GMontag's Journal: Those Flaiming Marriage Freaks are at it again

Reason covers a bit of a silly Washington State proposal to add even more silly rules to that fiction that is called 'marriage'.

IMHO, the king silly in the whole thing is the Washington Supreme Court deciding that the State can restrict 'marriage' to only those couples who can bear and raise children.

Second place goes to the "activists" who are trying to make this stupid ruling even more restrictive by making it into yet another silly law.

Third place goes to the commenters who argue that the only way to make 'marriage' 'fair' is through even more regulation and spreading fiction (you know, all that crap about not being able to enter a hospital unless you are married to a patient or heterosexual relatives being the only ones who can inherit property, etc.).

One is even under the impression that 'marriage' has no implication other than who you are living with and does not amount to a 'who you can do' license and restriction!

For some reason, the folks advocating a jack-bootied-State solution don't seem to notice or care about the Montag Paperless Marriage solution. Their view is something like we need more State meddling before getting rid of it? I still don't get those people.

How about getting the government out of it and I decide who makes my ventilator machine decisions and who gets the shotguns and 'hybrids'?

View from the profit margin

[HomelessInLaJolla]

If one views the government, and all of society beneath it, as one large exercise in profit margin and maintaining control (eg. see the recent EVE online headlines), then there is no more fruitful business investment than controlling the system which creates the next generation's consumers. A rather cynical way to view things but, with things going the way they are, it's probably the most logical explanation.

Eve Online is just a beginning

[HomelessInLaJolla]

There's very little difference between the recent Eve Online headlines and what goes on inside the government. Those who write the rules know the loopholes and make use of them to benefit themselves and their closest allies. The rest of us are just subscription players.

Well

[ces]

While I wouldn't be opposed to seeing a state version of the Montag Amendment on the state ballot here, I don't think that is likely any time soon.

The "DOMA" initiative is a rather funny bit of political theater from my POV. The intent is twofold: One to highlight the bizzare legal reasoning our court resorted to in order to keep the current marriage status quo. Two to force a court challenge should the initiative actually pass and hopefully force the court to overturn its previous ruling.

Foo

[pudge]

IMHO, the king silly in the whole thing is the Washington Supreme Court deciding that the State can restrict 'marriage' to only those couples who can bear and raise children.

That's not what the Supreme Court said. What it said was that a. the state has an interest in encouraging procreation, and b. that the restriction of marriage to heterosexual couples was a reasonable and legal means of such encouragement.

The Court did not say that restricting marriage only to couples who can bear children was acceptable, because that was never an issue before the court. It was only heterosexual couples that was under discussion, not couples who can bear children.

If that is still confusin