Monday, July 4, 2011

NY legalizes Gay Marriage

Last weekend was a historic weekend to be in NYC, celebrating Gay Pride as the NY assembly passed legislation allowing same sex couples to marry. NY now joins MA, IA, NH, VT & CT as the 6th state where gays can get married (along with federal district WA DC).

Getting married was never a major goal for me. Not having a significant other, but the whole process of the alter & church. Yet modern gay activists felt it's a "right" GLBT people should have for equality.

Despite the excitement in the air in NYC metro area gay ghettos, my sentiment is akin to Huey Freeman (Boondocks on Cartoon Network) feeling about Barack Obama becoming the 1st black president... Eh.

I've never felt excluded from the heterosexual ritual of marriage because I never cared to partake. As far as the benefits (which are really privileges) of marriage, there nothing that a good lawyer & contractual agreements can't compensate for.

Also, most importantly, a state marriage (or a statutory marriage) doesn't involve the Creator (or "capital g" God). The religious trimmings of a state marriage is just a window dressing as the words to pay close attention to from the reverend (or other religious figurehead) are "...by the Power invested in me by the STATE, I pronounce you..."

Those words uttered by the religious figurehead makes them a state agent. If he or she can't marry you without a state license, they're a state agent. Pastor Chuck Baldwin goes as far by saying (for other christian churches) they believe government, not God is their master.

According to Dave Champion, in a state or statutory marriage, the State, not God, not even the couple entering the marriage is the superior party over the marriage. Champion quoted CA law but says it's the same structure in all 50 states.

In addition to the state being the superior party over the marriage, the state is the superior party over the "fruits" of the marriage, which includes children (under 18), even if the couple divorces. Many people, including the religious right complain about state or fed intrusion into their lives not knowing that marriage license gives the state permission to do so. The State gotta protect it's "fruits" of the marriage.

It's crazy that "conservatives" like Ann Coulter would go off about libertarians saying the state should get out of marriage, saying only the government can manage all the issues around a marriage (& divorce). What happen to republicans being about limited government? More importantly where's God in the marriage that the religious right profess to following?

Before statutory marriage, there is common-law marriage (not the state's legal definition), which is between a man & a woman in front of God. Common-law marriages aren't legally recognized by the state, but it doesn't mean they aren't legit. We don't need the government's blessing for everything we do (because if the gov grants something, it's a privilege, not a benefit).

With a good lawyer, a couple can to do something contractual (akin to a prenup) & do whether ceremony they desire in front of witnesses (family, friends, etc). Now the couple would have to find a religious figurehead who's not a state agent (who will marry without a state marriage). Of course for those in Montana, Chuck Baldwin is available, otherwise, I bet a Taoist priestess won't require a marriage license.

Now the way for NY to legalize gay marriage was the democrats accepting the republicans proposal of religious exemption from having to marry gays. I think it's stupid given how many of religious right & Christians are the biggest hypocrites in their morals. And as state agencies, these churches will have to obey whatever government says. So, this not wanting to force the churches to do something they felt is immoral is silly.

So, with want I've learned about a statutory marriage license being an agreement that the State is the Lord & overseer of the marriage & it's fruits, am I feeling gays achieved equality? No - just an unnecessary milestone in an attempt of the modern gay activists trying to get hetero-homogenized so they can feel "normal" & validated.

1 comments:

MAY Charles said...

Interesting. What do you see as the long term impact of the NY decision?