Interesting opinion and arguement going on with a few of my favorite blogs. It’s nice in some ways to seem some so called “right-wing” and “libertarian” debate. I’m not quite awake to really take it all in, but it seems to stem from some understanding of what the Supreme Court should be able to do or not do, in relation to the Constitution, and especially with regard to same sex rights.
Personally, I dunno. They are all kind of right depending on one’s perspective. But seeing what the debate is about.. same sex rights.. I just don’t get any of it. The fact of the matter for me is, why should any government give it’s self the right to deny or accept any person’s relationships, regardless of what that relationship is?
I don’t accept, notwithstanding the constitution of this country, the Government regulating my relationships. Be they heterosexual or otherwise.
On the other hand, I understand what some are suggesting regarding what the Supreme Court’s powers should be or not be.
But in the end, the whole thing is a mute question. No government, court or otherwise, should be able to have any power of any sort to regulate my relationships. I should not be able to have any political benefit from any relationship, one way or the other. No one should, regardless of whether they are married to a chick or a dude. Getting married should have nothing to do with the Government, or even about democracy.
If I want to have one wife, so be it. I should not gain politically or economically from that choice. If I want to have a wife and a husband, so be it (although the thought is repugnant to me), but if I want to live in such a way, it should not be the business of anyone other than those I wish to negotiate with for benefits for my lifestyle choices. If I am unable to negotiate with one entity, perhaps another entity would want my business.
If the Government got out of the business of pension plans, there probably wouldn’t be a problem. Wills have worked well for centuries.
And personally, I don’t give a **ck about what any government pension plan says. By the time I’m old enough, I bet the government plans will be practically worthless anyhow. And that’s about the only reason I can see to argue about personal choices and relationships.
When it comes down to it, my will will state who gets what. My best fishing buddy, even though he is a male, may get all my classic fishing tackle. Or the son that expresses the most interest in fishing. Who knows? I haven’t decided yet.
I’d still like to make sure my ex-wife gets a good chunk as well. I married her first, for God’s sake. Yeah, we had our problems, but why should some goverment regulation determine what she gets when it’s MY assets they are talking about?
My business partner.. also a female.. and mother of my fourth son is also pretty darned important to me. And that relatiionship, whether recognized or not by any government regulation, in fact, exists in my mind. And it’s important enough to me to make sure she gets looked after as well.
So what does it matter their sex?? If my business partner was a male, and had a kid I loved, why should any government regulation change what I decide the partner or kid should have upon my departure from this world? Huh?
Can you give me five good reasons, logically spelled out, how the sex of my business partner, and his or her kid, should change things?
I simply don’t understand why a constitution of any government or country should have any effect on my choices on whom I decide to have relationships with. I don’t understand how whether I like to eat pussy, or suck cock or go in the backdoor or the front door has anythhing to do with anything.
And I don’t really care what the “majority” (vis a vis democracy) thinks either. Screw you. I have chosen the relationships I have based on how valuable they are to me. It’s none of your business what I do every night. It’s none of your business whether I wear a condom to protect myself from AIDS or from getting some pregnant.
And you have no idea about what I love nor should you tell me how to love, or how I should want to designate the proceeds of my estate. If the Government decides it’s going to have a pension plan for me, and I got some cash accrued there because of my labours in my life, then I should be able to say who they go to, in spite of some constitution trying to define or classify my relationships.
My money, my earnings, my labour in my life, has nothign to do with any constitution. It should have nothing to do with any majority deciding what relationships in my life are “legitimate.” All my relationships, notwithstanding what actions I choose to do while enjoying those relationships, are legitimate, and have no business being recognized or not being recognized.
Being recognized or being “not recognized” has nothing to do with reality.
So, from my quick reading of both sides.. I have to say I disagree with all. I don’t belive any constitution should have any power over relationships of mutual choice. I also don’t think the Supreme Court should be able to add such things, or have power to give so – called rights to those who weren’t specifically included in the constitution.
If the Supreme Court truly believed in the rights of the individual, it’s my belief that it would say so. But by ruling on specific groups, it is therefore taking away all the other rights that others, regardless of how “popular” they may be, from those that want to express themselves in a multitude of relationships.
And from my point of view, that is simply unacceptable. I have no idea of the relationships that Trudeaupia, Let It Bleed, The Monger, or Jay Jardine have. And I don’t care. And ultimately, I’d hope that they not care about my relationships.
After being through a few different relationships.. actually hundreds of them if you use the term “relationship” correctly, I’ve discovered there is really nothing right nor wrong about any of them. They are what they are. No government regulation, constitution, or Supreme Court decisions is going to change that. All those can do is change and in effect, act in a discriminatory or prejudicial way to my choices. My choicess of whom I negotiate with for benefits. My choices for what I really value. My choices for what and who turns me on. My choices for who gets the benefits of my labour in my life.
Sex, sexual orientation, or some official definition of relationship should have nothing to do with this. No constitution should place limits upon me as to with whom I decide to share or want to have the fruits of my labour go to.
No court should impose this either. All relationships are voluntary. No one is ever forced to maintain a relationship with me, whether they are male or female. Or alien and nonsexual.
It’s my friggan choice. What’s so hard to undersand about that? And my choices of 20 years ago may not be the same choices I’d make now.. but that IS my responsibility, based on MY earnings now, when it comes to what or to whom my assets would go to should I suddenly leave this world.
Why should a constitution even HAVE to recognize this, or a Supreme Court decide upon it? Fu*k the Supremes.. or the Politicians that would have it any other way. Their philosophy sure isn’t mine. And in the end, I’d far prefer that MY philosophy about MY earings in this world would prevail.. regardless of what cock I had sucked or pussy I had licked.
But I ain’t a lawyer. And I don’t have a whole lot lot of acadmemic thought to offer on this. But academic thought is mostly bizarre. I don’t care about it. I just want to know that whenn I’m in my grave, my life activities and proceeds are given to those I waanted and designated, regardless of some government regulation or some constituion.
Know what I mean? You can argue all you want about this.. but my feelings are.. no one else should give a rat’s ass.