Friday, October 21, 2005

D. A. C. M. A.

As you are well aware, a debate is raging in this country about gay marriage. Specifically , that allowing gay couples the right to enter into the institution of marriage will destroy the Fabric of American Life, in this case the Fabric most likely being a rough cotton blend, not too comfortable lest there be some accidental pleasurable friction in your Satan's Playground Spots.

This sociological approach is the only remotely viable (and yet still fatally weak) argument against gay marriage -- it cannot be opposed on any reasonable grounds in a civil rights sense. To paraphrase Thomas Jefferson, gay marriage neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg. Two gay people getting married in my general vicinity do not change my legal rights. They do not affect my earning potential, they do not raise my taxes, they do not infringe on either my rights to certain freedoms or opportunities to practice such freedoms. They do not, in a negative way, affect the legal status of other marriages. Divorce case law and evolving property law defines my legal relationship with my wife far more than any other factor. The "slippery slope" argument will always be there, but again -- case law, people. Legal Armageddon has been predicted from pretty much every sociological and technical advance in the last two centuries. We've limped along. If you can skate past the idea that it's legal in Georgia for a 60 year old man to have sex with a 16 year old girl but not cool for two 30 year old men to share a life insurance policy -- good for you.

One may oppose gay marriage from a religious standpoint, but one's religious rights are not abridged. If one belongs to a religion which opposes gay marriage, then odds are there will not be any gay marriage in your church. Gay people will not paratroop in and occupy your vestry. You will not have to worship with them, change the personal nature of your relationship to God, or even like them.

Kiernan at Crooked Timber tackles a well-known opponent of gay marriage. This Maggie Gallagher is taking the "marriage is an institution necessary for the functioning of society" road, with the tour bus painted a lovely shade of "and by marriage I'm going to use what marriage has meant legally for the last hundred years or so and blithely pretend that's the tradition stretching back to the dawn of Western Civilization" primer. The engine for this bus will be the ever popular "societies make babies and the best way for society to raise babies is through marriage as it's traditionally defined" -- again, the "tradition" being whatever version of marriage in the history western civilization best fits the argument in each specific paragraph of her essay.

By the way, I have no problem with arguing that children are better off with one parent than two -- although I am reminded of my friend Jeff Rothpan's joke: "My parents stayed together for the sake of the children. Thank God, because there's nothing better for children than fifteen years of screaming, spite and death threats." No, to take a detour for a moment, my bone to pick with the above concept is that as a married couple with no children, my wife and I are are in this argument's throes a de facto gay couple. Indeed, by that logic there's no real reason for us to be married at all -- and if your argument is meant to encourage marriage, you've rather shot yourself in the foot, eh? I will, however, accept my role as some sort of cultural fringe benefit in the main battle of breeding, and try not to unravel society too much as I dump enormous amounts of tax money into a system for other peoples' children's benefits, and take no parallel benefits of my own. Oh, and by the way, you're goddam welcome.

But accepting the basis of her argument before Ms. Gallagher mangles it in the sales job, let's say I spot her: marriage is a Very Important Institution, and we'll even spot her the why based on whatever shambling argument she constructs. But if one's argument is that Marriage is "under attack", then I would argue --as Kiernan does -- that no-fault divorce and the cultural acceptance of divorce is a far more devastating "attack" on marriage.

If we want marriage to continue as a viable societal tradition, then we have to teach our young 'uns that marriage has value -- but how are we to do this when their role models treat marriage so shabbily? Move past the prevalence of divorce in modern society and look at the glamorization of it by those most craven of cultural beasts -- celebrities. Many very smart people have argued about the nature of "celebrity", but I think we can all agree, part of the nature of fascination with celebrities is that they are rich, they are good-looking, they are famous, they are desired ... as are their lifestyles. And what do their lifestyles say? Divorce is okay. Divorce is nothing more than tabloid fodder as you move onto the next glamorous sex object.

To wit, what makes a stronger impact on the perceived value of marriage as an institution: skads of people lining up desperate to join in it despite great opposition; or people not only discarding their marriages, but discarding multiple marriages as if they were Dunkin' Donut cups? What "attacks" marriage more than people actually dissolving their marriages, often within mere days of entering into that holiest of sacraments?

Look, people, never mind the celebrity divorce boom of the 60's. Kenny Chesney and Renee Zellweger bailing within months, Britney Spears and J-Lo's infamous micro-marriages, The whole Jen/Brad/Angelina affair has risen to mythological proportions ... and now Nick and Jessica's are-they-or-aren't-they ... folks, find me some celebrities who aren't on at least their second marriage.

