Quantcast
5

Marriage in Maryland.

Posted by Viktoria Michaelis on January 23, 2011 in News & Opinion |

It’s amazing how some people are capable of twisting something completely out of proportion, and keeping a straight face while doing it. I sometimes wonder whether these people, and they come from all walks of life, actually believe what they say, or if there is some form of mechanism which cuts off commonsense and basic intelligence when they start spouting their opinions.

A few days ago I had a visit from the Jehovah’s Witnesses, two of them standing in my doorway trying to tell me that I should live my life according to the Bible and that it is God’s word and so on. Now, I have nothing against people holding their own beliefs, but please, don’t try selling them to me. We can hold a conversation for half an hour, as we did in this case, and I can denigrate each and every argument down to the bitter truth even while knowing that whatever I say goes in one ear and out another.

But when people start twisting things completely out of proportion, attempting to employ scare tactics to achieve their aims by misrepresenting something fully, then my hackles start to rise. I’m just glad I wasn’t there when all the – now shown as – lies were propounded in our American living rooms, under oath no less, about why we should begin the first Gulf War. I would have been screaming at the television and all those high-minded officials with their lies and distortions – which is probably one of the many reasons why I don’t have a television.

And now I get to read about a group of people calling themselves Protect Marriage Maryland. I can understand why people might be against same-sex marriages, but is there any reason to so distort the truth? Here’s an extract:

[…] Maryland Family Law §2-20 [which] states that “Only a marriage between a man and a woman is valid in this State.” The following sections go on to state that “A man may not marry his: grandmother; mother; daughter; sister; or granddaughter,” and that “A woman may not marry her: grandfather; father; son; brother; or grandson,” nor may they marry their in-laws, nieces, nephews, or similar family relations by marriage” […]

That’s all well and good, a straight quote out of the law books. But then we get this:

All of this will be threatened if the marriage law is changed to benefit one small but vocal and well-funded sexual minority.

So, what they are claiming is: if a man is allowed to marry a man, or a woman allowed to marry a woman in Maryland, everyone else will be able to marry their grandmother, their niece, their father …

Now, some people may call me naive and in some things I am quite naive, but I cannot for the life of me imagine how a change in the law to accept same-sex marriages is going to change the laws on marrying relatives. I’m sure that the politicians involved have had their morning coffee, even jogged a few rounds in the park, and are awake enough to realise that such an amendment isn’t going to get through. Is there a proposal to allow a son to marry his father, or a daughter even? I can’t visualize it at all.

What I do see are a group of nameless people who are scaremongering by taking a clearly defined law and twisting a potential amendment to that law completely out of proportion. How many marriages between close relatives have there been in States which have already amended their marriage laws? Where is the basis for their concern?

To be honest, I’d rather argue over religion and beliefs on my doorstep than come across such a small-minded, socially closed and intellectually limited group face to face.

Love & Kisses, Viki.

Tags: , , , , ,

5 Comments

  • Francois Demers says:

    Even the quoted law is shaky : “or similar family relations”. Similar is legally useless: my DNA is 98% chimpanzee, close enough to marry Peppe at the zoo, also close enough to make it incestuous, depending on the judge’s opinion. One human male in ten on this planet is a direct descendant of Genghis Khan… Lots and lots of inbreeding must be going on.

    Same gender marriage = more revenue for the state. Why not?

    Jehovah’s Witnesses at my door. If I am not in the mood, I pretend I do not speak Ukrainian or Russian and entertain them by speaking French. If I am in the mood, I get them in, serve them tea and after ten minutes, I explain I am a Satanist and that they just drank from cups ritually consecrated during a black mass with a Christian baby’s blood. Absolutely deadpan delivery: I should take pictures of their faces…

    • viki says:

      We can go still further back: Adam and Eve were the first man and woman, according to the old Testament. They had children and these children had children – and so on – but the first generation after Adam and Eve must have procreated through an incestuous relationship, since there were no other humans about …

  • Francois Demers says:

    6 Genesis, 1:4 no incest there. Also, there is nothing in Genesis that says Adam and Eve were the only humans created, just the first.

    Eve was created from Adam’s rib: procreation through masturbation; who says the Bible does not hold the answer to all questions?

  • Patrick Tigri says:

    This is not only politics, it’s politics politics. These Protect Marriage guys know that their argument is laughable, but they count on the naive citizen who just believes it. And the tactics work.

  • Katharina says:

    federal law overrides state law and the supreme court’s decision to overthrow california’s proposition 8 because it violates the us constitution well force states to adjust their marriage laws accordingly in order to comply with civil rights.

    Mr Tigri, what the heck is politics politics. you know zilch about america and it’s legal framework. so. if you attempt to find a date, try on a swiss blog and not here.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2010-2017 Viktoria Michaelis All rights reserved.
This site is using the Desk Mess Mirrored theme, v2.5, from BuyNowShop.com.

error: Content is protected !!