The OC Blog Back Issues Our Mission Contact Us Masthead
Sudsy Wants You to Join the Oregon Commentator

Every Marriage Should Be Gay!

California Supreme Court give go-ahead for same-sex marriage. Of course, homophobic bigots plan to try to amend the California Constitution in the fall in order to make sure that Adam & Steve cannot enter into this particular kind of contract. From Anti-freedom crusader Brian Brown:

The ruling) is not the way a democracy is supposed to handle these sorts of heartfelt, divisive issues,” said Brian Brown of the National Organization for Marriage, one of the groups helping to underwrite the gay marriage ban campaign. “I do think it will activate and energize Californians. I’m more confident than ever that we will be able to pass this amendment come November.”

At the heart of the matter isn’t really the debate over two persons of the same sex enganging in the marriage contract — to my mind the state has no business being involved in such personal matters in the first place — but rather the extent to which government is malleable by the majority. The worrisome thing about the behavior of same-sex marriage opponents is their obvious belief that the will of a scant majority of voters should trump the importance of deep principles such as equality before the law, and the limitations of government power.

It’s as if they simply to not recognize the place of the judiciary branch of the legal system. Any appropriate government is limited by its charter, but it’s also inevitable that over time those who make law will seek to expand the sphere of their own power, meaning that there must be a counterbalancing force to ensure that all new law fits within the scope of government’s defined powers, which is the place of the judiciary. Same-sex marriage opponents, seemingly, do not recognize this role and believe that the judiciary should show complete deference to the legislature. I suppose that would mean ruling in favor of government power almost universally…that certainly doesn’t sound very “conservative” to me.

UPDATE: A friend and I have declared today “Gay Marry An Illegal Immigrant Day!” If you’re single, and you live in California, see if you can help somebody out with a green card , somebody of the same sex. This is vital for the Republic, as the health of our nation rests squarely on irritating the nativist and homophobic right.

  1. Alex says:

    I would just like to express my heartfelt gratitude to the co-founders of

  2. Timothy says:

    The polygamy question brings up some interesting problems RE benefits like insurance, right of survivorship and these kinds of things…but I think that could all be worked out in contract.

    That is, until you have some polygamist suing for insurance coverage for his 10 wives and three husbands. But even there, the real issue isn’t that the dude wants coverage, it’s the legal threat of the company being forced to provide it.

  3. wtf says:

    mostly, i’m just pissed that people say “if we allow gay marriages, whats stopping polygamy?”. To which I would reply, who cares, we should allow polygamy as well.

  4. wtf says:

    I’m suggesting, by the statement of “of course it is”, that the main logic of arguing for gay marriage, is that its a private matter between two consenting adults that should have equal protection and rights for a partnership that a man and a women should have. Which I agree with. However, following the same logic, theres no reason not to include polygamy in that argument as well. In the case of animals or children. Theres obvious differences, most notably regarding the idea that even if there is “consent” the organism giving it, can’t really be regarded as capable of making a rational decision by our societal definition of rational.
    But at least in one instance a congressman suggested that if gay marriages were allowed than that would open the door to bestiality or polygamy. To which at least one gay organization took offense to. Probably mostly for the animal thing, but also claiming that the argument doesn’t lead to a justification for polygamy, which I think the logic behind any sort of pro gay marriage argument is in fact entirely valid for polygamy as well.

    After re-reading your question I think, that perhaps your under the impression that I’m suggesting gay people are more naturally polygamous. which isn’t what I was suggesting at all. Homosexuality and monogamy are definitely not exclusive, WELL actually I suppose I would say that they are a little, but no more so than heterosexuality and monogamy.

  5. Robert says:

    The ATM in the EMU (next to Mangiano’s) has mistakenly been loaded with 20 dollar bills instead of 5s. this means if you withdraw $15, instead of giving you 3 5s it will give you 3 20s. that’s a profit of $45!

  6. Chris Holman says:

    “Of course it is.”

    How so? I mean, since when has a homosexual relationship and monogamy been mutually exclusive? Or are you speaking from your own experience(s)?

  7. wtf says:

    I love how polygamy is so often compared to bestiality, yet really, everyone I know at one point in their life probably had overlapping sexual partners. Polygamous marriages should be legal. And is not comparable to bestiality whatsoever, animals can’t give consent (in any human language at least).
    I also get equally pissed when gay rights advocates argue that arguing for gay marriage isn’t the same as arguing for polygamous marriage. Of course it is.
    Ultimately the government shouldn’t be the institution that defines what a family is.

  8. Vincent says:

    Duly noted.

  9. Chris Holman says:

    Correction: passionate about Mrs. King.

  10. Vincent says:

    I’ve never seen anyone get so… passionate about “The Scarecrow & Mrs. King”.

  11. Chris Holman says:

    Oh, annnnnnd, Mrs. King was also one of Charlie’s Angels. Soooo…yeah. Nuff’ said.

