Sunday, October 30, 2005

Next case; gay v gay

I have promised myself that I will not discuss politics in this blog. Frankly, it’s just too easy, and besides there are far too many people already vehemently regurgitating position A or position B in any and all of these arguments. Worse yet, the art of discussing politics has degenerated , with rare exception, into a non-art, coursing ever more steadily into an opportunity to call one another names of the negative variety.

So, understand please that I am addressing the cultural side of this State of Texas Proposition 2 constitutional amendment. Maybe.

For those of you outside of Texas, the proposal at play here is to amend the state’s constitution, banning state sanctioned marriage between partners of the same sex. This is already prohibited by current Texas law, by the way.

Naturally, the lines of opposition and support are clearly drawn and the arguments have taken the all too common avenue of name calling and demeaning of others values.

Remaining true to my overriding sense of independence and the belief that that we do not need government for much of anything really, (oops some politics slipped in) I would like to have a discussion with the same-sexers, if that is a viable coupling of words.

It goes like this:

Have you any idea how binding the State of Texas law regulating marriage can be?

Every year thousands upon thousands of damaged marriages walk into Texas courthouses looking to become anything but married. The courts slog through it all, acting in rote, ruling without emotion on issues such as child support, visitation and the endless assortment of possessions and controls implicit in marriage.

As in other areas of contested law, it is usually true in divorce that the party best represented wins the day. The courts do not have time to sort through the facts. The facts become secondary to the skill of the attorney. Some are better skilled at name calling and garbage throwing than others. When it is over both parties to the marriage usually despise one another and the opposing attorney.

I have been married for over thirty years, and married only once. Mine has taken on the appeareance of permanence. My experience in these issues comes from observing the law at work on family and friends. You don’t have to have a beating yourself to appreciate the pain involved when you have witnessed the beating inflicted on the people you care for. In fact, it may be worse.

I would urge same-sexers to set their emotion aside and really examine if the recognition of law is worth the pain that the state can inflict. Talk to your friends and coworkers that have been through a divorce. Listen to them carefully. If you are honest with yourself, you will find I believe, that the governments lack of power over you in an honest and well crafted relationship is a superior position to the one not enjoyed by state recognized different-sex marriages. Don’t argue or vote away a very fortuitous exemption on this one.

And if your same-sex union turns out to be not so good after all? Trust me on this one; you will be very happy not to have the State of Texas unmarry the two of you.

As far as the insurance and federal taxes, those areas remain in play under different sets of statutes and court rulings.

And oh, by the way, you might want to check out what a proven divorce gunslinger costs these days. It will sober you.

If the State of Texas and the ilk that wishes to control your feelings and behavior wanted to really hurt you they would pass an amendment forcing gay marriage. Then they would load the marriage legislation with ‘gay bombs’. They just haven’t thought of it yet.

0 Comments:

Post a Comment