mlah The “culture” that has evolved here isn’t conducive to sissies

February 7, 2005

Gay Marriage

Filed under: Religion — mlah @ 9:16 pm

Budhist Wedding

and let the pictures recommence. blondie is out of iraq and can hopefully read my site with impunity!

i read this post over at somewhat silent about gay marriage.

i’m going to state my opinion right out on top.

i don’t support gay marriage.

no doubt madame butterfly is going to want to kick my ass again. we had a rather lively chat over chick-fil-a one fine maryland summer day.

i might support civil unions. well, i do support civil unions, but i might support them for gays as well as heteros. i just haven’t decided yet.

a few of you already knew this. but most of you might be a little surprised at my reasons. read on if you dare.

i hear a lot of people talking smack about how ‘they’ deserve equal treatment under the law. let me dismiss this little argument first.

people who claim this will defend it by saying that i get to marry anyone i want, so EVERYONE should get to marry anyone they want. that the law discriminates against gays because they don’t get to marry who they want. and because of this, they are not treated equally.

i have news for y’all. the law applies equally to us all. the law says no same sex marriages. i AM just as subject to this law as everybody else. we ALL are! nobody has the right to engage in a homosexual marriage.

if someone had the right, and homosexuals did not, then they would be on the receiving end of some discrimination.


marriage is a religious institution. no doubt about it. i know a lot of y’all are just ready to flame me in my comments. go for it. but give me a chance to defend it first.

since time immemorial, marriage has been conducted between a man and a woman, worldwide, across cultures, with vows sworn before a deity. and i’m not talking about the last 2k+ years of marriages in churches.

judaism has been around what? 8000 years? sumerians married in a pagan temple. teutons and the keltoi married amidst trees, with the spirits that lived in the trees as witnesses of their vows.

and when a local potentate dared stick his nose in, it was only to give a couple (man and woman) permission to conduct the ceremony.

recently though, in what? the last 500 years or so western society has begun to place rules on marriage to establish inheritances. that was it. kings had to know who their new liege would be, and make sure that he got control of the ‘stuff’. that the monetary aspect of marriage was taken care of. remember this point, i’ll bring you back to it.

even more recently, say the last 200 years or so? states have been issuing marriage licenses. they still recognize religious marriages mind you. but they have issued licenses as well. and still more recently, states have been issuing divorces. some religions issue divorces, mainly islam, without the states assent, and this is causing some problems there.

but that’s another post.

so come to current date.

gays want to marry.

should the state allow it?

i don’t believe the state should have a say. marriage is a religious institution. simple. now since most of my readers are in the u.s., i’ll remind y’all of the separation of church and state. so, not only should the state not have a say, but the state is expressly forbidden from tampering with marriage.

now different religions allow different things. islam allows polygamy. the mormons sort of do. modern mormons will tell you that’s bogus, the mormon faith does NOT allow polygamy, yet polygamy is widespread among mormons in comparison to western christians.

and what should the state recognize as a legitmate marriage?

should they recognize marriage as having any legal status at all?

bet y’all didn’t expect that sentence.

the state today has a huge to-do with marriage because it must assign entitlements such as alimony, child support, and rights to property. THIS is the real reason the state gives a crap about marriage at all.

a man with a good job can extend his employee health benefits to his family. a wife can fight in court for his life insurance, even against a will.

these are the real rights gays are fighting for. when asked they will tell you they only want to get married for love. money has nothing to do with it.

bull shit. told you i’d bring you back here.

the state has no right to legislate marriage at all.

of course, civil unions are another matter altogether.

ask yourself what you really think marriage is. and then listen to the news when they cover a gay marriage march. listen to the reasons they give to support its legalization. they try to claim they are discriminated against, then they talk about the entitlements they are missing out on. go on! whine! everytime i see them on the news, that argument is front and center.

marriage isn’t about money.

gay marriage is.