Logic, that cruelest of mistresses with the pointiest of spanking paddles, has brought us to this point, my friends. When prioritizing our threats against marriage, widespread rejection of the sanctity of marriage by our cultural icons propogated relentlessly through 24/7 media saturation is unarguably a greater threat against marriage's status as a societal value than the efforts of a few thousand malcontent high-school drama teachers standing in lines outside City Hall in two states of the Union.

So how do we stop this cultural plague? Well, we'll never win the fight to just out-and-out outlaw divorce: far too many powerful politicians and pundits depend on it as a way to mark their rise in power and income through progressive wife trade-ins. No, the roundabout solution here is to ban the marriage of celebrities in the first place, to keep them from spreading their disgusting guerilla free-love meme when they eventually, inevitably dissolve these shams perpetrated in the Kabbalah ceremony of their choice. We at Kung Fu Monkey are proud to make the Defense Against Celebrity Marriage Amendment our first political cause.

There is hard work to be done in the planning and implementation of such a Constitutional Amendment, not the least of which being the definition of "celebrity". Countless court challenges, I'm sure, will occur around the fine line between "public figure" and "celebrity". I am suggesting that we trust the private sector to do the work here, as opposed to creating yet another burdensome government department. A simple computer algorithm based around mentions in Us Magazine, People Magazine, Entertainment Tonight, what will eventually be dubbed the "E! Saturation Index", and the ever useful Defamer will move individuals on and off the Non-Celebrity Marriage Eligibility List.

The great thing here is that there's no way the average American will find his rights abridged by this Amendment ... because by definition, a celebrity is not average!

We will begin fund-raising mail-outs soon, followed by focus groups and position polling among the 2006 and 2008 candidates. We look forward to you joining us in our campaign to preserve marriage in America by denying it to other people!


(EDIT: Find something here interesting, amusing, or at least offensive in a a novel way? Toss a buck in the tip jar for the the victims of the Kasmir Earthquake -- Kung Fu Monkey will match every donation! Also, an index of previous articles here.)

39 comments:

Anonymous said...

"We at Kung Fu Monkey are proud to make the Defense Against Celebrity Marriage Amendment our first political cause."

A Nick & Jessica-free supermarket checkstand?!! You talk a brave new world, Huxley and I dig it!

Anonymous said...

But...what do we do about those lucky few who, being married, suddenly find themselves the recipients of Celebritiitis. Will the newly crowned Apprentice be found to be in violation?

Eh, screw it. Throw 'em in jail and use those infalible guidelines to keep them there.

Unknown said...

I believe that in these cases, the celebrities are in effect on probation: They will suffer heavier jail times and fines for their divorces.

ON the plus side, odds are most newly-crowned "Reality TV" Celebrities will only qualify as celebrities for a limited amount of time. If they can hold their marriages together until their fame has faded, then they will be free to divorce with lesser penalty.

Unknown said...

And celebrity is not a crime -- they're just not allowed to get married. Much as we've decriminalized gayosity (the rarely used scientific term) but still forbid gays from corrupting marriage.

You bring up a good point, however, that without some sort of criminal prosecution option this amendment will lack teeth.

Anonymous said...

I love the thought of gay paratroopers landing on a church, all dressed up like a wedding party. They could even use those paratrooper crates to drop the cake and buffet table.

Also, any law that punishes celebrities for their fame is a-okay with me. I'm also in favor of outlawing People magazine.

Unknown said...

people. we're not criminalizing celebrity. That would be discrimination. We're simply not allowing them to get married for the greater good of society.

Hawise said...

The Non-Celebrity Marriage Eligibility List means that all "average" people would have to consent to be on a list that says that they are not famous. How do we deal with people who want to be off the list because they cannot handle their non-celebritiness? Yes, we can just deny them the right to marriage because of their wrong-headedness but that does not really make them celebrities. The other problem is that the loss of the right to marriage does not actually prevent celebrities from breeding. Until we can deal with the threat of daft celebrity children, then we have not really solved the threat to society problem.

Anonymous said...

