Dark Cloud logo

 

Home

Columns

Commentary

Dark Endeavors

Nutty Nuptials

Government Shouldn't Involve Itself With Romance

This is Dark Cloud on Wednesday, September 11, 1996.

Whenever one sees former Klan member Senator Byrd of Kentucky break out the Bible on the Senate floor, you can count on a moment of such stunning hypocrisy it’s worth a listen. It certainly was yesterday as the aged bigot tried to prove by the ethics of goober Southern Baptism that same sex marriage was insane. The abject lunacy of a legal debate quoting the Bible, which ranks the consumption of bacon with consensual sodomy and other hygienic difficulties of desert cultures three thousand years ago, is too bozo for comment. There is no question that the vast majority of entities advocating a ban on gay marriages feature abject prejudice.

But you know, for the most part, I agree.

It is possible that I am not the correct person to discuss this. I vomit at wedding sections in newspapers anyway as social climbing female aurochs with a chinless nerd try to extort gifts from shell-shocked relatives mentally piece-parting how retina searing the couple’s progeny will be. The potential addition of goo-goo eyed couples, both balding and mustached with laurel wreaths and veils staring at each other in posed photo is just too nauseating for contemplation.

I think an intelligent but over-populated society would be removing the financial benefits going to married partners at the expense of single people. Getting married ought to be nothing more than a financial pledge that any progeny will have two responsible parties to provide for them and educate them. This removes the need for marriage to the vast majority of gay and many hetero couples as well. Our financial obligations, formed by millennia of parents as the largest demographic common denominator of interest to kings and Senators both, are outdated. Children ought to be a financial burden, and not a subsidized one.

As a result, people would only have children they both want and could afford, and only after signing the marriage contract obligating them to provide hearth and cash.

For gays to demand the same hypocritical and tender-brained official blessing of their mutual adoration as heteros receive is not obscene but it is silly. The state has no obligation or actual right to recognize love or lust. It has an absolute responsibility to protect its children, or rather, obligate parents - biological or adoptive - to do so.

Like medical research spending zillions to over-ride nature’s squelch of childless couples, the hubbub over state recognition or not of that magical thing called love misses the point utterly, and is a violent severing of common sense.