  1. “a man with a good job can extend his employee health benefits to his family. a wife can fight in court for his life insurance, even against a will.
    “these are the real rights gays are fighting for. when asked they will tell you they only want to get married for love. money has nothing to do with it.”

    Um, no, that is false. I’ve heard love and equally I’ve heard hospital visitation rights and adoption as well as the financial stuff like insurance.

    And this whole thing has absolutely nothing to do with the separation of church & state! Think about it solely in terms of state and the law. The religious aspect is already separate– some religious entities will never sanctify gay unions, while some already do, and that’s the end of that. The state’s part is basically already a “civil union” for heterosexuals– a package of rights and responsibilities under civil law, which is distinct from religious ceremonies. Is it just me, or is this a case of semantics gone wild? Anyway, there’s no good reason not to give gays the same package of rights and responsibilities, whether you call it “civil union” or “state-sanctioned marriage”.

    “marriage isn’t about money.” Oh, really, tell that to Anna Nicole Smith or any woman who prefers a gent who makes a good deal of money. And “since time immemorial”, women have been property which has a certain value, except (arguably) in the last X number of years. Heard of dowries? It’s always been about $, you’re such a retard.

    Comment by f-in_cheney — February 8, 2005 @ 6:46 am

  2. “tell that to anna nicole smith”

    yeah, some people have used marriage for money in the past. that’s exactly my point gussy boy. homosexuals are doing the same thing. it’s money to them. you can deny it, but i stand by my claim. watch the marches, money remains front and center.

    Comment by mlah — February 8, 2005 @ 8:22 am

  3. So the f*ck what if that is part of it? (And I maintain that that is *only* a part of it.) Another way of stating what you seem to be calling “filthy lucre” is “security” and “peace of mind”– health insurance, for instance. You’re making some weird moral point that really doesn’t even logically support your conclusion that gays don’t deserve the rights of marriage. If it’s an accepted part of the package afforded to straights, there isn’t any good reason why it cannot also be granted homosexuals. If it’s good for the goose and gander, it’s good for the goose and goose, or gander and gander (haha, I made a funny!).
    To the larger society, anyway, it’s not about “money”, with the gays. It just turns their stomachs. Which isn’t a good enough reason, either, as some straight couples turn my stomach. A matter of taste has no place determining civil rights. Your argument is not the mainstream conservative one, except for the part about “from time immemorial”, but it’s still retarded and irrelevant.
    How about when gays can’t see their partners on their hospital deathbeds? How about when one partner who already has a child that has been brought up by both partners dies– can’t Heather stay with her 2nd Mommy? How about society’s blessing towards their choice to create a little bit more love in the world, instead of suffering fear and scorn? These things: priceless.

    Comment by f-in_cheney — February 9, 2005 @ 1:54 am

  4. F-in Cheney. YOu need to go put a bullet in your head!

    Comment by Me — February 9, 2005 @ 4:10 pm

  5. I think when you and I had our dispute that day at Chick-fil-A (hmm. what’s the A stand for?)…my points were not about love primarily. People are denied certain legal rights because their relationship, which has the same emotional bond as a marriage, is illegal.

    As for your statement that marriage is a religious issue, then why are there so many laws regarding marriage? Age for example. Blood lines for another. Why are marriages performed in a civil court if it’s purely religious? Because not everyone is religious. Marriage is no longer just a religious ceremony. It has too many legal implications.

    I promise, when the day comes that you finally put a ring on some dame’s finger, you’ll realize all the legal implications, and why gays are fighting for it.

    I don’t judge their desire for marriage based on biblical beliefs. I look it at purely at the legal ramifications. Marriage cannot be cleanly described as a religious issue. If that’s true, then we as humans screwed up thousands of years ago, and it’s way to late to fix it. But we do need to make it equal for all.

    And for all you weirdo’s out there attacking the blog….notice I made my points without vulgar personal attacks. It is possible to disagree on something this controversial, (and this guy is a friend of mine!) without resorting to bad manners.

