Un-Liberaled Woman

This week the Iowa courts overturned a 10-year ban on same-sex marriage. (via HotAir) No worries, my Facebook news feed was full of “ Iowa is Awesome,” “Iowa Rocks my Socks Off,” “Go Iowa,” and on the other side Mike Hucabee was Tweetin’ it up because he is sooooo Hip-to-the-Square! Yeah you get the point – the debate on gay marriage is so As The World Turns.

“Basic fairness and constitutional equal protection were the linchpins of Friday’s historic Iowa Supreme Court ruling that overturned a 10-year-old ban on same-sex marriage and puts Iowa squarely in the center of the nation’s debate over gay rights.”

To start, I don’t have time to worry about what people want to do in the privacy of their own homes. I’ve got a full-time job, this blog, a husband to sarcastically make fun of every night, and then I spend 2-3 hours motivating myself to do a ½ hour workout (ummm, you know you are guilty of this too!). Time is of the essence, people! And I ain’t got time for yo’ beeswax! Buuuuuuuuuuuzzz!

I personally don’t think the government should be in the business of redefining marriage at all. That said, I don’t have anything against two, three, same-sex, opposite sex consenting adults committing themselves to each other, as long as they are adults. Why should the government be butting their nose into our private lives? And I’m strictly talking about the debate between civil unions vs. redefining marriage, not the idea of not letting any same-sex unions occur.

Despite the lies the liberal media would have you believe, a lot of conservatives AND libertarians actually feel this way. Many could honestly care less about who wants to commit themselves to whomever in their private lives as long as it only involves consenting adults. But when it comes to redefining laws, which ultimately don’t need to be defined by govt., that’s where people have the issue and especially when the laws are a result of a judge legislating from the bench. But a civil discussion, on the debate of gay marriage, just isn’t sexy enough for CNN when they can put out the stereotype of Cletus the ‘redneck hick who done don’t know no bett’r.’ Cause right, all evangelicals are a). never articulate or use logic in their reasoning, and b). are always the “only” ones who oppose gay marriage statutes (eyes rolling). A lot of fellow Democrats sure had to vote for California’s Prop. 8 in order for it to pass, but I loooooove how that is never reported. Thanks, never-reporting-the-full-story-worthless-media!

Personally, I think you can designate different classifications on contracts to be legal in the eyes of the law, but other people proclaim it an equal rights violation. I mean there are different classifications for custody cases and for divorces/separations, yet people seem to never claim a violation of equal rights based on those differing classifications. If assigning different classifications were a violation of equal rights, then we should all be ONLY referred to as Americans and never deemed separate classifications on anything. Or is the fact that I’m referred to as white a violation? How about when I’m classified as female on my driver’s license also issued by the government – wouldn’t under that same logic be a violation of my equal rights? Feminists UNITE! I want to be referred to the same as males so that I’m not discriminated against on my driving skills (or lack there of, as my dad would say – Ummm, don’t laugh…not my fault my dad is a slow poke! Love you, dad, if you are reading this. LOL) 

Gloria Steinem, where’s my giiiiiiiiiirl at coming to my defense? My equal rights have been violated because I’m classified as urrrrgh, dare I say it … I got an “F” in Sex on my government-issued license. Oh, that’s right I’m a pro-life gal, so I’m not “the right kind of woman” in Gloria’s eyes. Biaytch.

Anyliberalcontradiction, how come there is just the fight for same vs. opposite sex unions? I don’t hear anyone chirping up about how opposite-sex domestic partnerships should also be treated the same. If you have gone through a commitment ceremony does that technically make you more committed than domestic partnerships? No it doesn’t. I know many opposite-sex people who are more legally bound to each other than same and opposite-sex married couples. But people fighting for same-sex marriage, do they refer to these non-commitment-ceremony opposite-sex partners as married? Ummm, no they do not.

I mean if same sex couples want to commit themselves to the life long debate with their spouse about how the laundry will not magically pull itself out of the hamper and fold itself (not.at.all. saying I have ever, ever had any experience with that particular question. not.at.all.), then more power to them. I personally think the state governments should just call it a union contract across the board if they have to have the same legal classification for everyone’s commitment.

I know gay-marriage advocates aren’t for denying another group a right, but at the same time want to be recognized equally in the eyes of the law. Right now those advocates don’t feel that way with just civil unions but at the same time many people believe that the lack of classification with the word ‘marriage’ is not enough of a reason to establish a violation of equal rights, especially since changing that institution’s definition would result in potentially infringing on one’s freedom of religion.

Why can’t we shoot for making the state classification on all commitments then a “union contract” and let churches keep the recognition of ‘marriage’? Wouldn’t the best thing be achieving your goals without angering more than half the country??? For a country that uses the phrase “bi-partisanship” like it’s the latest fashion trend, it sometimes appears that objectives and strategies for certain issues aren’t on the same path. (But I also think bipartisanship is just a fantasy people exude to make themselves seem mature but really just want it to be their way or the highway – so very human of us.)

Also, I for one get very weary of establishing precedent where the ACLU is given room on the leash to go in and attack churches for denying to marry gay couples. With the ACLU’s history attacking religion Christianity I wouldn’t put it past them.

I just think the State/Church relationship should be a co-existence. The church shouldn’t cross the line of the state and vice versa. If the states kept all commitments, including domestic unions, as ‘union contracts’ and left the church to ‘marriage’ I would be extremely happy with that. And then, maybe for once “progressive” would gain some actual foundation, and no longer be a term thrown around by uber-hungry-to-sound-so-cultured-liberals.