Gay Marriage In Connecticut

It should be obvious that anyone that is against gay marriage holds such an opinion because they don't like the idea of gay sex. Although we joke in popular culture that sex and marriage have nothing to do with each other, you won't see any significant principled division between the people who object to homosexuality and those who wish to deprive homosexuals of their civil rights.

Today Connecticut's supreme court ruled that denying same-sex couples the right to marry violated that state's constitution. Effectively becoming the third state to allow homosexual marriage.

Something that is often glossed over in discussions of gay marriage is the issue of civil unions. These are often touted as being the same as marriage but with a different name. Gay rights groups often do a good job of pointing out that "separate is not equal," but it gets a bit more technical than that. There is a certain deference that is given to the status of marriage in American law that would not transfer over to any artificial legislative construction. You can make a statute that gives persons in a civil union the same tax benefits(penalties), the same visitation rights, and same property ownership as marriage and these are the rights typically cited by people discussing the issue, but there are a number of other rights that most people don't know come from marriage. You can have joint ownership of property but what about inheritance? What about the "Marital Privilege" where your spouse can not be forced to testify against you in court? There are a number of others but the point is that the status of marriage is so ingrained in our culture that a legislature would have to rewrite its entire civil code to create a substantially similar civil status to marriage.

Which still leaves the question of motive. Why would you go to all the effort to create something exactly like marriage just for the gays if not to keep them separate? I have yet to have heard a coherent explanation of why conservatives believe that it somehow harms their marriage if homosexuals are allowed to marry. My wife and I may have had less sex, or poor communication on the week California first allowed gay marriage, but I guarantee you it was not the cause.

Socialist Feminism

The entire old media, not just Fox News, has been dragging what is percieved as the middle further and further to the Right. This is just to reaquaint you with what The Left actually looks like.

You should be compensated for your domestic labors and for your offspring. These activities directly benefit your employer and the state. The substantial benefit derived from these activities amounts to these entities differing costs to you. In a very real sense you are subsidising the operation of your employer and the government with the costs of remaining alive.

When you go grocery shopping, commute to and from work, keep a clean house, and produce offspring you confer a benefit on those entities. This streaches credulity in its current form so allow me to expand on these points. Clearly your employer should not be relieved every day that you made it in alive, they should not be expected to compensate you for the act of sticking your dirty shirts in the washing machine, or even to pay extra for the detergent. Even if I were saying this it would in effect limit your freedom in life as your employer would choose the least expensive mode of satisfying your basic survival needs even to the extent of a return to the company town of the 1920's where every aspect of your life was decided by your employer. As for transportation, if every employer participated in public transportation and allowed employees to buy group rate passes, freedom of choice need not be impinged. Also, if your employer was responsible of every aspect of your cost of living it would severely reduce wages. However, your wage would be an actual reflection of the market value of your labor instead of ransom to subsidise the cost of having employees.

I am making this radical point to emphasize that every employer has a moral duty to pay every employee a living wage. Further, I wish to emphasize that demands for universal health care, and universal post-highschool education are demands of the rational center, not the fringe element of the left. Freedom from fear about housing, food, hygene, health, and education needs are basic conserns of real people in America.

On the government front the profiting off of your living is more incidious. This is exemplified by the state's intrest in promoting marrage. I am not referring to any debate on homosexual marrage. The state actively promotes marrages for the purpose of creating a stable tax base. They do this in part by regulating marrage through licencing, but to a much greater degree in the creation and application of law. Ones marital status is a legal status and can have a substantive effect on the outcome of a court case, specifically because the state wishes to promote marrage as opposed to other consentual sexual relationships between adults. For example, children born out of wedlock are more likely to end up in the care of the state. While this is not going to be the most luxurious accomidation for the child, it can be illustrative about the costs the state is differing to married parents so that they bear the cost of raising a child until the child becomes a taxpayer.

At the very least, the state owes every child health care and education past the high-school level. Both of these things have a higher return on the investment paid into them. The return is a healthy adult with higher earning potential, and thus more taxable wages. This article makes a similar argument.

After hearing all this, would you believe I am a libertarian?

There you have it. This is the left. NPR and PBS and Democrats like John Edwards are the center. The Clintons, Joseph Liberman, the main stream media, and most of the Republicans are the right. The evangaliticals, Fox, the Neocons, and the rest of the Republicans are the far right. I could tell you about the far left but they are really crazy. PETA crazy.

Walk of Shame

As much of a dickhead as Bill Maher is occasionally, he sums up this year's biggest douchbags that should be filled with shame and remorse but are even more worthy of hate because they aren't asshamed.



X

Ukraine's answer to Nanci Pelosi

This is the kind of hot politician you get when your country has had to fight for its freedom in living memory and your people are interisted in government.

Something of a Splash

Over at Youtube today, Mike Gravel's campaign has caused another minor internet sensation. Perhaps the grass roots can cause trouble for the established media system yet.

Myanmar

So far this whole series of events has given me hope for the people of Burma. I have recently taken to saying that people deserve the type of government they have. The fact that this has not been violent at all yet is tremendous and encouraging. Hopefully it will be unthinkable for the army to harm a monk, because at this point as long as the monks have the peoples intrest at heart this can conceveably end with a representative government that looks out for its people.

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/09/26/myanmar/index_np.html