Whinery: Why Homosexuals Have Lost Their Minds

I-Now-Pronounce-You-Chuck-And-LarryPOSTERI feel like the last person to comment on this Gay Marriage
controversy…

But its taken me quite a while to wrap my head around why a “crucified” people – at least outside of major metropolitan areas – would want to screw up the BEST part of being Gay, which is never having to say, “I do.”

The Supreme Court of the United States recently heard oral
arguments on whether to strike down the federal Defense of Marriage Act – which prohibits gay marriage and Proposition 8 in California which does the same.

If the Court rules to strike those laws down that decision would lead to gay marriage in California being legal but would not rule on whether other States bans on gay marriage are Constitutional or not.

If I was a betting man, I would predict that a majority of Justices will take the easy way out and rely on the dictionary definition of marriage, and say that they are not in the word redefining business and thus pass the buck.

IMG_6850There’s a problem with that tactic though…

Not all dictionaries agree on what marriage is these days.

For example, here’s the definition from my “go to” dictionary, the 1945 College Edition of the Winston Dictionary:

Marriage– 1. The act of legally uniting a man and woman in wedlock;
the wedding ceremony; 2. The state of being wedded; the relation existing between husband and wife; 3. figuratively, any close union.

It’s the third definition which may present a problem for those wanting marriage to be reserved for only a man and a woman.

And newer versions of  dictionaries, notably The American Heritage Dictionary, Black’s Law Dictionary, The Oxford English Dictionary and Webster’s have gone all in and added “same-sex duos” to the definition of marriage.

Whig-PostFrom a legal standpoint, whatever the Court does, will lead to CHAOS.

If the Republicans were smart- which they are not- they would follow
Rand Paul’s advice and take marriage out of the tax code completely
and let people “do what thou wilt, which is the whole of the law” anyway… at least in a libertarian society. Which is what a
Jeffersonian Democracy is.

Republicans need to get with the times and get out of the legislating
of social issues business. Or else risk becoming the Whigs

This entry was posted in David Scott Whinery. Bookmark the permalink.

32 Responses to Whinery: Why Homosexuals Have Lost Their Minds

  1. chuck says:

    Wouldn’t the word, “figuratively”, connoted in the third definition, as a metaphor (My interpretation) remove the possibility of that same word having legal standing in any form, by way of definition as a metaphor?

    Dictionaries, by definition explain the different uses of words as seen above.

    Sanguine can be a blood red color, or the feeling of cheerful optimism.

    While not mutually exclusive, the two meanings of the word, as in the word marriage can have dramatically different meanings in context and the expectation of those meanings for all who use them, should preclude the use of the third definition given above in the argument for and against gay marriage.

    No?

    • chuck says:

      Don’t do it!

      Don’t go to the well and drag out Bill Clinton’s meaning of the word “Is”.

      I am beggin ya.

      🙂

  2. chuck says:

    “Strict Constructionism” ?

    A little help from Balbonis?

    Anyone?

    What say you Whinery?

  3. harley says:

    whinery…have you seen the numbers yet? The repubs are the whigs.
    They might do some things in 2014 but after that it’sall over for them.
    Oblivion.
    Oh…and whinery….happy passover.
    and stick around….some of the boys need you!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  4. paulwilsonkc says:

    Chuck you’re correct on the third meaning. That version means, “I planned on going out of town this weekend, but I’m not married to the idea if there was something else to do.”
    And they always fail to mention, a great deal of gays have no interest in being married.

  5. the dude says:

    As I have said before government should have never dealt with the institution of marriage in the first place. Marriage is a religious institution, leave that to them. If you go to a magistrate you should be joined in a civil union that in the eyes of the law is equal to marriage and all the trappings that go with that- death benefits, insurance, etc. We would not be having the huge problem we are having right now if the government was smart about this in the first place and created civil unions that are equal to marriage. It would be a much easier argument if they had done so.

    • admin says:

      Good points, but when marriage and law became one, this was a different country. Things have changed and it’s hard road to hoe with one foot in the past and another trying to land on something halfway solid in the future.

  6. balbonis moleskine says:

    DOMA is unconstitutional.

    It violates the full faith and credit clause of the US constitution and it violates the 10th Amendment to the US which reserves non enumerated powers to states and the people. States must recognize as equal the rights of same sex couples married in another state, just as they must recognize the rights of males and females who get married in another state.

