Redefining marriage

Redefining marriage

I’m talking about marriage this time, but I’m coming at it from 3 very different angles.

What do state lines mean when it comes to recognizing certain marriages? According to one judge, not much.

Is it discrimination to not allow a guy to marry his computer? Even if he loves pornography more than real women? Sounds silly, until you hear how he makes his argument.

And while we’re throwing out the whole idea of man-woman marriage, why not throw out the whole monogamy thing as well? The New Republic makes the case.

Mentioned links:

FED. JUDGE RULES OHIO MUST FOLLOW OTHER STATES’ MARRIAGE LAWS INSTEAD OF ITS OWN

Florida man demands right to wed computer

It’s Time to Ditch Monogamy

Getting some shopping done? If you're going to shop at Amazon, please consider clicking on my affiliate link. Thanks!

On Apple devices, you can subscribe to the podcast via iTunes.

If you're on Android, listen with Google Podcasts.

Stitcher Radio is another possibility for both Apple and Android devices. If you do download Stitcher to your phone, please use the promo code “ConsiderThis” to let them know where you heard about it.

Browser-based options are the Blubrry Network and Player.fm.

And if you have some other podcatcher or RSS reader, click here to get the direct feed and paste it wherever you need it.

I would love it if you would spread the word about the podcast! Click the Facebook, Twitter, and other icons (or all of them!) at the bottom of this post to recommend "Consider This!" to your social media audience.

Show transcript

States? States? We don’t need no stinkin’ states! At least, that’s what a federal judge said last month. The state of Ohio does not have same-sex marriage, but the just said that they had to recognize a marriage license for one that was granted in another state.

Well let me ask you, does the state of Ohio have to recognize law licenses, or medical licenses, or even hunting licenses from other states? No, they don’t. They may grant some leeway for licenses professionals from other states, they certainly don’t have to. It is within their state’s rights not to recognize them at all.

The judge in the case cited the tradition of Ohio recognizing marriages from other states that Ohio itself would not have allowed. He didn’t say specifically, but I’m guessing things like marriages between people who are related to closely. In 2004, Ohio broke with tradition and passed a ban on recognizing same-sex marriage. But the judge seems to think that tradition is somehow legally binding. Ohio was well within its rights to make such a law, as it can with other license recognitions. But the judge was apparently channeling Tevye from “Fiddler on the Roof”; “Traditiooon!”

Well anyway, I guess we can now start applying this new legal concept to things like gun licenses, eh? No, we can’t? This wouldn’t have anything to do with politics or activist judges of a particular leaning now, would it?

And speaking of marriage, a man in Florida is suing to be allowed to marry his pornography-filled computer. Chris Sevier would like to marry his Macbook, who, for the purposes of this segment, I’ll just call “Mac”.

Chris tried to get a license to marry Mac, but apparently was turned down. Clearly, Florida is against true marriage equality, and apparently prefers PCs. Why else would they allow for this sort of discrimination?

Listen to some of what Chris says, and you, too, just might be won over.

If gays have the right to “marry their object of sexual desire, even if they lack corresponding sexual parts, then I should have the right to marry my preferred sexual object.”

If gays feel as is they are second class citizens, Mr Sevier argues then “those of us in the real minority, who want to marry machines and animals, certainly feel like third class citizens”.

“Allowing my marriage to go forward will not adversely impact the fertility rate any more or less than a same sex couples.”

“If there is a risk that is posed to traditional marriage and children, both man-man couples and man-machine couples pose it equally.”

“In considering the equal protection clause, there are no fewer policy reasons for preventing man-machine couples from marrying than there are for same-sex couples.”

Florida, as well as Utah, where he filed another suit, both turned him down. But how different, really, are his arguments than the ones for same-sex marriage. True, the main difference is that Mac isn’t sentient and can’t truly give consent for this, but the arguments are still quite similar. If who you love is the only determiner of who you can marry, who’s to say who you’re allowed to love?

Or maybe, just maybe, marriage is actually about more than just love. Maybe, there’s a purpose, a goal, which marriage was the answer to, and the further we get away from it, the more pointless it will become.

The liberal-leaning magazine, The New Republic, had an article recently in which it re-redefines marriage. Titled “It’s Time to Ditch Monogamy”, it tries to make the case that the idea of a single spouse is just so “outdated”, as they put it. Their arguments are:

  • We’re living longer, which can lead to boredom.
  • Young people are used to “varied and transient love affairs.”
  • Girls can be more independent now than they could 50 years ago.
  • And basically, after a while, we just can’t help ourselves over our urges to wander, so to speak.

The only lip service Helen Croydon, the author, pays to the major responsibility of child rearing is to note that, hey, women can get artificially inseminated. Never mind that she’s encouraging the difficulty of single motherhood, reducing men to sperm donors, and ignoring the huge task of actually raising a child. No, it’s all just a technological hurdle to overcome.

As I’ve said before, cross one line, and there’s always another line to cross, another cultural norm to overturn. Remember, it’s conservatives that look to tradition and experience to determine the best course of action, while liberals are, by their own definition, “progressive”; trying out new things and throwing off old ideas, because, in their mind, this new thing ought to work, based on whatever arguments they can come up with. Hey, we’re bored, we can’t help ourselves, so let’s chuck these ideas that have worked in the past and try some social experimenting that may or may not actually work better, but at least we’ll feel better about ourselves after we indulge ourselves.

That is a recipe for a slippery slope, one that has been, rather easily, predicted by conservatives.

Just a reminder that you can click on “Important Links” at the top of this page to get a list of links that I think are always worth sharing. One of them goes to a Heritage Foundation article called “Marriage: What It Is, Why It Matters, and the Consequences of Redefining It”. It generally deals with same-sex marriage, but it could just as easily be used to refute any redefinition, even a re-redefinition.

Filed under: GovernmentMarriageMonogamySame-sex MarriageState's Rights