On the topic of celebrity children, when did babies and/or small children become fashion accesories? Celebrities adopting children just because it's "in" right now should be forced to raise them without the aid of a platoon of nannies, nurses, and tutors. I can at least respect those celebs that chose to get pregnant and carry to term and go through the hassles of childbirth did it to and for themselves. They've got the scars and the stretchmarks and the genetic responsibility for how the kid turns out.
As for celebrities having kids, how else will they perpetuate their species? Where would Hollywood be without the Barrymores and the Douglases and the Bridges and all the others? Hollywood would become totally dependant upon immigration of new talent and celebrities from outside the hallowed grounds. Besides, the children of movie stars are powerful in their own right. Look at Angelina Jolie's kid - he's credite with breaking up Brad and Jenn's marriage! Who knows what Baby Holmes-Cruise will be capable of by the time he/she/it emerges??????
(my recommendation - let celebrities reproduce - as long as the resulting child has a public DNA record proving the maternity and paternity of the child)

Julie Goes to Hollywood said...

I say we let celebs marry, they just have to run it by the folks at Conan O'Brien before they procreate. Has anyone seen that Tom/Katie baby picture going around? Scay-ree.

Jo Gerrard said...

I can name one celebrity couple who haven't divorced: Simon and Yasmin LeBon.

Otherwise, I absolutely agree with you. I don't understand the cult of celebrity to begin with.

Geoff Thorne said...

"I don't understand the cult of celebrity to begin with. "

Well, for starters, most of them taste like chocolate.

Anonymous said...

other long-term marriages: Paul Newman and Joann Woodward, Meryl Streep and her husband (no clue who he is)Note that these people DO NOT usually end up as tabloid fodder!!

RB Ripley said...

Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1: The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

Anonymous said...

Yea! Sign me up. I cannot tell a celebrity from a soccer mom anymore but I can sure make some cookies for the fundraising bake sale.

Anonymous said...

I must bow to your awesome insight and superior irony.

This is a GREAT concept.

But, if could just spare a moment to check my modest little post about Christian Scientist pharmacists being allowed, on moral grounds, to get paid for doing no work at all, I would be most pleased.

Anonymous said...

I'm fine with gay people getting married, since it doesn't really affect me. I just hope that when I get married someday, my marriage certificate says "Man + Woman = REAL Marriage" ;)

Addison said...

I think we should have one clause that makes it a crime for anyone to marry Britney Spears, so that Kevin Federline goes to max security prison and ends up being the "pass around boy"on cell block 14

Anonymous said...

I don't understand the cult of celebrity to begin with.

When I used to buy "Photplay" magazines in the 50s and 60s it was harmless. Now I too can't figure out why we give a damn.

I'm thinking they should not have children. The children will be confused & damaged because they will look nothing like mommie or daddy. (Unless cosmetic surgery in vitro is available.)

Anonymous said...

your point of gay marriage doesn't make much sense. Just because something doesn't affect you does not in fact make it okay. If you live in New York, and someone in California murders other people in California, that doesn't change your lifestyle, taxes, or anything. But it is completely immoral and wrong nonetheless.

Unknown said...

your point of gay marriage doesn't make much sense. Just because something doesn't affect you does not in fact make it okay. If you live in New York, and someone in California murders other people in California, that doesn't change your lifestyle, taxes, or anything. But it is completely immoral and wrong nonetheless. -- mandi

And that is possibly the piss-poorest analogy I've ever seen. The murderer in California has abridged the rights of the people in California -- fatally so. And so he will be punished according to the laws of that community. No, he didn't affect me -- that's why he won't be prosecuted for my murder. Jesus, I can instantly,in your example, point to the crime, the criminal and most of all the affected party. What is immoral and wrong has never been my argument. As a matter of fact, you can go back through my writings on this and you'll notice I never explictly state whether I morally agree with the idea that out homosexuals are leading a moral life or gay marriage. Whether I think these ideas are "okay" (The answers are, by the way, "of course", and "don't be an idiot, come join us in the 21st Century", but that's not the point)

I'm not arguing whether something is "okay" or "immoral". I'm arguing whether it should be legal. And that fact that blows your mind means, frankly, your western democracy kung fu is not strong.

Of course murder is immoral and wrong. I am not arguing about what is moral or immoral. You know why? Because deciding what's moral and immoral is not the government's job. We have many other things which are immoral and wrong (by many people's standards) which are not considered crimes and are not prosecuted. Your error is in not understanding that "immoral" and "wrong", if you mean "wrong" in the legal sense, are not the same damn thing.

One might argue that the state's function is to consider what a community considers moral and immoral, and draw the line as to what within that is both a.) practically enforceable and b.) enforceable within the greater framework of freedom and individual rights -- ideas that have also descended from common morality.