    I personally feel that procreation is a fundamental right and consentual sexual conduct between adults is a fundamental right I don’t really believe that the right to have a civil marriage is a fundamental right. I do think there is a fundamental right to hold yourself out to the world as married and to live as you were married but I have doubts that you have a fundamental right to be declared married by the state.

    The Supreme Court, however, disagrees with me. Striking down even the marriage restrictions that required the lowest level of constitutional scrutiny (Turner v Safely- Missouri inmate may not be denied the right to be married behind bars)(Loving v Virginia- anti-misegenation law overturned)(Zablocki v Redhail- overturned requirement that men wishing to marry who owe child support get permission from the court).

    They are unlikely to declare same-sex marriage a fundamental right, as they can easily overturn the DOMA on and Full-faith and credit clause grounds, perhaps not even addressing the 10th amendment issue (Federal judges tend to like federalism) or the Equal protection argument of the 14th amendment.

    The proper step in 1996 if people wanted to make gay marriage illegal would be to define marriage however they wanted in a constitutional amendment. This would likely be unsuccessful for either the pro or anti gay marriage people as people aren’t really united enough on the issue to reach constitutional ratification either way.

    Hopefully this will usher in a new era of policies where the federal government deregulates or legalizes behavior that may be objectionable to some but is essentially benign and doesn’t fit the model of something that should be federally controlled.

    To my homosexual friends I say bewarethe Gypsy’s curse: Be careful what you wish for, you just might get it.

    You had a subculture, while maligned by some, that managed to be able to exist and thrive outside of normal boring suburban bourgeois society.

    I don’t know a lot of blissfully happy married people. You will have earned the right through the Judicial branch to be as miserable, bored, financially, emotionally and sexually trapped as heterosexual married people. Congrats?!?

    • chuck says:

      Very well done.

      I like this–

      “Hopefully this will usher in a new era of policies where the federal government deregulates or legalizes behavior that may be objectionable to some but is essentially benign and doesn’t fit the model of something that should be federally controlled.”

      Thomas Paine couldn’t have said it better.

      One of my gay friends just died from Aids recently. Went to his “wake” at Buddys. He was a really great guy, didn’t take any offense to my gay jokes and kicked my ass with short, bald, fat jokes every time I gave his some sh+t.

      He thought that Gay Marraige should be legal and the other gay friends I have want it too.

      Balbonis comment about being careful what you wish for is apt. All of these guys seem to have the same complaints about relationships as every one else. Just my opinion.

      No one is getting their nose broke, raped or shot on this deal, so I can’t really get too worked up about it.

      All of the many gay folks I have known, cusotmers and friends throughout my life have been exceptional to a fault.

      It is hard for me to take a position that would annoy them based on such singular behaviour in my opinion.

      🙂

  7. paulwilsonkc says:

    Dude, in Biblical times marriage was arranged and had more to do with property assignment and protection. Yes, I agree it’s a religious institution, but that got jacked up when the State began administering the “license” to perform the “religious” ceremony.
    For or against SSM, the points used by the homosexual community have always seemed weak to me. The two major ones being, the right of my partner to be able to be with me in a hospital or ICU and property rights of assignment upon death or even in life. If I’m in ICU, I can allow anyone in I choose and my family can on my behalf. Craig and Harley can buy a new condo today and put it in both their names. They can pass it to each other in a will. And short of gay marriage, if the are smart enough, they can execute a contract that states how they divide it if they get pissy and break up with each other. In the same contract they can also add Harley has to always be on the bottom, because as we all know, the one on TOP is not gay!
    I think they would be further ahead with a more defendable argument. The ones they use most often can be addressed through contract law.

    • chuck says:

      Those are great points Paul, but if this demographic is so set on legalization of their relationships, then why not pick a more worthy fight?

      🙂

    • Super Dave says:

      I agree 100 %

    • the dude says:

      Yeah Wilsun,
      That is my major sticking point here, the government should not have intruded into the church institution of marriage in the first place.

  8. paulwilsonkc says:

    That’s my point exactly. This is only my supposition, but I think it was meant to be something that would resonate with the straight community, tugging at heart strings they could relate to, ie, what if YOU had a heart attack, YOU are in ICU and YOUR wife couldn’t come see you? What if YOU passed and YOU couldn’t leave YOUR estate to YOUR wife? I think it was a discussion seeking the lowest common denominator OTHER than ” equal rights”; that’s a harder fight. Too many people don’t feel like it IS an “equal right”, too many people cling to “God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve”. Like I said, just my guess, but an emotional plea can be more effective than a logical plea, given the right audience.

