Tuesday, September 01, 2009

If it was so important for Gays to Get "Married," why aren't they? (And What's Craig Ferguson Doing in this Post?)

The issue has generated a lot of controversy here in Vermont, and across the nation. Vermont today became the first state to openly endorse Gay Marriage in fact, as opposed to judicial fiat, as in other states. Vermont's law is the only one that can claim to endorse Same Sex "Marriage" as a function of the will of it's people since a well funded Gay Marriage movement descended on Vermont and arguably started a process that eventually ran Governor Jim Douglas out of office.
Yahoo/AP - Duxbury - "(Vermont) became the first state to legalize gay marriage through a legislative decree and not a court case.

Some couples — including many who obtained civil unions in Vermont — plan to return to the state to get married. But most are in no rush. City and town officials say only a handful of licenses had been issued to same-sex couples in anticipation of Tuesday's start."
Maybe happy gay couples thought they couldn't get a license ahead of time, and there will be a later rush, or maybe it was just smoke. No one so far has covered this aspect of the story that I know of.

Right now there is a news void that could be filled by some intrepid informal "trigamists" or "quadragamists" stepping up to the plate and asking for a license to marry among themselves and/or each other. I am running into increasing responses to my obvious trolling for support, financial and otherwise of "I'm not political" which is then immediately countered with "well, I didn't mean it that way." What way did you mean it?

I'm running thin on patience with my polygynist brethren of all religious persuasions due to this "ho hum" attitude towards it's legalization. YFZ was invaded because the marriages in that community were not legal. Not "Child molestation," but because the marriages could not be registered. Would the FLDS have registered them if they had the opportunity? I dunno, probably not. Nevertheless.

I am regularly accused of arrogance and narcissism when I point to site stats, but they mean things. Yesterday I set another record with the Modern Pharisee reaching 286,565th world wide and more importantly broke into the top 50,000's (49,374th) in the United States (Alexa). That's not BLOGS folks (my wife often misunderstands this), that's SITES, plain and simple. In a nation of 305 million people and a world of 6,767,805,208 citizens and 25% of them ON the internet, that's not insignificant.

And still, that's 75% that aren't on the internet and no rank and file member has noticed I'm here, at church for instance. I don't publicize what I do (except to the elders), I don't lie, and I don't hide, but I don't call attention to it either. Craig Ferguson may "Google" himself, I might, but apparently we're not "Googling" or "Binging" each other very much where I fellowship. Here we have the reason for Craig being in this post. People GOOGLE each other, that's the point. If not now, eventually. Also, Craig did get married in Chester Vermont, to a "Vermonter." A female Vermonter. ("The wedding was in Vermont. They have legalized gay civil unions, and I married a woman!")

So back to why it's important to navel gaze and why it's important to legalize. It's important to do so because as long as we classify people for tax purposes by marriage status and family size, the state will want formal marriage records. Get rid of our archaic, repressive and invasive tax code, and then talk to me about "marriage being none of the Government's business." Get rid of child molestation legislation tied to age difference, and then too, it won't matter too much whether you're legally married or not, either that or get the government to accept private records as acceptable proof of marriage. Bottom line? These things are almost certainly NOT happening in YOUR lifetimes. So the Government snoop is in bed with you, taxing you more and wanting to at least have a record of how you live.

The navel gazing part? Notoriety that doesn't translate to income is infamy. It may still be infamy with income, but without it, it's just infamy. I'm sure the bum that stands on the same corner everyday on Wall Street is well known after a fashion, but only the Naked Cowboy makes money. I have more in common with the bum. The cowboy, for all his notoriety is not even as notorious as I, in internet terms. I have said I will begin to get negative inquiries. I have now begun to get them. This can't go on forever. Like a popular environmental buzzword, it's not sustainable, not in it's present form. The bum gets hauled off the stage eventually, the Naked Cowboy? He runs for mayor.

It doesn't always rain when the clouds gather, and a dreary day can turn to a sunny one. I don't know, or control the future, but I generally step out of the way of onrushing trains. Experience and observation tells me that I don't want to see what happens if I stick around. These seven lean cows of notoriety look like they want everything I have, which isn't much.

Now is the time to get behind the effort to legalize Polygamy, or not. I only know that if not it looks more and more like I tied myself to the train tracks by getting out in front of an issue. One of the paths to legal polygyny is simply going to a state like Vermont, and trying to register to marry more than one wife, which will initially fail, but may evolve into a successful court challenge.


Sphere: Related Content

2 comments:

Professor Hale said...

I agree with you on the tax code being invasive. I am almost with you on the child molestation laws. I am convinced that children do need protection from harm of various types, sexual predation among them. The arbitrary age of consent seems on its face to be flawed in its ability to do that. I don't have a better idea.

I suppose I would permit government laws on child protection to expire if I as a father retained the right of lethal revenge against anyone who would harm my daughter.

The Pharisee said...

I am of course, entirely for parental permission. I think I should have the right to exact revenge on the deflower of my daughter.

The interesting Biblical remedy was to force marriage of the seducer, to the seduced, unless the father "utterly refused" which would then create an obligation for the seducer to pay the "Dowry of Virgins" to the father.

This clearly teaches parental permission, and I am not for any sort of sexual relations outside the husband wife relationship.

Bottom line, I think parents on average (though certainly not always) are better protectors of their children, than the state. Anecdotal instances of parental neglect, if indeed shown to be exception, are the proof of that rule.