This game is almost over

It’s crunch time for gender-segregated marriage. There are two down in the bottom of the fourth quarter, and the chukker’s got a busted knee. Given the pouring rain, the tenth frame looks just as bad. The manager makes a call to the penalty box: free kick. Out trots the prom queen . . swinging a dildo? As if united in desperation, the fans cry out: Where is the National Review?

On Friday afternoon, the Supreme Court announced that it will hear arguments in two cases that are at the center of the same-sex-marriage controversy.

Whew.

At issue in both cases is whether courts should even be hearing them, because there are knotty questions of standing (and also of what should happen to lower-court rulings if the Court rules that parties did not have standing). If the Court does reach the merits in these cases, it should find its way toward a defense of the right of republican self-government.

States’ rights? Good! Let’s go with that. It should be up to the states to decide. Then we can pretend that the Defense of Marriage Act had nothing to do with us trying to strangle same-sex marriage from Washington D.C. Unchain the states! That’s what conservatism is all about. More:

Of the various arguments advanced for a constitutional “right” of same-sex marriage, none withstands even momentary scrutiny by accepted standards.

Please wait until the arguments have come to a complete thud before exiting the post. And thank you for flying with National Review. Hum buh-bye. Buh-bye. Buh-bye. Buh-bye.

Are gays and lesbians a powerless and oppressed minority?

Wait! How can gays possibly have this constitutional “right” . .

One can hardly say that after the November elections, in which the cause of same-sex marriage was victorious in four states, in a year when it was also embraced by the president of the United States and enshrined in the platform of the larger of our major parties.

. . when they’re not black Southerners in the sixties? If I remember correctly, it was only after the Supreme Court ruled “The powerless and battered Citizens of Montgomery ipso facto have the constitutional right to whine” that *poof* black people first appeared before the rest of us. That’s when they joined the Democratic Party, and everybody was like “WHO THE HELL ARE YOU PEOPLE?”

Is it rationally indefensible to reserve the institution of marriage to the only kind of union — one man and one woman — that is capable of procreation, and to the kind of union that is proven to be the best general setting for the rearing of children?

That last argument is particularly dumb. But to the previous one — ‘procreation’ — gay marriage itself has blown that out of the water. The gay marrieds don’t and technically can’t procreate but there they are. As married as anyone else.

My sister and her boyfriend got hitched and they adopted two children. They are not fake-way ‘gay’ married. They’re married. Even the National Review agrees. Must we list all the reasons people do this?

BTW — someday Science will learn how to manipulate a sperm sample so as to swap the donor’s chromosomes with a woman’s. Then Hunky Lesbo with an expensive strap-on will impregnate Lacy Lesbo and God Help Us All. They’ll have a baby girl. I’m not guessing about this, I’m a actual molecular biologist. Ha!

Share

4 thoughts This game is almost over

  1. avatar Rev. Howard Furst says:

    Jehovah is already quite tolerant of 3-parent polyamorous parental arrangements, ever since He cuckolded poor Joseph by Inseminating Mary (unless one heretically believes in the Roman Centurion hypothesis for Mary’s pregnancy; but even then, Jehovah seems okay with the whole thing). One can only assume that He would also be pleased with genuine 3-parent offspring, which are actually feasible now, by transfer of Mom #1′s nucleus into an enucleated ovum from Mom #2 (currently intended to replace nuclear Mom’s mitochondrial DNA in case of awful mutations thereof), followed by extracorporeal inspermination by Dad (the Sin of Onan does not carry a death penalty if the nectar of self abuse is used for conception). The marital coupling of Hunky and Lacy Lesbo may be quite permissible, as Hunky’s apparatus is outside of His jurisdiction altogether, as Jehovah’s stated concerns about such matters are exclusively about the integrity of male parts:

    Deuteronomy 23:1 He that is wounded in the stones, or hath his privy member cut off, shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD.

  2. avatar toma says:

    Good gosh, that’s actually in the Bible. He that gets it in the pinche huevos shall not enter Heaven. Have yourself a nice day.

    Yes, the believers don’t seem to have any problem with our playing god-fingers with human eggs and mothers if the babies are holy. Why wouldn’t a potential member of Elder Romney’s clan be a great blessing, for instance? In that case, abortion is a medical and practical necessity to be wielded freely and without reservations, except for those outlined in the pricey contract.

    As far as three-way sexual ‘arrangements’ go, I’d agree that He started it. We already know He likes to watch, so we shouldn’t be surprised. The Lord might complain that a menage a Dieu hardly sinks to the level of whatever Charlie Sheen has been doing, but Charlie is our Earthly God. He can take it up with Him.

  3. avatar Anonymous says:

    In the Old Testament, Jehovah goes to great lengths to maintain a traceable line of begatting over millennia, presumably to make sure the right sort of body is available when it’s finally time for His only begotten Son. Thus, He seems fine with Lot being date raped by his two daughters too maintain the family spermline after Sodom and Gomorrah fell. This story is accurately depicted with Lego (TM) characters and sets here:

    http://www.thebricktestament.com/genesis/the_seduction_of_lot/gn19_30.html

    Similarly, the story of the House of Judah (Genesis 38:1-26) puts a supreme value on preserving the sperm relay, at the expense of life and propriety. Briefly, the eldest son of Judah, Er, dies, having displeased Jehovah. His brother Onan is obliged by custom to impregnate Er’s widow Tamar for the sake of orderly inheritance and whatnot. Onan pulls his privy member out prematurely and spills his seed, so Jehovah kills him too. Later, after Judah’s wife dies, the Patriarch seeks comfort from a veiled prostitute, who turned out to be Tamar in disguise. Tamar was successfully impregnated by her father-in-law Judah, and so the line continued.

    Jehovah undergoes a rather radical makeover as we move from Old Testament to New Testament times, but that’s another topic for another Sermonette. However, it’s a very big deal that He panicked and took things into his own Hands and Privy Member, and impregnated Mary directly; I suppose Joseph didn’t come from the right family. The result is that the perpetuation of Jehovah’s extended family network was no longer tied to tracking specific genetic lineages. That is the true import of Jehovah’s actions that led up to the birth of Jesus. The benefit for our time is that Jehovah no longer gives a ratfuck about who begat whom in a family setting, thus indirectly but unambiguously sanctioning whatever arrangement people want for raising children, regardless of their genetic heritage. Jehovah acknowledged 2000 years ago that we’re all God’s chilluns, so it’s about time politicians caught up.

  4. avatar toma says:

    And if I recall the consequences of the Raping of Lot correctly, his daughters bore the world the Moabites and the Ammonites. Not sure if these tribes were favored by God or not, but they weren’t likely to win any I.Q. or beauty contests given their meager genetic beginnings.

Comments are closed.