Pages

Saturday, May 12, 2012

There's no such thing as a "right" to marry, dumbasses

This post will probably be flagged for deletion pretty soon, so I'm reproducing it here:

http://www.thedenverchannel.com/politics/31053252/detail.html (Santorum To Romney: Same-Sex Marriage 'Potent Weapon')

Governor Flip-Flop is simply doing what comes most naturally to him:  He sees which way the wind is blowing and changes his views accordingly. 
Most people in the US couldn't care less about this issue and resent being forced to think about it so much. There's no such thing as "marriage rights" -- period.  
If you want to marry someone and the local cleric refuses to marry you, then all you gotta do is find someone who will cooperate.  That seems easy enough, right?  But it's not really the "getting married" part that gay people care about, or they would just be voting with their feet right now, i.e., going to a place where they can legally marry; it's being able to tap into spousal health and insurance benefits that is driving this cause.  (Remember: Follow the money.) 
This issue has a lot in common with Roe v Wade: A lazy person doesn't want to travel to a place where she CAN get an abortion -- like, you know, across town or something, that's too much trouble -- but wants to use the law to force local doctors to provide her with one (at reduced cost). Does that have anything to do with "right"...?  No, it's about convenience.  In this case, clerics are faced with the prospect of having to perform marriages when they are not willing to do so, and employers are faced with the prospect of having to provide benefits for a huge army of people that they formerly didn't have to worry about. 
It's about money and convenience, not the supposed "right" to marry.  
The average American citizen obviously is longing for a more conservative government that intrudes as little as possible into people's day-to-day lives and Romney is responding to that; if he thought it would be more to his benefit to support gay marriage, believe me -- he would.  The fact that he's taking a stand against it means his uptick in the polls (now ahead of Obie) is based on conservatives being sick to death of a government that panders to tiny special interest groups and foreign dictatorships instead of caring about the taxpayers it relies on.