Skip to main content

Whaaah. Take Your Marbles and Go Home.

Well it looks like some people in California think that if their precious sacred sacrosanct holy transcendent building block of earthly existence (doled out by your local county clerk, mind you) has to be extended equally, at law, to others not of their narrow mind they would rather see no one have it.

I say, Amen!

From the Bay area comes word that two California counties with so-called "conservative" (i.e. not really conservative but rather "dominantly religious socialist") populations, will not perform any marriages for anyone, in order to disallow any non-heterosexual citizens from becoming legally joined. Nice to know all these "conservatives" respect the rule of law. (Another giveaway that they are not really conservatives at all, but narrow social collectivist bullies).

Of course, they are not honest about their prejudice, rather saying there aren't enough marriage licenses to go around, or at least resources to handle the additional workload (amazing how socialists always have a government resource answer for whatever their agenda be, left or right).

Officials in Kern and Butte counties cited budget and staffing constraints as the rationale for halting the ceremonies. But clerks in other counties say that claim is specious. Some activists went further, arguing that the decision to stop the ceremonies amounts to poorly disguised discrimination against gay and lesbian couples.

Gee, for counties with "conservative populations" they sure must have boatloads of non-heterosexual would-be marrieds waiting in the wings. Imagine the sustained onslaught.

My view : get marriage out of government and get government out of marriage. Nothing could more defile a "sacred" institution than getting it mixed up with government bureaucracy and the legal system. Anyone who truly views marriage as sacred, especially a so-called "conservative", would want government nowhere near it.

Truth is they aren't "conservatives", at least in any rational, intellectual, or philosophical sense. Reactionaries? Yes. Religious socialists? Definitely. Let's call a spade a spade. Anyone who wants government to enforce their own narrow personal beliefs regarding personal lives of others, to socialize everyone to their viewpoint at the expense of equal protection and due process, is a socialist.

I don't mean a garden political variety socialist - those who want government to have economic control of everyone and everything from cradle to grave, offensive as they are. No, these are more insidious socialists, of the "national socialist" variety, who would have government blatantly discriminate against and dehumanize people not fitting their primitive clannish and (thankfully) increasingly-minority world views.

Our country last tolerated such majoritarian abuses of power and denials of civil rights in the old south...it was called segregation and it was a thoroughly-corrupt vestige of the outright subjugation that preceded it. It found its last odious ditch in the "separate but equal" ruse to legitimize institutionalized bigotry.


My advice : If you want a holy bond, find a church that will have you. If you want a religious union, find a religious temple.

My warning : stop trying to bastardize the "temple" of secular enlightened self-government to enforce your ancient and savage prejudices. There will be equal justice for all, whether or not your personal views can abide it.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

A Libertarian Martin Luther King Jr. Day post

In which we travel into interesting waters . . . (for a fairly long trip, so be prepared) Dr. King's 1968 book, Where do we go from here:  chaos or community? , is profound in that it criticizes anti-poverty programs for their piecemeal approach, as John Schlosberg of the Center for a Stateless Society  [C4SS] observes: King noted that the antipoverty programs of the time “proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils,” with separate programs each dedicated to individual issues such as education and housing. Though in his view “none of these remedies in itself is unsound,” they “all have a fatal disadvantage” of being “piecemeal,” with their implementation having “fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies” or been “entangled in bureaucratic stalling.”   The result is that “fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.” Such single-issue approaches also have “another common failing — ...

More of This, Please

Or perhaps I should say, "Less of this one, please." Or how about just, "None of them. Ever again. Please....For the Love of God." Sunshine State Poll: Grayson In Trouble The latest Sunshine State/VSS poll shows controversial Democratic incumbent Alan Grayson trailing former state Senator Dan Webster by seven points, 43 percent to 36 percent. A majority of respondents -- 51 percent -- disapprove of the job that Grayson is doing. Independents have an unfavorable view of him as well, by a 36/47 margin. Grayson has ignored the conventional wisdom that a freshman should be a quiet member who carefully tends to the home fires. The latest controversy involves his " Taliban Dan " advertisement, where he explicitly compares his opponent to the Taliban, and shows a clip of Webster paraphrasing Ephesians 5:22 -- "wives, submit to your husbands." An unedited version of the clip shows that Webster was actually suggesting that husba...

A reply to Salon's R. J. Eskrow, and his 11 stupid questions about Libertarians

Posts here have been in short supply as I have been living life and trying to get a campaign off the ground. But "11 questions to see if Libertarians are hypocrites" by R. J. Eskrow, picked up at Salon , was just so freaking lame that I spent half an hour answering them. In the end (but I'll leave it to your judgment), it is not that Libertarians or Libertarian theory looks hypocritical, but that the best that can be said for Mr. Eskrow is that he doesn't have the faintest clue what he's talking about. That's ok, because even ill-informed attacks by people like this make an important point:  Libertarian ideas (as opposed to Conservative ideas, which are completely different) are making a comeback as the dynamic counterpoint to "politics as usual," and so every hack you can imagine must be dragged out to refute them. Ergo:  Mr. Eskrow's 11 questions, with answers: 1.       Are unions, political parties, elections, and ...