    Try it, it works.

    Comment by Madame Butterfly — February 9, 2005 @ 5:05 pm

  6. PS…ok. You had a Superbowl party.

    What, NO PIX? What’s up with that?

    411 man!!!! Can you outdo the Go Daddy commercial?


    Comment by Madame Butterfly — February 9, 2005 @ 5:06 pm

  7. bottom line dude, whether it’s a matter of money or of love, is happiness. If two gay people are happy together, then there is no reason whatsoever for us to deny them happiness, love, and peace of mind. societal norms don’t even factor into the equation.

    Comment by medium john — February 9, 2005 @ 6:02 pm

  8. Ok, I read this entire thing, and while I see where you’re coming from I also ‘get’ the other side. It’s not just about money. Personally (because I can’t back it up with stats) more male/females get married over money than homosexuals would. Personally, I think anyone somewhat related to Hollywood should not be able to get married.
    Anyway… I have many homosexual friends, one in particular who is like a brother to me. I know he wants to get married.
    I’m 100% sure it’s not about the money.

    One problem I have that could be addressed is the fact that you HAVE to be ‘related’ by blood or marriage to do things like get insurance/inheritance/hospitcal visitations.
    What if I hated my whole family but I wanted my best friend in the room with me while I had surgery?
    Could go on and on about it – but atleast I can do it without sticking my head up my own ass. 🙂

    Comment by rachel — February 10, 2005 @ 12:23 am

  9. no doubt straight there are many straight couples who get married for money. i was in the military and it is rife with marriages of comvenience. that does not make it right.

    next,maybe gays do want to get married for love, but they are seeking the financial benefits. i reiterate my claim, watch the marches, see the banners, listent to the rhetoric.

    next, mb cites the pervasiveness of marriage in legal senses. i make the case that the state is ‘taking’ marriage out of religion. this is wrong. marriage IS a key part of religion.

    gussy, your strong assertions that religion has taken care of itself, or just doesn’t matter are wonderful cases of your lack of ability to to actually debate an issue. you merely recite the pogrom to which you have been indoctrinated. all else are simply wrong.

    marriage belongs in the houses of God, the state has no business whatsoever tinkering with it. it is separate.

    the state offering civil unions? it’s a different subject altogether. look it up gussy, it’s coming. and oh, your sweet little story about heather staying with her other mommy? no, she stays with her dad. are we supposed to just chuck existing custodial laws out the window?

    Comment by mlah — February 10, 2005 @ 1:00 am

  10. “maybe gays do want to get married for love, but they are seeking the financial benefits”
    Again, I ask you: so the f*ck what if that is a part of it? There’s nothing wrong with wanting health insurance. You haven’t offered any logical argument why gays don’t deserve what straights have. I watched the marches, I saw the banners, I listened to the rhetoric, and they were beautiful and moving and full of love– what’s your point?
    “i make the case that the state is ‘taking’ marriage out of religion. this is wrong. marriage IS a key part of religion”
    You go ahead and try to make that case. Christians thought marriage was a tainted institution and didn’t declare it a sacrament until the 13th century. If your problem is that marriage is already in the civil sphere, then you have certainly got your work cut out for you, to say the least. I can see your congressperson laughing in your face right now.
    “gussy, your strong assertions that religion has taken care of itself, or just doesn’t matter are wonderful cases of your lack of ability to to actually debate an issue. you merely recite the pogrom to which you have been indoctrinated”
    Someone, please tell me what he is going on about! Is it this?– “some religious entities will never sanctify gay unions, while some already do, and that’s the end of that.” Well that’s the facts, Jack. The Church of Satan can probably “marry” me to my favorite goat, and that has nothing to do with what the State says. What the hell “pogram” are you referring to, exactly?
    “and oh, your sweet little story about heather staying with her other mommy? no, she stays with her dad.”
    Her dad who beat her and her mom, or who split when mom was pregnant?

