Why Just One?

I know we are supposed to be focusing on fiscal issues but when an idea raises it's hand and asks a question, sometimes....I just have to find an answer.

Question: If refusing to let one man "marry" another man violates his or their 'civil rights' then why is it not a violation of said same civil rights to then refuse to let one or both of them marry a second, third or forth man?

If marriage serves no other purpose than to provide a legally protected state contract based on sexual attraction, then how do you justify limiting the nature or number of attractions under the rubric of civil rights?

You should, based on this rights claim, be able to create "homosexual" marriage corporations, with harems of men all married to each other, pooling resources, sharing hospital visitation rights, all on the same insurance plan....probably an HMO...based strictly on the requirement that the state enforce shared legal rights, simply because you can't control who you are attracted to.

So what's the deal?

Note: I have advocated civil unions and same sex marriages performed by recognized churches.  I do not support the political hijacking of marriage by the state with exception of for protection of minors, which in my mind is a state interest.

Image credit: Oak Park Jewelers 

Where Do We Draw The Line?

All you folks (regardless of your sexual disorientation) who’ve gone and gotten yourselves hitched by a JP or someone else who performs a legitimate civil union just got hosed by one federal judge in Northern California.  According to him, you’re not married.  That’s right, civil unions are not marriages. (That is to say, they are not contractually equivalent.)

It will get appealed for good reason, and it has no affect anywhere else, but you know how the left likes to think of every little thing some elitist radical judge does as a sign of whatever it is they want that no one else wants.  It's the beginning of a transformation of the culture.  Actually it's not.

Thirty nine states ban gay "marriage," seven of those allow civil unions.  Do the math.  You need thirty eight for a constitutional amendment--not that I'd ever suggest that, but you have to point these things out some times.   78% of the sovereign states are currently against using the word marriage to define "Just any union" of carbon based life forms.  It's not your word.  You can't just take it.

Besides, if the state can’t legally provide a non-religious service for the purposes of defining a contract of union, how do they suppose to get around the left wing gag fest known lovingly as so-called separation of church and state?  They figure they can just take over religious services by judicial fiat--as the notion strikes their progressive compulsive fancy? (Or by deception and political tyranny where appropriate?)

What's next from the activist ruling class?  State sanctioned baptisms and confirmations?  Are judges going to begin performing the Bris?  There's a pretty picture.  We'll have to create a whole new class of taxpayer funded "public" servants for this purpose, otherwise you'd best make sure you book in advance; the Judge might be busy that day overruling the majority will of the voters.  You know, that’s a lot of heavy lifting and their hands might be a bit shaky—talk about accidental gender reassignment. Oops?

Of course this might be something the gay lobby could back.  Ten adult gay men at the civil circumcision of a small boy.  Someone at NAMBLA call a California Judge, our civil rights are being violated.

Cross posted at Granite Grok

An Open Letter To Carol Shea-Porter

Rep Shea-Porter. 

It occurs to me that as both a constituent and a political activist opposed to your agenda I have yet to receive an apology from you for having been called a ‘tea bagger.’   Since you do not seem inclined to apologize on your own despite the obvious free time you have (time you would normally spend reading the legislation Nancy Pelosi tells you to vote for), I thought I would drop you a line and politely ask for your apology myself.

To clarify, I have never had a scrotum anywhere near my face, not even my own.  So your careless comments would—by the liberal progressives rules of overreacting to any perceived slight for financial or political gain—be an insult and a direct assault on my civil rights as a practicing heterosexual.  In case you don’t know what that means, I am a man, and I like women—and to clarify further the kind of women who do not have a scrotum attached to themselves.  Not that there is anything wrong with that.

Your crass indifference to my plight has caused significant emotional stress.  So much so that I have asked my lawyers to determine whether or not a series of civil suits should be filed against you--including a potential class action suit--for recovery of costs for undefined adverse affects to my character (or those of the class) as a result of your senseless and very public disregard for varying aspects of our lifestyle choice. 

But before we venture down that road, I suspect that even an empty public apology could go a long way towards healing some of the wounds.  Not that this will in any way stop us from doing everything we can to ruin you publicly anyway.  If I’m not mistaken this is also one of the liberal progressive rules of over reacting to any perceived slight for financial or political gain.  I figure, if the left insists on politicizing everything, equality and fairness dictate that I have an opportunity to reap what you sow.  Anything else would be unequal before the law, even your twisted notion of it.  

I look forward to your reply—which will undoubtedly be about the need to advance climate change legislation to create jobs or have something to do with how much you have done for veterans across the State.

Best regards, 

Steve Mac Donald

NH Insider.com 

P.S.  Since you clearly speak for the entire democrat party, I expect them all to distance themselves from you immediately, and apologize as well, or they are equality complicit in your blatant hatred and bigotry towards people who through no fault of their own are trapped in the heterosexual lifestyle.