  12. Chris Holman says:

    Of course I realize that. Kate Jackson was very cute in 1987, and she’s not too bad for an older woman who has twice fought down the scourge of breast cancer.

    I’ll stand by my Mrs. King any day.

  13. Vincent says:

    You do realize that there is now a permanent record on the internet of you admitting to finding that lady who played “Mrs. King” in “The Scarecrow & Mrs. King” “strangely attractive”, right?

  14. Chris Holman says:

    LOL. I found her strangely attractive at the time, but in retrospect I think it was just bottled up sexual angst that found a televisual outlet.

  15. Vincent says:


  16. Chris Holman says:

    Sorry Marg, I was just making a thinly-veiled allusion to the category of argument that I thought yours fit into. : ) Of course, I could be wrong. I only read what you wrote twice.

  17. Timothy says:

    That would be you, Marg. Also, I think your sarcasm detector is on the blink again. Might want to have that checked.

  18. Marg says:

    Who’s the scarecrow?

  19. Chris Holman says:

  20. Marg says:

    First of all, the missions statement of this forum is stated as, “We believe that the University should be a forum for rational and informed debate.” Kicking someone in the genitals is not rational. I believe the State Supreme Court had no business making this call. The people voted on this once. Isn’t that what a democracy is. If people do their homework, they will find that the opposition of gay marriages has some to do with the terminology. “Marriage” Marriage is between a man and a woman. If the definition of “marriage” is changed, what will come next. The marriage of a man, man, and woman; woman and dog.

    “Civil union” is a better term. I am not for telling people how to live their lives. If it is benefits they want, great. If gay people want to call their partner their husband or wife, great. But “marriage” is between a man and a woman.

  21. Chris Holman says:

    I figured you were…I just tend to read and spew my thoughts out. hehe It is annoying that often enough, the only good reason to get married is for the tax break.

  22. Timothy says:

    Chris – That’s what I was getting at with my aside that I don’t think the state should be involved. There shouldn’t even BE a thing called marriage under the law. No joint filing taxes, negotiating the rest of the privilidges and immunities with other forms of contract.

  23. Chris Holman says:

    Would it be any less absurd to start movements to codify beliefs like Brown-Ball-Bashing?

    I think that people are too bent on failed institutions (at least in spirit) like marriage. Can’t things like this never be allowed into a court room? I have no problem with letting people vote for what they want (i.e. assisted suicide in Oregon), but I only have no problem because a place like the US is so full of varied opinions…there will always be somewhere for someone. It’s still a little messed up thinking of legal cantons across the US where what is and isn’t legal is always changing (people would have to think a lot more) but at least we’d know who the assholes were and where they lived.

  24. Sean says:

    For the sake of people like Brian Brown, who may experience personality and political changes over the course of their lifetimes, I would suggest that it be a court ruling, not a law, so it could be overturned if the people so wish.

  25. Vincent says:

    Incidentally, kicking people like Brian Brown in the genitals should also be enshrined in law.

  26. Vincent says:

    Would it be better to have these things enacted by the legislative process? Maybe, but sometimes a little upheval is needed to move the needle in the right direction. The best solution, though, is for people like Brian Brown to be kicked repeatedly in the genitals until they

  27. Vincent says:

    Yeah, I’ve never found Norquist’s warmed-over Republicanism-as-libertarianism particularly convincing.

  28. Niedermeyer says:

    Check out Grover Norquist desperately trying to justify why this issue doesn’t belong in his ostensibly libertarian (repackaged mid-90’s republicanism) “leave us alone” coalition. Because the government threat to organized religion is sooo much more pressing than this. Douchebag. Oh, and boo to Reason’s (otherwise awesome) Nick Gillespie for giving this guy way to much credit as a libertarian when he’s so obviously just another big “R” hack.

  29. Vincent says:

    While I wholeheartedly support gay marriage, I’m tempted to agree Brian Brown when he says “(The ruling) is not the way a democracy is supposed to handle these sorts of heartfelt, divisive issues.”

    Rather than having the acceptability of gay marriage enshrined in legislation, we’ve got a legal ruling that can be overturned. In a sense, we’ve got a situation similar to “Roe v. Wade”, in which an important, divisive issue is “legalized” by a court decision rather than a statute, which leads to even more polarization and efforts to overturn (or prevent the overturn of) the said decision. I found this piece fairly interesting, as well.

    Still, it’s hard for me to harrumph too much over this, because anything that sticks it to these absurd anti-gay marriage activists makes my day that much better.

  30. Chris Holman says:

    Same crowd as the abortion crowd that wants to legislate their beliefs/codify into law what they want.

    What I don’t get it how they think same-sex marriage damages the institution, affects them or their marriage in any way, or could possibly make the institution any worse off than it is among heterosexuals. Marriage, these days, isn’t taken seriously by a lot of people and I submit the divorce rate as evidence. People have their problems, but I doubt everyone getting divorced is getting divorced for things that they couldn’t solve if they took their marriage seriously (then or in the first place).

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.