    Comment by f-in_cheney — February 10, 2005 @ 5:07 am

  11. stereotypes gus. i’ve come to know that is an ingrained part of your logic. no? daddy who beat her? daddy who bailed on her? why stay with other mommy who uses her for sex.

    Comment by mlah — February 10, 2005 @ 8:33 am

  12. Not stereotypes, but plausible scenarios– which is what LAWS have to accomodate for that “equal protection” part to be true. If a woman has full custody of little Heather, it’s likely that the father isn’t in the picture much. If they share custody, yeah, Dad gets the kid. But in the (not uncommon) pictures I drew for you, where a woman has gone lesbian and everything, the other Mom should at least be considered if birth Mom dies. Can’t you imagine a situation where it would be the right thing to do?
    It’s funny how even all your friends here think you’re a little bonkers on this issue. Thanks, MB & Rachel. Even Medium John is talking like an honest-to-goodness resident of San Francisco, you loser! Are you sure you’re not just grossed out by the whole thing and covering up your politcally incorrect rage with this off-the-wall argument?

    Comment by f-in_cheney — February 10, 2005 @ 10:20 am

  13. Please don’t put words into my mouth.
    I in no way whatsoever think he’s ‘bonkers’.
    I happen to think (just like I said) that I see where’s he’s coming from and he does have good points. I just don’t agree.

    Comment by rachel — February 10, 2005 @ 12:22 pm

  14. so what if they just want the financial benefits? money is not a valid reason to re-examine the institution (religious) of marriage.

    you want to talk about oh, it might be possible, can’t you imagine?

    what about the two mobsters who get arrested for murder inc. they get hitched in the joint so that they cannot be impelled to testify against each other. can’t you imagine it? and don’t think it won’t happen.

    and this is exactly my point. marriage should not be tinkered with for the convenience of anybody.

    you want to play with a civil union? maybe i can go with that. and hold on to your ass gussie boy. you aren’t going to get your way.

    yeah, homosexuality grosses me out (just the male kind, yes i know it’s hypocritical, i just don’t care) but so does fruit cake (no pun intended). i don’t use fruit cake as a reason to base my beliefs on the sanctity of marriage.

    maybe homosexual sex is endearing to you, and your propensity towards it has clouded your rationale.

    Comment by mlah — February 10, 2005 @ 2:04 pm

  15. f’n cheney, speak for yourself. i may disagree with mlah on this issue, but you and i will never be on the same side. there is no reason for you to resort to calling my friend a loser.

    P.S.: are you calling me gay? im not from san francisco.

    Comment by medium john — February 10, 2005 @ 3:10 pm

  16. Marriage has not always been a religious institution!
    Here’s some history of “Marriage as a Ceremony or Contract” from a Catholic website (see section 6):

    “One of the earliest and most frequent customs associated with the entrance into marriage was the capture of the woman by her intended husband, usually from another tribe than that to which he himself belonged. … generally devoid of any formality whatever, beyond mere cohabitation.

    “Like capture, purchase became after a time among many peoples a symbol to signify the taking of a wife and the formation of the marriage union.

    “Various other ceremonial forms have accompanied or constituted the entrance upon the marriage relation, the most common of which was some kind of feast; yet among many uncivilized peoples marriage has taken place, and still takes place, without any formal ceremony whatever.

    “Luther declared that marriage was not a sacrament but a “worldly thing”.”

    SO, if marriage has not always been a religious institution, then it *can* be tinkered with legally, as it has been many times (women don’t = property, interracial marriage– or do you not think we should not have tinkered with those?).

    “i know it’s hypocritical, i just don’t care”
    Well, we finally get down to brass tacks now. Thank you for your candor. I rest my case.