Murder is something that is both immoral -- universally considered so -- and also affects other citizens, i.e. the victims. But what about the death penalty? The State in that case has decided that in order to punish immorality, it will commit an immoral act, and when the State does so, it's okay. What about gambling? Widely considered immoral, but the law allows mechanisms of the State to use gambling to raise revenue. Divorce, according to the Bible, is monstrously immoral. (although smart biblical folk argue those statements are more about repudiation, but you can go wikipedia that shit up)

What it boils down to is -- immoral by whose standard? By some people's standard, dancing is immoral. By others, blasphemy. Hell, Sunday shopping blows out the Fourth Commandment, and the Second Commandment can easily fit orthodox Islam's idea that there should be no pictures of people, no art representative of people -- might I add, the entire Jesus-as-art/good luck charm industry in the United States would be destroyed. Go to any money-lenders for your home mortgage?

You know, I don't have the time to basically school anyone in the history of the evolution of individual rights and the separation of Church and State, all of which led to the governmental/legal system we have now. But what my argument boils down to -- and, pardon my annoyance, if you read a single fucking history book or the original writings of the Founding Fathers instead of whatever "This here's a Judeo-Christian nation" radio show or talking point memo you're basing your thought on, you'd understand that the way these fine men, building on the very smart ideas of several hundred years of other very smart men, resolved this issue was by setting out rights which they deemed universal, derived from but ultimately independent of common religious morality.

You can argue that homosexuality is wrong or immoral all you want. Feel free. As I emntioned before, I particularly like all the time Jesus spends on divorce, myself. But in theory, the State is faced with a dilemma -- we have conflicting moralities, you and I, and it must run a society comprising us both. The mechanism by which it (should do) does so is through laws and rights, leading to an idea of what protects the common good while respecting both your individual freedoms and mine.

This, by the way, is why as I said the whole "damage to society (common good)" argument is the best yet still fatally weak reason one can wield against gay marriage. There are many studies implying that the dissolution of marriages are bad for society -- but seeing as there is no link between gay folk getting married and divorce, you know, because we actually haven't had gay marriage, you immediately skate onto thin ice within that linkage. At that point, every commentator starts a guessing game, weighing their own definitions of society and their own ideas of what influences weigh most heavily on that society. For example, I think that poverty is far more destructive than gay marriage in society. I am in favor of anti-poverty measures by the government, and some conservative commentators can make a damn fine argument that that's hypocrisy. However, the government also has the responsibility to keep the State financially healthy and viable, so -- never mind, I'm doing that two-topic split I swore I wouldn't do anymore. Back to the point at hand ...

And once we're in the guessing game, the law must revert to weighing rights. This, by the way, is the other massive flaw in your argument -- the government is in the business of enforcing your rights, not your beliefs. c.f. Fareed Zakariah, what you think of as Western Democracy is actually a system that protects the rights of minorities from the beliefs of the majority. This is why we have three branches of government --

oh, Christ Weary, I am tired of typing this discussion for the thousandth time. I'm not going to change your mind. You won't realize that your own personal morality is entangled the rights and freedoms of others, and the same mechanism which protects your precious rights and freedoms protects theirs. Just go read the Federalist papers, some biographies of Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin, pound your way through Zakariah's book, and then wander back here. Your Kung Fu is not yet strong.

Unknown said...

In retropspect, I realize my support for gay marriage my come off as a bit legalistic. I personally think gay marriage is highly moral. Anyone who is willing to make the effort to engage in and do the work to stay in a committed, monogamous relationship is adding value in uncountable ways to the fabric of society. Just wanted to make that clear.

Anonymous said...

See Canada.

Anonymous said...

Thank you.

Anonymous said...

Rogers,
sadly, speaking truth to those who blindly follow is like fighting the marshmallow man. The blows land yet do not tell, only leaving you sticky and tired. Better to let their own "higer power" use a flamethrower on them to cleanse the planet.

Anonymous said...

Brilliant!

Especially the examples others posted as supposedly long-term celebrity couples. Some of those are well-known to be marriages of convenience. Sorry to jade you on gorgeous, glossy Hollywood.

Anonymous said...

What I'd say is an attack against marriage, that does potentially affect the legal status of other marriages, is the misnamed Defense of Marriage Act. Establishing a principle that even if a marriage is legal in one state, other states and the federal government can refuse to recognize it, makes marriage local rather than universal, where you potentially don't even need a divorce, you just need to cross a state line to not be considered married.

