that he will actually help you, but he won’t.  The logic behind this sentiment rests upon the assumption that he cannot be re-elected if people know what he actually wants to do.  Therefore, he should have license to get re-elected under false pretenses.  So, if he’s willing to lie to all of America to be re-elected, how do you expect to trust that he is actually going to do something to help you once he gets there?

Long Live the Constitution!

Is Marriage a Right? / Bill O’Reilly is an idiot

Posted by Troy on 7th February 2012 in Current Events

In discussing the defeat of Proposition 8 (dealing with gay marriage), O’Reilly asked the question, “Do you have a right to be married?”  To this question, his response was “Of course not.”

I disagree!  Per the Tenth Amendment, any right not given to the Federal government is granted to the states and the people themselves.  My memory may be fuzzy, but I don’t think that there is an Article giving the right to be married to the Federal government.  Ergo, this right must rest with the people themselves.  You may also ask questions like, do we have the right to eat?  Do we have the right to breathe?  Do we have the right to learn?  Do we have the right to have hobbies?  Do we have the right to own pets?  Yes, of course we do.  The state may regulate things, but the right still exists.  To deny that we have a right just because you are against something (in this case, gay marriage) is foolhardy.  If I don’t want people to be able to exercise because it makes me feel bad about how I look, I would be foolish to claim that they have no right to do so  it because it is not spelled out in the Constitution.  That argument could give the government room to argue that I have no right to pick what foods I eat because that’s not spelled out in the Constitution.

This is where I am going to get into trouble.  The fact of the matter is that the California government granted the ability of gays to marry.  The state has the right to regulate the affairs of their state.  They can state that first cousins may or may not marry and the like.  This is a fair use of their powers.  However, the people do have the right to overrule their government by use of referendums and other measures.  This should be a defeat of the bill, and gays should dust themselves off and try again.

I am a Libertarian at heart.  I am also a Tenther (a person that believes in the Tenth Amendment).  I believe that states have the power to decide who may and may not be married in their states.  I don’t believe that the Federal government should have any involvement in the matter.  If people want to enter into a strong, committed relationship, then I believe that is their right (regardless of whatever whoever calls it).  If you and your lover call yourself married and live as such, then you are married (losing the married filing joint status anyway).  However, I feel like this issue is fashionable.  I think people want the aura of marriage and aren’t thinking about the total commitment it takes.  If you are for this issue because you enjoy acting self-righteous, then you are a fool.  If you are against it because you think that it will cheapen marriage, then you are also a fool.  A committed gay couple does good for the institution of marriage.  What cheapens it are spouses that cheat, divorces at a drop of a hat, marriages of convenience, and all the other travesties that we have applied to marriage in the last fifty years.

Long Live the Constitution!