    Comment by f-in_cheney — February 10, 2005 @ 7:53 pm

  17. my statement about being a hypocrite was in regard to liking a little lesbian action. it had nothing to do with my opinions about gay marriage.

    do you work for the main stream media? because you sure like to misconstrue quotes like they do!

    next, you discredit religion at every turn possible… past posts, and then expect us take a church’s opinion as fact?

    i maintain marriage is a religious institution, and not touchable by the state.

    Comment by mlah — February 10, 2005 @ 10:14 pm

  18. test



    Comment by mlah — February 11, 2005 @ 12:52 am

  19. This has absolutely nothing to do with my opinion of religion. It’s history. You can easily look this stuff up.

    In 1563, with the COUNCIL OF TRENT, the Roman Catholic Church, having noticed that many marriages were taking place without witness or ceremony, decreed marriage a Sacrament that should be celebrated in the presence of a priest and at least two witnesses.
    Before that, it said that the celibate priest, monk, or nun was superior to a married lay Christian. Canon law cast marriage as an obstacle to a life of prayer and wholehearted fellowship with God. To enter marriage and to bear and rear children were left as inferior Christian acts, somewhat less than holy. No surprise, the sexual act itself, even in marriage, stood as unclean, sinful, and degrading.

    …really did say things like “Marriage has been from the beginning and still is free and honorable even among the heathen, and throughout the world” (see his Exhortation, 155). And said marriage was not a sacrament, but “an outward, bodily thing, like any other worldly undertaking.” Referring to 1 Corinthians 7: 12-13, he approved of a Christian’s marriage to a non-believer, noting: “You will find plenty of Christians–indeed the greater part of them–who are worse in their secret unbelief than any Jew, heathen, Turk, or heretic” (Estate, 22-30).

    You’re just wrong. You’re talking out of your ass as usual. You’re hallucinating. You wouldn’t recognize a logical thought if it smacked you upside the head. Frankly, you’re Unamerican, cuz every cop and local gov’t official up to all the Presidents and Supreme Court Justices will tell you that marriage is indeed “touchable by the State”.

    Comment by f-in_cheney — February 11, 2005 @ 9:38 pm

  20. how interesting that you cited only christian sources. a little western biased are you?

    and by citing the roman catholics church, you are accepting their definition of marraige.

    you are contradicting yourself.

    Comment by mlah — February 12, 2005 @ 2:50 am

  21. “and by citing the roman catholics church, you are accepting their definition of marraige.
    you are contradicting yourself.”
    You made the claim that marriage has always and only been religious. My citing otherwise from the historical record doesn’t suddenly make me responsible for anyone’s whole cosmology. This is what historians do for a living, in case you haven’t noticed.
    And that I only cited Western sources– hey, all I had to do to prove your thesis (“marriage has always and only been religious”) wrong was to provide one fact to the contrary, Eastern or Western or whatever.
    Like I said, your grasp of logic is painfully weak. You have no basis to restrict marriage to heterosexuals.

    Comment by f-in_cheney — February 14, 2005 @ 4:46 am

  22. Darn, and I arrive late to the party. Gus, you’re just a gay avenger, aren’t you? Those gay rights marches that “were beautiful and moving and full of love”? Ummmm, well, some people think that Mapplethorpe’s photography is also beautiful and moving……

    Let’s take a fictional gay advocate, we’ll call him G-boi for convenience (having nothing to do with anyone posting to Mlah’s blogsite). G-boi gets in the way-back time machine and heads to the Council of Trent to declare that Jesus taught us that all people deserve our love and respect. The Council adjourns to tie G-boi to a stake, stack fags around him (not a sexual fantasy; these are little bundles of sticks that burn real easily) and light the bonfire under him. Then, having dispatched the agent of evil, they return to their deliberations on the status of “marriage.”

    So G-boi (because this is a fictional account, of course) tries again, goes to confront Martin Luther as he nails his demands to the door, and says, ‘Hey Marty, I like your thoughts on marriage. why don’t you add a bit about us homosexuals on there, we deserve our fair share, too!” Old Martin buries his hammer in G-boi’s head and walks away in disgust.

