Blandus Rex

Moral / Ethical Fallout

Now that the tsunami of "Gay-Marriage" is crashing down upon us, I thought I'd brainstorm about some of the things that would change once we stripped the word "marriage" of all legitimate meaning.

Let me start by quoting George Will:

Last June the U.S. Supreme Court, overturning Texas's anti-sodomy laws, spoke of a need to respect "autonomy of the self . . . [in] certain intimate conduct." The Massachusetts court, taking its bearings from that ruling, cited "respect for individual autonomy" -- emphasis added -- when defining marriage simply as "the exclusive and permanent commitment of the married partners to one another."

The binary idea of marriage -- friends and foes of gay marriage agree it is an institution involving couples -- arose because there are two sexes. But if the meaning of marriage and the right to marital status is sufficiently defined with reference to "autonomy of the self . . . [in] certain intimate conduct," what principled, nonarbitrary ground is there for denying the right of marriage to, say, a threesome whose members insist that it is necessary for their self-fulfillment through intimacy?

What principled, nonarbitrary ground is there for denying any of the following?

1) Polygamists - Let's Go! (thanks to Jake for the link)

2) Since many sexual codes of conduct are based on a common understanding of appropriate male/female relationships (an understanding that has its roots in the traditional understanding of marriage) - there is increasingly no rational reason to keep a Physician from dating an active patient, or a Psychologist/Client, or Social Worker/Client, or a Teacher/Student. As the basis of marriage becomes the "autonomy of the sexual self" (ASS), there can be no group who can stand in the way of two ASSes trying to consensually make a go of it.

3) Most states do not require partners to select a common last name after marriage. Two good buddies can now beat the "family calling plan" system of many cellular phone companies by claiming to be married and shouting "discrimination" at anyone who refuses to do business with them. In fact, this will become possible for entire sales forces - drastically cutting overhead with all those free minutes. Multiple other scams are now possible.

4) Sometimes my ASS wants to have sex with other women. Adultery can no longer really be considered a valid reason for divorce in our enlightened culture can it? My wife wants to divorce me because I exercised my constitutionally protected ASS? I want half of her money! - and tack on a little extra for my pain and suffering while yer at it...

5) Look for immigration rates to rise, once aliens figure out that if they can get one person nationalized, the rest of the family can all marry him and move to the USofA in perfect legality. What red-blooded American man wouldn't want a female from each continent to marry him? Or a man from each continent? Or both? Why not??

6) Of course I can have my dog in the hospital room with me! You can't discriminate against my wife! Look, some men prefer to have sex with non-humans...How can we judge them? What right do we have dispute him and his animal's ASS?

7) If my I like my daughter's ASS and she likes mine, who are you to judge us?

No. The only way to keep any of the above from happening is for judges to decide that they will fiat against them. Once any common understanding of marriage is stripped away and all moral arguments are regulated to the "not rational" junkheap only the individuals holding the power of the state can decide what is Right and what is Wrong. Only the legal definitions of the people in power matter. This leads to . . .

8) Allegiance to the State becomes the only acceptable form of belief. Agree with the State or the State will incarcerate you for your "re-education" in the acceptable forms of belief and behavior within the State.
There is only one State and the Supreme Court Justices are its Prophets Interpreters.
Behold the State. Worship the State. You are one with the State....

We no longer have law to protect us. Perhaps we can pass an FMA. Even so, it may not be enough.

Posted by Blandus at December 3, 2003 11:31 PM