v3rsus - editorial 2010

editorial
2010

Dismantling The Opposition To Gay Marriage

Ever since California voted 52% for Proposition 8 (the ban on same-sex marriage) there has been a nationwide ongoing debate about whether gay marriage should be legal or not, and the arguments on both sides have been lacking just the right amount of reason to perpetuate a never ending back and forth. So let’s take a little look at all the anti-gay-marriage arguments:

1. A marriage is between a man and a woman. It doesn't make any sense that a certain group of people gets rights (tax cuts and legal status in terms of inheritance, insurance, guardianship and life support decisions) that other people don’t get. That basically means that we are all equal in a democracy, but when it comes to relationships, heterosexuals deserve special protection. Looking at the divorce rates it's hard to see why.

2. Marriage is the foundation for a family and homosexuals can’t have children. Well, there are many heterosexual couples who can’t have any children either, or who don’t even want to have any children. Following that argument would mean that all heterosexual couples who do not have children have to get divorced, no matter what the circumstances are. Besides, apart from procreation there is adoption, and there is certainly no lack of abandoned children in need of parents. Believe it or not, research actually suggests that homosexual couples are very nurturing parents who are capable of raising healthy children.

3. Homosexuality is detrimental to society. The same people said it would be detrimental to society if African Americans were free people and if women got the right to vote. A very questionable argument. By the way, not giving homosexuals the right to marry doesn’t make homosexuality go away.

4. Marriage is a religious unit and homosexuality is not acceptable (for whatever reason). Hello! We are living in the 21. Century and we’ve had a separation of church and state for a very long time. If religious institutions refuse to give their blessings to gay couples, they are free to do so, but that argument doesn’t have any value in a democracy that separates state and church. Constitutionally all people should have the same rights.

5. The term marriage can’t be disconnected from the religious context. Maybe not, so let’s just call the legal construct of marriage “legal partnership” for homo- and heterosexuals. That should help to get over the semantic romanticism.

6. If you disregard the part that a marriage is between being a man and a woman, you also have to disregard the part that a marriage is between two people. Not necessarily, but if that’s what it takes so be it. If a woman is happy being wife number 3, 4, or 5, and if all parties of the “legal partnership” are in agreement that frequent updates are needed to maintain vitality, who cares? All it takes to avoid confusion, deception and manipulation is a database that registers the participation of each person in “legal partnerships”.

7. The majority of the people voted against same-sex marriage. Sometimes democratic values and minorities have to be protected from a majority that disregards the constitution in favor of their own ideologies. If there had been something in place to protect the constitution of the Weimar Republic from a complete take-over a lot of mayhem could have been prevented.

This disourse is by no means limited to California and the United States. California is just at the forefront of the legal/constitutional battle. Most Democracies struggle with same-sex marriage and in many cases an alternative legal concept for homosexual unions is considered a good enough compromise. Let’s be honest here: there are a lot of things that give good reason for concern, including people who spent all their energy on denying others rights that they claim for themselves. Homosexuality and giving same-sex couples truly equal rights is the least worrisome issue!

August 29, 2010

What The Fuck Are You Wondering About?

You wonder: “Does she still think boys are icky?” (though her room is plastered with pictures of the Jonas Brothers) You wonder: “What’s up with his hair?” (though you’ve had a perm since the 70s) You wonder: “Does he really think he can fly?” (of course he does, that’s why he’s covered with bruises) Well, there’s one thing you don’t have to wonder about: new Wonder smartwhite! It’s fiber, calcium and vitamin D wrapped up in one loaf of processed shit. Enjoy, and don’t wonder… it’s too late!

August 28, 2010

Doing Right By The Kardashians
by Ed Zotti
originally appeared in full length on The Straigh Dope (July 15, 2010)

The following is an unworthy thought, born of too much time spent in the supermarket checkout line. However, having had the thought, I think it'd be a shame to waste it. The thought is this: I propose that the Kardashian sisters of Los Angeles, California, move to the more nurturing environment of Melrose Park, Illinois.
[...]
Just a few days ago I saw a story in which a former paramour describes Kim as "a plastic surgery-loving 'fame whore.'" I venture no opinion on the veracity of these allegations, but to me there are two possibilities: either (1) the sisters lead lives of unremitting treachery, avarice, and despair, or (2) they're surrounded by mendacious journalists claiming they do. Neither of these situations is healthy. Thus Melrose Park.

July 22, 2010