    So G-boi is getting pretty frustrated here. He goes back to Galilee and confronts that Jesus freak he’s heard all those nasty Christians talking about, and says ‘Yo J! I don’t believe in your divinity or anything, but I want you to tell the world that we homosexuals get equal treatment under your teachings.’ And the response is something like ‘Certainly, you are like all the goyim in the world, as you repent, so shall you be saved. Go forth and sin no more.’ G-boi doesn’t like that answer, because it implies that somehow, his choices in life are wrong.

    So G-boi decides to try the secular route, and heads to Philadelphia to confront hte Framers, and says, ‘This Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution thing, they have to guarantee my right to marry another man!’ And the Framers stop, look at him for a while, then drag his nasty ass outside to put him in the stockade, where he will be publicly mocked for a while before they ride him out of town on a rail. Perhaps with some tar and feathers stuck to him.

    Then G-boi tries another tack, he heads to the great civil rights activist Martin Luther (King, that is), and says, Brother King, you MUST do something about my plight! I, like you, am denied my civil rights because of who I am. Speak for me, Doctor King, that you and I can march into a new America that finally, finally, realizes our Dream. And Doctor King calls his security folks and has them boot G-boi out on his ass. On the way out, G-boi is told that he is nasty, but that he will be prayed for.

    Then G-boi finally realizes that only in around 1968, the Summer of Love, in California, will he get any respect. Gay was hip, part of the Free Love thing, where everybody could do as they wanted as long as it felt good. He realizes that only since then, in the past 35 years or so, has his cause received any public support. Of course, he’s sleeping around with all the Hollywood executives, because they are the Master Propagandists that are making him cool for society.

    Then he gets to 2004 and realizes that despite his best efforts, with the collusion of Hollywood propaganda, even the most liberal states, like Oregon, refuse to formally sanction his so-called “civil right” to get married.

    Damn it, time to head to those social engineers on the judicial bench, to force G-boi’s views on the rest of the population against their will. Because G-boi is convinced of his righteous cause, and he will prevail!

    Never mind that most of his fellow citizens — even the evil conservatives — are cool with him popping down to the courts to get a “civil union.” That’s not good enough, that’s the same as the “common law marriages” that those trailer trash folks get. G-boi wants the whole enchilada, he wants everyone to get down on their knees in regret that they have denied him their acknowledgement that he is every bit as good as they are. He wants them to formally say so, by conferring on him and his boyfriend the sataus of “marriage.”

    Question is, if he gets his way, and gay “marriage” becomes the law (through court subterfuge, since the referendum method ain’t working), and he and his fellow homos are the exact same as everyone else, and publicly acknowledgesd as such, will he be willing to have his protected status be dropped? Will he agree that homos are no longer subject to special protection under ‘hate crimes’ laws? Or will he use his new status to drive those evil Christians underground, in retaliation for all the bad things they have done to him over the centuries? It’s only a matter of time, after all, before the Southern Baptists are driven to the fringes of society like the KKK was. They’re so much worse than the Taleban, after all.

    Thus ends my story. Amen.

    Comment by yup — February 18, 2005 @ 7:51 am

  23. Umm… sorry, I do not know if that is a “private blog” or something like that, I found it by chance… and I need to say (write) about marriage.

    First: the marriage is NOT a religious institution… and have NOT always been between a men and a woman. the marriage
    (our western marriage at least) was a part of the roman law that the christian church took along other parts to form the canonic low, back in the medium age… maybe you will be surprise if you try to look for “marriage gay roman empire” in google.

    Second: what marriage is, or should be (being myself an atheist) is a civilian institution wich recognize that two persons are together, giving them a status and rights along.

    So, why not between two persons of the same sex?

    (sorry about my english, i hope you will be able to read it)

    Comment by Leiro — December 8, 2006 @ 9:10 am

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Leave a comment

Powered by WordPress