darkluna | (no subject)

Why am I so passionate about the gay-marriage issue?

Well, first of all, I'm not an asshole. True love is rare enough and important enough that when two people find it together, it should be celebrated, not condemned.

Also? The people who want to take away my gay friends' rights don't like me either. If they get the idea that forcing their morality on others is OK, they're coming for me next.

And now back to this journal's regularly scheduled content. Here's a guide.

9-10: Antisocial Corner with Sterling.

10-11: Why Seattle Is Better Than Chattanooga. Part 153 in a continuing series.

11-11:30: Funniest Cat Home Videos.

11:30-12: The Lazy Vegan. Featured today: quick lunches.

12-2: The Writing Show. Things I ought to write. Things I would totally be writing this very minute if it weren't for LJ. Things other people should write for me.

2-3: The Wank Report. Late-breaking news from fandom_wank. Includes a call-in segment.

3-4: Jukebox Daily Countdown. Can anyone challenge the Wrens' record-breaking reign atop the most-played chart?

4-4:30: Old Enough to Be in the Military: Old Enough? A panel discussion moderated by special guest Roy Mustang.

4:30-5: Rain City. Sitcom. Tonight's episode: Rich Fantasy Life. Kit, Marty, and Julie experience daydreams about their respective fantasy lives. Guest stars Donald Trump, Catherine Zeta-Jones, Jeff Ament, Mike McCready.

5-6: News From Around the Treehouse. Weather, wildlife report.

6-7: Totally Healthy Vegetarian Dinners. Cooking show. Tonight: lowfat lentil soup.

7-8: Decadent Desserts. Cooking show. Tonight: raspberry chocolate bombe with espresso glaze. You've earned it after that lentil soup!

8-9: Firefly Lost Episodes. Rated NC-17.

9-9:30: Mad As Hell and Not Taking It Any More! Political discussion.

9:30-10: Meme-o-rama.

10-11: Late-Nite Fanfic. Popular selections read by your favorite voices. Tonight: Hugh Laurie.

11-11:30: Sports News. The latest on the Red Sox, Patriots, Seahawks, NCAA basketball, and whichever team Nomar Garciaparra happens to be with. Note that Phoenix Suns coverage is suspended until Steve Nash grows his hair out again.

11:30-11:45: New Icon Showcase.

11:45-midnight: Signoff and Cascadian national anthem.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

There's a non-personal reason to support gay marriage and it surprises me that it gets so little attention.

The whole point of the legal recognition of the civil contract known as marriage is to provide a formal framework for the exchange of privileges for responsibilities. By way of extremely simplified example, if my boyfriend gets knocked-down in a hit and run collision on his way to work and has no way to pay his bills, I have no obligation to pay them for him and therefore the burden falls (at least hypothetically) upon the State. If he is my husband, however, I am obligated to pay his bills. The State rewards me for this by giving me certain financial advantages. In addition to such concrete benefits, the State also gets some intangible rewards for recognizing marriage.

In the absence of threat to its well-being, the State has no vested interest in which exact person marries which other exact person. In other words, assuming that we're both legal adults who are capable of understanding and agreeing to a civil contract, aren't closely related, and aren't committing fraud by entering a contract with terms we have no intention of following, there isn't any reason for the State to care if my partner and I are the same sex, different sexes or et cetera (by which I mean one or both of us could be intersexed or decline to acknowledge a sex, or what have you.)

Except in as absolutely necessary to protect the State, I don't believe it is either a right or a privilege of the State to legislate morality. That is, I don't care if one thinks homosexuality is moral or immoral, unless one can prove actual damage to the State by allowing homosexual marriage--which I don't believe that one can--there is no reason for the State to deny it.

Just as the separation of Church and State benefits both Church and State, I quite firmly believe that separating the issue of "morality" and the issue of state-sanctioned marriage will benefit us all. I think that one of the reasons these stupid bans keep passing is that people on both sides of the issue insist on arguing it as a moral issue when, really, it's not, or at least it shouldn't be. I don't think the State should be in the business of regulating morality except as absolutely necessary, such as in the form of laws against murder, violence, theft and et al, and really, you can argue even those laws as being outside of State-regulated morality when you consider the actual damage those acts cause the State.

That is, I don't care if one thinks homosexuality is moral or immoral, unless one can prove actual damage to the State by allowing homosexual marriage--which I don't believe that one can--there is no reason for the State to deny it.

Exactly. It's just that I started asking myself why I get so worked up over the issue. I mean, no one's keeping me from getting married, but I want go and kick some asses over this. It's an emotional issue for me as well as an intellectual one, and I wondered why that was.