Anonymous said...

And since we are supposed to recognize other states' marriages (full faith and credit...), shouldn't passing a law that says we don't have to recognize them, actually break up the USofA into 50 independent countries?

Anonymous said...

Nah, it'd just be an unconstitutional law that would probably stay on the books until we could throw together a Supreme Court moderate enough to see it for the shit it is and throw it out.

Anonymous said...

We all say that there's no really good celebrity websites, but all of us read them!!!

Unknown said...

自動車保険
派遣会社
派遣
自動車保険 比較
アクサダイレクト
ゼネラリ
チューリッヒ
自動車 保険 見積
高知 不動産
徳島 不動産
松山市 不動産
香川県 不動産
高松 不動産

Unknown said...

フランチャイズ
ダイビングショップ
障害者
24そんぽ24
アメリカンホームダイレクト
人権問題
水虫
派遣会社
三井ダイレクト
募金
スニーカー
盲導犬

Anonymous said...

データ復旧
データ復旧
データ復旧
ショッピング枠 現金化
横浜 賃貸
データ復旧

Anonymous said...

吉原 ソープ今までの吉原にはまったくない、新しい吉原 ソープのお店です。お客様に提供するのは、究極の癒しとリラクゼーションです。今まで吉原 ソープに縁の無かったお客様のニーズにお応えします。

Anonymous said...

勃起薬威龍 ,勃起薬,勃起,威龍 勃起機能低下,インポ,精力剤 ,カマグラ,Max,MAX,マックス

Anonymous said...

熟女熟女好き、お母さんフェチの方必見。徹底的にお母さんの日常にこだわったアダルトサイトであなたの欲望を叶えます熟女, フェチ, 動画,熟女 ,お母さん

Anonymous said...

男性下着 のことならプロパガンダ。他にも男性下着 、ビキニ、男性下着 、トランクスからセクシー系まで男性下着 のことならお任せください。"男性下着 のことならプロパガンダ。他にも男性下着 、ビキニ、男性下着 、トランクスからセクシー系まで男性下着 のことならお任せください。"男性下着 のことならプロパガンダ。他にも男性下着 、ビキニ、男性下着 、トランクスからセクシー系まで男性下着 のことならお任せください。"男性下着 のことならプロパガンダ。他にも男性下着 、ビキニ、男性下着 、トランクスからセクシー系まで男性下着 のことならお任せください。"男性下着 のことならプロパガンダ。他にも男性下着 、ビキニ、男性下着 、トランクスからセクシー系まで男性下着 のことならお任せください。"男性下着 のことならプロパガンダ。他にも男性下着 、ビキニ、男性下着 、トランクスからセクシー系まで男性下着 のことならお任せください。"男性下着 のことならプロパガンダ。他にも男性下着 、ビキニ、男性下着 、トランクスからセクシー系まで男性下着 のことならお任せください。"

Anonymous said...

勃起薬勃起不全, 勃起薬,勃起, 勃起薬勃起機能低下, インポ,精勃起薬,カ勃起薬ラ,M勃起薬AX,マッ勃起薬勃起薬勃起不全, 勃起薬,勃起, 勃起薬勃起機能低下, インポ,精勃起薬,カ勃起薬ラ,M勃起薬AX,マッ勃起薬勃起薬勃起不全, 勃起薬,勃起, 勃起薬勃起機能低下, インポ,精勃起薬,カ勃起薬ラ,M勃起薬AX,マッ勃起薬勃起薬勃起不全, 勃起薬,勃起, 勃起薬勃起機能低下, インポ,精勃起薬,カ勃起薬ラ,M勃起薬AX,マッ勃起薬勃起薬勃起不全, 勃起薬,勃起, 勃起薬勃起機能低下, インポ,精勃起薬,カ勃起薬ラ,M勃起薬AX,マッ勃起薬

Unknown said...

知多半島 温泉
知多半島 旅館
埼玉 不動産
三井ダイレクト
カラーコンタクト
カーボンオフセット
コンタクトレンズ
クレジットカード 海外旅行保険
ゼネラリ
広島 不動産
お見合いパーティー
募金
成長ホルモン
香川県 不動産
松山市 不動産
不動産 広島
広島 不動産
人権問題
高知 不動産
徳島 不動産
高松 不動産

Anonymous said...

зеленый лазер
электрошокер
товары мини камеры
товары народного потребления