    • chuck says:

      Your right, if it resonates with a mean azz fu*k like me, it is gonna resaonate pretty much everywhere.

      I would go back to Balbonis quote–

      “Hopefully this will usher in a new era of policies where the federal government deregulates or legalizes behavior that may be objectionable to some but is essentially benign and doesn’t fit the model of something that should be federally controlled.”

      That seems pretty reasonable to me.

      🙂

  9. paulwilsonkc says:

    I think the government should allow a civil union or marriage, which ever they see fit. On the other hand, I think the church should remain free to conduct it’s business as it sees fit.
    In other words, the church shouldn’t call the shots on SSM NOR should they be forced to play along if they don’t want to.
    Adam and Steve shouldn’t be able to sue their way into making the First Baptist Church marry them if the church disagrees.
    The church should be an influence in standards, she should be the beacon on the hill, not legislatively shoving her desires down the throat of the collective public.

  10. Super Dave says:

    What is pissing me off some is all the bumper stickers I am starting to see that read, ” I didn’t vote for your marriage.”

    I mean come, I have never voted for one or anyone’s for that matter either. Why can’t they just all go off live as they want as Paul pointed out and leave the rest of us the hell alone.

    Reason they can’t is because they are plain and simple nothing but attention whores for the most part. If two guys or women for that matter want to walk around a store holding hands I am ok with that, but you don’t have to be loud in talk of your gushing love for each other making sure everyone hears you nor do you need to go into semi full make out kissing mode by the produce section making sure it lasts long enough for someone or everyone to see.

    I’m just tired of having it shoved in my face day in and day out.

  11. paulwilsonkc says:

    SD, I made the point last week with a great friend of mine, gay and married; went to MA to do it. I told him if a certain segment of heterosexuals made this big a deal out of nothing BUT their sexuality the rest of the world would think we are nuts! I asked him, what if I started a Hetero Pride Parade, float after float with bizzare costuming, me on a float with my wife down on her hands and knees in leather, spiked dog collar and a leash, whipping her as we roll down Main Street with crowds looking on…….to do what? Show my PRIDE in my heterosexuality? And that proves what?
    He mentioned displeasure with his “gay church”, saying it was less about church and more about the cause, issues, lifestyle and I asked, what if I attended a STRAIGHT church? Where in the world does sexuality come into play in church?
    It’s SEX U AL I TY. Period.
    Where I agree with you is…..that needs to be on the radar to the same level as heterosexuals. I don’t have a secret sign to indicate my sexuality, I don’t need a straight church, straight parade, etc. Leave it at what it is, that’s an easier path to “equality”. But that’s just my opinion.

    • Super Dave says:

      No it’s a good opinion and I agree with that as well. Besides with your wife you would be the one on hands and knees as she was cracking the whip.

      A person I know who is gay said the “new” gays as they call them, are they thought for the most part people with low self esteem who decide to become gay because they want the attention it brings and that it makes them feel cool and wanted. In short it’s the latest fad of who to be and what to be doing. Just like the tattoo hype going around one person sees someone else with one and think that by them getting one they as well will be cool. As many men got their heads shaved bald when Steve Austin the wrestler was so popular. It’s all about not being yourself, but about trying to be someone else.

  12. paulwilsonkc says:

    SD, good point on who would be cracking the whip, but my over riding point is, this is about sexuality. Short of Anercrombie ads, it needs to stay what it it, a personal and private matter between two adults. I don’t take “pride” in my sexuality. I don’t need a t shirt that makes a point out of who I am. I think “marriage” should remain what it is, civil and contractual arrangements can address the remaining.
    And the sad but honest truth is, everything is NOT equal. I saw this when I was on various State councils working through ADA. As much as you want to legislate equality into being, you simply can’t. I’m old and fat, I can’t climb Mt Everest, the governments job is NOT to make that possible for me! I was told as a kid everything ISN’T fair. Everything ISN’T equal, I grew up, and by god, they were right! As much as I’d like it to be, it isn’t. And any laws trying to make it so are failed attempts. If I’m relegated to a wheel chair, I just may not be up to going to the bottom of the Grand Canyon and the government shouldn’t build a $100k charging station so I can go down there on my Hoveround or Raskal!
    Sorry for the rant, the worlds not fair, everything isn’t equal. Just take your participation trophy, shut the hell up and go home!

  13. paulwilsonkc says:

    Chuck, Balbo, Dude, SD, drop me an email @ paulwilsonkc@gmail.com.

  14. admin says:

    You guys trying to start a frat house here or something?

Comments are closed.