Yayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy!
The elections are just about over.
(and the relection campaigns don't begin 'til next week.)
So now is a perfect time to take on the really important issues.
Like, who should be allowed to get married.
The obvious problem with the Defensive Marriage Amendment is that it doesn't go far enough.
Why do the American people only get to decide if gays should be allowed to marry?
A great many of us find the marriage of really ugly people to be offensive.
And what about old people?
Or just plain, annoying people?
We believe that all couples who want to get married should submit photos and bios to be displayed on a website.
A brief video might be nice.
Then the rest of us get to vote on whether they get a license or not.
As Admiral Poindexter says:
"Your Rights End Where My Casual Interest Begins"
That's the ticket!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
What would NOT be a good idea would be alienating half of your reader-base by bringing your personal views into the open here (which I realize is an ironic statement since we're on a blog). Opinions on marriage are just that, opinions.
Bear in mind that marriage is really about property transfer and the laws of succession. In ancient times, business dealings, such as marriages, were performed on the steps of the early Christian churches beneath the relief of Christ in Judgement so that all dealings would be "in the eyes of God" and that people would be less likely to go back on their word.
During the resurgence of the Catholic church as an institution following the Dark Ages, an early pope declared marriage to be a sacrament and moved the ceremony inside of the church so that the church would have a say in the local succession of rulers, a blatant grab for power.
Marriage is a legal contract. Even its religious origins in European and Western society are political and legal in nature.
Most of all, marriage is NOT a campaign issue. The gay marriage controversy was created by politicians as a way to distract the media from coverage about their own corruption and the real issues. The quickest way to get more draconian laws created governing marriage is to allow it to be even more politicized than it already is.
If half the Uncle's reader base isn't already reeking of alienation, the Uncle isn't doing his job.
As to opinions, try as he might to stop them, the Uncle has already allowed one or two opinions to creep into this blog already.
Jonathan Swiller & The good Uncle; Now theres a match made in, um, oh never mind.
I will admit that squinting, in a dim light, the Pieman is somewhat cute, but the Uncle is taken.
Taken as a what??
Wow, horaay for changing the subject from Woodbury politics to something nice and uncontriversal like gay marriage. Still, with all the insanity in our town's recent history it DOES seem a little dull. :P
Appreciate the Uncle's right to express his personal views on his blog, though I'm not sure if it really furthers the purpose of this place, and I'd hate to see us get distracted from the pressing issues of our town.
Then again, a little after election distraction can be nice. Just not sure if this be the best topic for a town that just found some unity... sympathetic as I happen to be to it. :P
Back to politics- Hall appears to have defeated Kelly- what were the numbers from KJ? Let's see if McKenna was used, or if the story given to him was true. Let's hear it Unc- we know you can get some answers.
Why is the Uncle Betty blog only about Woodbury politics? Did I miss the memo?
no you didn't miss the memo, the person who runs this sit Swiller/unc. is a DICK!
Post a Comment