Monday, February 24, 2014

Benefits for All, or Benefits for None

About two weeks ago a judge in Virginia, my current place of residence, ruled the state’s ban on gay marriage to be unconstitutional, and then immediately put an injunction on her own ruling due to probable appeals. While Rob and I have stated we don’t care what two consensual adults do with one another in the bedroom on our Facebook page, we have not written anything for the blog, so I thought I would stand atop my virtual soapbox and give you my two cents, which here, due to inflation it is really worth about a nickel.

When it comes to social issues, specifically ones dealing with issues concerning straights and gays, it is normally on religious grounds that people are not for gay marriages, gay adoptions, and gay (fill in the blank). So, to get the religious aspect out of the way first, I will be up front and say I am a Catholic who converted from the Baptist religion over 13 years ago. As a Catholic I support the Church’s opinion that marriage is a religious pact between a man, a woman and God. But you know what? When it comes to our government, religious beliefs should have no part when it comes to making laws. So why do they?

For those of you reading this who think states should be allowed to keep two men or two women from getting married, why is that? If you don’t think a gay marriage should be recognized, why should a state or our government recognize straight marriages? There is no reason, or excuse to recognize one, without recognizing the other, and vice versa.

Many believe that gay marriage is a civil right, and after thinking long and hard on this, I have to say that I agree that is it. Gay men and women can no more change their sexual preference than an African American their color, and the way I see it, we are about 50 years behind in helping the gay community get the rights it deserves.

Oh, you think gay marriage will destroy the sanctity of marriage? Bitch please, assholes like Kim Kardashian and Kris Humphries, Brittney Spears and Jason Alexander, Dennis Rodman and Carmen Electra, Mario Lopez and Ali Landry, Nicholas Cage and Lisa Marie Presley, and Pamela Anderson and Kid Rock, and many more already did that.

The divorce rate in the US hovers around the 50% mark, so it’s not just the celebrities who are working hard to screw things up. So why then deny two loving people the right to get married? Who knows, maybe the divorce rate will go down, at least for a bit until gay couples find out marriage may not be all that it’s thought to be, (I will add though that my parents celebrated their 40th wedding anniversary last year and they are as happy as can be, but sadly long, successful (they made me right?) marriages such as theirs are the exception to the rule nowadays).

Even still, the real reason two loving people should be able to get married is because everyone should have a right to get the same benefits straights are provided. Why should straights get benefits from the government if gays cannot? I say, if you want your state to be able to keep a ban on gay marriage, then straight couples should not be able to get benefits either. A husband should not be able to name his wife a beneficiary or name them their power of attorney in case of a medical emergency if a man cannot name his male partner the same.

Think states aren’t anti-gay? Well, did you know that 16 states still have anti-sodomy laws on their books, and two of them, Oklahoma and Texas, (go figure), specifically target the gay community? It was 17 a few weeks ago, with three states targeting gays specifically, however, the state of Kansas recently had their law thrown out, and I am very proud to say that a college friend of mine wrote the brief for the state arguing the law should be repealed. To read decision of the Court, go here: Kansas v. Franco.

This is a hot issue and quite frankly, if you disagree with me, I hope it pisses you off. We don’t beat around the bushes at Beards of Fury, we plow through them. There is no reason whatsoever from the standpoint of the federal or any state’s government that two consensual adults should not be able to get the same rights offered others.

No comments:

Post a Comment