Words Mean Things…

Words Mean Things…

I have been listening to this marriage debate for awhile now, and I know I am going to piss off a few when I say that if you are gay and you have a “life partner” then that is what you have, because you ain’t married.  That is not what the word means; but we will get back to that.

The issues currently before the court centers around the fact that folks worked hard and got an initiative put on the ballot, and after it passed as a law, quite a few of the gay folks didn’t like the outcome, so after a trip to the US District Court and the Ninth Circuit; the fight is headed where 9 justices can maybe give them the relief that they did not get from either the voters or the courts, who have spoken already.

I, like many, don’t give a shiznitty where you stick it or how you lick it.  I believe government has exactly zero rights to decide what you as an adult do in the confines of the four walls you call home.  No one tells me what to do with my man-friend, and I certainly don’t tell others what to do in that area either.  The government can however, have an abiding interest in what you call that “union” and how they recognize that contract for a whole host of reasons.

I believe this is a 10th Amendment issue though and, and even if I don’t believe in Adam and Steve, I fail to see how if I live in Texas why I would give two hoots in hell what they do in Vermont.  The Christians that do are barking up the wrong tree.  I am concerned what goes on in my corner of the world, and if my corner of the world wants to elect people to govern my corner of the world who think that Adam and Steve is wrong, we should have the same freedom to do that as someone else’s corner of the world deciding that Adam and Steve is right.

Additionally, I need the taxman to lay off the single people if the married people get a break and vice versa.  Can’t we just tax people the same, regardless of who they choose to domesticize with?

And I am slightly annoyed that this has started to devolve into a “civil right” and I think Martin Luther King might have a word or two on that.  I have also checked my copy of the Constitution, and I find exactly zero references to unions of any kind, except in the part right at the beginning where it said “in order to form a more perfect union.”

But here is my whole point regarding the word, the debate has gone from “Domestic Partnerships” and “Civil Unions” to “that just ain’t good enough.”  They want the word, but “the word” doesn’t mean what they want it to mean; so they want to change what it means.

This in my mind would be like everyone knowing the definition and the look of the color RED, but now, a group of people want it to be defined and look like both RED and BLUE.  There will be those that say “Well, RED is as good as BLUE, why argue” and there will be many who say “RED is absolutely better than BLUE!” and some who say “BLUE is equal to RED in every way.”  Well, now what do we do when the people who think “GREEN is the same as RED and BLUE.”  How far do we go?  There are guardrails in society for a reason.

And here is this argument in real life:  If we decide that “Marriage” is now two people, genders notwithstanding, where do we stop?  What about 3 People?  4 People?  People wanting to marry children?  How in the world would we manage divorce between 3 people?  If it is two guys and a girl, who pays alimony?  What if two of the people decide to stay together, but divorce the third person?  What if there are kids involved?  How do we reconcile custody?

Seems to me the state’s rights solution is the best one that will meet the test of Constitutionality; each state can pass whatever law they want and leave the federal government out of it.  The IRS can still do their job related to married versus single, and gay people can be “Married” and live in whatever state chooses to pass a law that says they are.

You can call me a bigot, I don’t care.  Words mean things, and if you define them as meaning everything, then they mean nothing.  But maybe if we just give it to them THEY WILL STFU ABOUT IT and they can be as miserable as the rest of us…

Written by

1 Comment
  • LD Jackson says:

    As a Christian, I think homosexuality is immoral. The Bible teaches it is thus. As an American who believes in the Constitution and individual rights, I believe it is none of my business if two men or two women decide they “love” each other and want to live together. It remains in that category, as long as they keep it between themselves. When they start walking down the path of “our relationship is just as normal as heterosexuality”, then I disagree wholeheartedly.

    That’s the path they have been walking for years. They are not satisfied to keep it between themselves. Instead, they want the rest of us to accept homosexuality as normal, which it is not. When we refuse, they cry foul and accuse us of violating their civil rights. You mentioned Martin Luther King? He is probably rolling over in his grave right about now.

    The government should not be in the business of marriage. That is the purview of the church. Everyone should be taxed the same. Let the homosexuals have their civil unions. But no matter what they claim, two men or two women will never have a true marriage.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Subscribe
Become a Victory Girl!

Are you interested in writing for Victory Girls? If you’d like to blog about politics and current events from a conservative POV, send us a writing sample here.
Ava Gardner
gisonboat
rovin_readhead
Instagram