Field of Science

DOMAsses in Minnesota

The small government republicans of Minnesota are trying to make sure government is small, but not so small that it cannot limit what we can do, especially when gonads are involved. Minnesota is one of those dumbass states that has law prohibiting same sex marriage. However, that is not good enough for the religious right of Minnesota, no they need to make sure that the whole male-female 1:1 ratio marriage issue is carved in stone, you know old testament style.

I am completely and totally against these bans, they are bullshit and driven strictly by perverse Christian dogma. I will concede that 0.001% of DOMA supporters are not against it from a religious viewpoint, and are simply fucknut insane. Actually, I am interested in why people are opposed to this issue (independent of the fact your god, who spent a bit too much time with 12 strapping young men if you ask me, said so).

Cats you'll be inheriting
One problem arises from the very word 'marriage'. When you say/hear marriage I am willing to bet you think church, white prom bridle gown, tearful ladies, and hooking up with a veritable stranger after the  reception. From the states' standpoint all of this is irrelevant. From the states' perspective you pay some money to get a license and this license confers upon you certain legal rights. Your immediate family, mom, dad, child, sibling automatically have certain rights. For example, if your parents die, you as a child are considered the benefactor of assets. If your mom has a heart attack and is in the hospital, you as the child can visit. In fact, it take's legal work to change these rights. Such as your mom having a will that says her young stud boyfriend gets the house and car, while you get the fourteen semi-feral cats.  So while 'marriage' as a word is tightly associated with a religious ritual, from the states' perspective it is simply a convenient historical term. Indeed, you can get married, without being in a church, without a priest, without a white dress (for either bride or groom), and without the post-ceremonial love-fest. I was married without any of this stuff (god didn't help out with the ceremony and as far as I know no one hooked up afterwards) and you know what? My marriage is as legally valid and carries the exact same legal ramifications as Michelle Bachmann's (the Colonel Sanders of the DOMA movement).
Bachmann asked for a non-evangelical
rationale to support DOMA 
The point here is that 'marriage', again from the states' perspective, is a civil contract. We can argue why the states need to have this kind of civil contract, but I think that is ultimately futile. This type of civil union serves to give a non-family member, family member-like protections/rights. This is similar to adoption which grants a legal parental status to non-parents. It also grants rights to the child analogous to those granted biological children by simply being born. Michelle Bachmann, nut-job that she is, should be familiar with this concept.

One of the issues I hear opposing same-sex marriage is the slippery slope argument. If the government allows 2 adult men to have the rights accorded to 2 heterosexual adults, then ultimately we'll have a woman 'marrying' a horse and Catholic priests 'marrying' young boys. But these are bullshit soundbite asides to distract you and the non-elitist masses. A contract, including the civil variety, can only be entered into by consenting adults. Children can not say Yes, neither can a horse, a turtle, nor a houseplant.

"But what about bigamy?" you ask! Good point. Personally, I do not have a legal issue with bigamy. I do have a social issue as bigamy is essentially only found in societies that limit the rights of women. However, if a woman wants several men to have the same legal right to visit her in the hospital that her brothers have, then why should the state be involved? The same is true if the sexes are reversed. Again, I want to point out DOMA is being pushed by the party that screams for smaller government and for government to get out of the way (except when gonads are involved).

While DOMA advocates often advocate from the standpoint of children. Marriage is perfectly legal and the rights clearly applicable to post-menopausal women and to heterosexual adults who choose not to have children. A woman who had a hysterectomy gets all the same rights Michelle Bachmann does if and when she gets married. Should this woman lose her house and assets to her husband's immediate family if her husband were to die suddenly?

Much of this problem is a problem of biology. We essentially know who the direct relatives are and we consider these people to have rights a stranger doesn't. Family makes for a, generally, clear line in the sand. But it is only clear much of the time. Again adoption serves as a good example. Adopted children have the same rights as biological children. An interesting question is what is the logical basis for this intrinsic protection of family rights. What is this idea based on other than it always happened this way and I can't think of a better way. We have countless examples where families do not deserve the rights the have. For example, the abusive parents of a child have rights the kindly neighbor does not have and the child suffers inordinately while the legal system goes through the process of changing the status quo. Adoption like marriage is a legal way to confer familial rights to non-family members. Ill note the sex of the adoptee does not matter in this legal contract, why does the sex of the marriage partners?

Hey religious right! The legislature voted to put a state constitutional ban on the ballot like you wanted. We still got a tornado in Minnesota that killed someone (who happened to be a deacon returning from church). Does that mean god doesn't want this to pass? I ask because every fucking time there's a storm on the planet after a homosexual person gets even the the smallest iota of respect, you can bet your damn ass some religious fucknut claims that its gods' judgment.

Finally, I want to close with the idea of putting these kind of issues on ballots. I see the rationale and use of ballots. However, our founding fathers (who the religious right seem to appeal to) understood the potential problem, particularly in relation to religion. The phrase you want to google is 'tyranny of the majority'. This is a problem with democracies, which is one of the reasons we have a republican democracy, not a true democracy. The majority will not, usually, grant privileges they enjoy to minorities. This is one of the reasons for the first amendment; this is why Jefferson discussed a wall between the state and the church. I could discuss this at length but I expect an example serves better. What would be the outcome of a state ballot measure for African Americans to attend 'white' schools in Arkansas, what about in 1957? Could interracial couples marry in Mississippi? Would we still have the freedom to practice or not practice the religion of our choice in the 50 states of our union if left up to popular vote?

You can find the senators who voted for passage of this bill here.
and the representatives who voted for it here.

I would like to thank my representative Mindy Greiling for voting NAY, and ask John Marty, my senator, what the fuck were you thinking?!?!

BTW republicans. How is this creating jobs or is that not a priority anymore?

UPDATE: John Marty actually voted against the bill, but he did vote in favor of the wording change.

No comments: