An Open Letter to the Supreme Court

Share

bizarro 05-03-13GayAirplaneWEBTry as I might to stay out of politics in my comics, some issues just grab me by the throat and force my hand. This is one such issue.

No matter how long I live I don’t think I’ll ever understand why anyone cares who anyone else marries.

Personally, I don’t think the government should be involved in marriage issues whatsoever. Marriage should be left to the individuals entering into it: a civil contract, an agreement on a handshake, a religious ceremony if you like, a costume party in the woods, whatever makes sense to the people doing it. But the government’s interest in the institution is entirely misplaced in this day and age. Why do married people get tax breaks, special treatment from hospitals and insurance companies, or any special treatment at all from anyone, unless the powers-that-be are trying to direct and control society to their own end? We know from history that this never turns out well for the rest of us.

Some would say that family arrangements outside of two heterosexuals legally bound to each other for life work to erode society but there is no evidence of this in the real world. Families consist (and have always consisted) of virtually every combination of people, places, and things that one can imagine, and yet the world has not spiraled into chaos as a result. Children need loving adults in their lives, as many as they can get, and never does it occur to them to ask what kind of thingy the people who care for them have between their legs.

Outside of the archaic and fearful “rules” of certain religions, there are no logical objections to an all-inclusive attitude toward marriage. And religious notions are not something America is supposed to be legislating.

So if the government is going to keep their grimy hands in the marriage business, they must open the institution to anyone willing to pay the price of admission. Anything else would be a transparent attempt to control the direction of the human race, which is as futile as attempting to control the weather. (Although we’ve had some luck controlling the climate, and look where that’s gotten us.)

Share

73 thoughts on “An Open Letter to the Supreme Court

    • For some reason the expression “basic human rights” means something different in the Excited States than it does everywhere else on earth.

  1. Damn straight!….(please excuse my bad pun)…..

    same here….I can’t understand why anyone would even give a flying f**k…

  2. We should just mind our own business and let others live their lives. As long as others do not cause me or my family physical harm just let them be.

  3. After the Supremes rule for uniformity across this great nation of ours, I am going to try to change my language. Why am I so inclined to label only the people different from me? So often I refer to people by their differences from me. I point out, “… and in a same-sex marriage… this black guy I know… they are quite a bit older…”

    If I want to keep labeling, I need to also say, “… and in a hetero marriage… this white guy I know… they are about my age…”

  4. an issue which raised its ugly head for us today when our church session voted not to allow same sex marriages to occur within our church. The final straw, we did not leave this church as it has been leaving us for years. Today we, a heterosexual couple of 47 years, will say goodbye to them.

    • I hope any loss of community you suffer in the pursuit of your ethics is ameliorated through new friends and associates of equal or greater quality.

      Good for you.
      Enjoy your new freedom and make the most of it.

    • Good for you! I too left the Church and its failings after most of my life of feeling uncomfortable. Comfortable and happy now as a Wiccan!

    • There are some flocks who are coming down on the correct side of this issue with open loving arms to all persons no matter who they are. There is an expansion of faith accompanying this sense of inclusion, and not even the major religious organizations can stop it.

  5. Thank you for your words, Dan. It feels like this day and age, a majority of people with a platform of any sort to speak from don’t take advantage of their situation and remain silent on important issues such as this. While I personally believe that the SCOTUS will make the right decision come June, it saddens me that it’s even an issue at all. I agree that the government has no business using religious beliefs to govern our nation but sadly the separation of church and state seems widely seen as a guideline, and not a rule (law!). I am also pro-equality for all people, but I don’t have a visible station or platform from which to contribute my words. Thank you for saying your piece.

  6. Equality is what is claimed but in fact these detractors want dominance. They want other people to believe in the same way they do or punish them if they do not, example Sweet Cakes.

    Now it may be claimed that it isn’t fair and you would be 100% right. However, in my world if life where fair, horses would ride half the time.

    • A wild accusation (dominance) without any reasoning or evidence. Reminds me of the side arguing against marriage EQUALITY in front of the supreme court.

      Nobody is forced to become gay married or perform a same sex marriage and nobody ever will be. Churches are already allowed to discriminate against couples they don’t approve of (e.g, second marriage or cross faith marriage) and this wouldn’t change.

  7. Well spoken, Dan! Why do people always assign their own ugliest human traits to God and then use religion to justify their ugly behavior? If there is a God, they are better than us, more evolved than us. God is not a racist. God is not a sexist. God is not a nationalist. God is not a homophobe. God doesn’t play any petty favoritism games with anyone. My two cents.

  8. Even a civil contract sometimes needs government (court) mediation. Child custody and division of joint property should the union end are the reasons government needs to be involved. But whether that’s a man and a woman, or two men, or two women, is not the reason.

  9. But wait a minute, I heard that legalizing same-sex marriage would result in humans marrying robots and wearing shoes on our head. I for one am not interested in that kind of mixed-up, muddled-up, shook-up world. Sheesh, whatever happened to suppressing your natural urges and loving only who society says you should love and subsequently feeling miserable for your entire life?!

  10. As a Buddhist, humanist and hatter I became ordained in Oklahoma just so I could perform marriage ceremonies for those my state deem unfit to be done by ‘regular’ clergy. As long as they don’t mind being joined by a pagan. As the sister of a now passed away gay sibling I say, get over the sex act and recognize the human beings who love and wish to commit to each other and grant them permission to benefit from all the things hetero couples enjoy. ie….tax, health and death benefits.

  11. The cartoon is unimpeachable. I suspect that those who would prohibit it are also afraid that dreadlocks are catching.

    With respect to the idea that society has no business whatsoever involving itself with marital arrangements, I would remark that I certainly hope you don’t rely on a nod or a handshake in dealing with your publisher(s); and that if you do, you have some way of enforcing the agreement other than jawboning with the publisher(s) as to what the arrangements were. Not everyone is as reasonable, sensible, kind, thrifty, brave, clean, and reverent as we fans are . . .

  12. I totally agree! I think the SCOTUS should deal with other issues then campaign funding (Kill Citizens United) and whom should marry whom.
    Funny that the side that wants government out of their lives seem to be the ones who yell the loudest.

    • It seems obvious to me that the right only want government out of their lives when it comes to money. They want to control us in just about every other way.

  13. Well said!!
    With all the problems we are having today, one would think that there are more important things for them to worry about.

  14. Very apt cartoon. Unimpeachably logical.

    Fear of contagion may be driving a lot of the nonsense proposed by legislators. In Louisiana, we actually had a legislative resolution to have the women on the Supreme Court recuse themselves from the case!

    As to society’s involvement in the consequences of marriage, children, divorce, etc. – I hope you aren’t relying on a genial nod and handshake with regard to your arrangement with your publisher(s) . . .

  15. Four sentiences and my point is proven. Not a record.

    Some history, in the past 20 years; I have own, written, moderated and managed a dozen or so Website/blogs. [ref] http://www.ridersusa.net/ and http://coxmeadows.org/.

    Never have I never not allow a post because I disagreed with that persons opinion. I have seen pejoratives, threats, DoS attacks, false police reports file against me, drug through the mud in trash “newspapers,” and more. All of which I dealt with accordantly. The only reasons for not posting a post of an opinion not agreed with are fear, hatred or hypocrisy.

    I’m not going to the benefit of the doubt, you are a hypocrite. That makes your opinion piece not worth the time to read And I wish I could get that time back.

    • I’m not sure what you’re talking about, Kevin, but I assume you’re upset that your comment didn’t appear on my site quickly enough. To disarm “trolls,” I mediate all of the comments before posting them. I don’t check the site daily, as I should, so many sit around for a while before posting. But I do post them all.

  16. Well said. I agree completely. I live in the middle of the bible belt & get so frustrated by people who claim that same-sex marriage will somehow hurt their “traditional” marriages.

  17. “Families consist (and have always consisted) of virtually every combination of people, places, and things that one can imagine, and yet the world has not spiraled into chaos as a result.”

    It appears that you have not seen the videos of the Baltimore riots.

  18. Right on! I’ve never understand why anyone cares either. I think it just serves as a distraction for people who don’t want to deal with their own stuff. With all the things going on in the world that should truly have us concerned and involved – that have victims, that we’re contributing to, that directly affect our well-being, etc – I think SCOTUS should issue a unanimous decision that reads simply, “We, who are paid to be judgmental, have decided that this is none of our business. None of yours, either. Now quit wasting our time with this petty, prurient crap and go do something useful and kind. Like going vegan.” (A girl can dream!) :-)

  19. Well, you do have a little libertarian in you, Dan. Now here’s hoping you can go all the way and no longer act like a holier-than-thou liberal dickbag.

  20. The Supreme Court has it because we don’t live in a democracy. Our form of government lays out a systematic process for the people to obtain answers for their grievances.

  21. Property, inheiritance, who makes decisions for you when you can’t do so – government *does* have a legitimate interest in those issues. Marriage is seen a generally stabilizing institution in society, and the government has a legitimate interest in social stability.

    That said …. why the secular government should base decisions about who gets secular tax benefits and secular legal protections on religious principles held (fervently) by a minority of the population is beyond me.

  22. Dan…. ever since you gave me permission to share your “Chicken taking Survey on McNuggets” cartoon I’ve been a HUGE fan of yours!!

    Your letter of permission shared some small bit of relevant personal background which I found most affirmative and explicated much of your wit, tenacity, insight, and ethics.

    Keep on keepin’ on. Thanks for being who you are.

  23. Why should we care who marries who….in fact why should anyone even get married….can anyone explain the point of that other than selfishness and a possible tax write off…which still seems a little self centered……what is the point of getting married? Why would a same sex relationship want to emulate heterosexuals is beyond me although “Gay Divorce Court” would be the most watched thing on tv by same sex and heterosexuals….pass the popcorn! :-)

  24. This cartoon would also work just as well if the text was something a person at a weeding were saying. Last time I checked, marriages don’t happen at all in nature! But who knows, maybe in the future some squirrels will evolve and do that stupid thing too.

  25. One of my favorite sayings, as an atheist, is as follows:
    How many more gay people does God have to make before we get the clue that He wants them around?

  26. Well done, Dan! You may not realise it, but your cartoons are very popular and you’re something of a public figure. Your attitude and support are not only welcomed, but will have a wider impact than you probably expect. It’s time religion and State to be completely separated in order for real equality to be achieved regardless of gender, beliefs, orientation and race

  27. Most of the opposition, like mine, comes from supporting civil unions but not calling them marriage, which means something else, in particular it covers the way that man/woman relationships succeed or fail (both).

    Let gays get their own word for it, and everything’s cool.

    I’d imagine most every baker, photographer or florist would serve a gay civil union, as they would a birthday party. It would no longer corrupt the work they feel a need to protect.

    It’s an anti-orwellian position.

    As to equality, it’s already equal. Anybody can marry anybody of the opposite sex, gay or not.

    Polygamy, incidentally, is not legal but is recognized to be marriage. It falls under the word. The wives are married to the husband, not to each other.

    The word knows its way.

    • So, If I understand you correctly, by not calling the voluntary union of two loving people of the same sex a ‘marriage’, one is somehow ‘protecting’ an institution which can survive ‘marriages’ where one of the partners is physically abusive, ‘marriages’ entered into for purely mercenary motives or for immigration purposes, ‘marriages’ entered into through coercion…. Etc etc? As Shakespeare said, “what’s in a name?”

  28. Well Said! If Government is going to be involved in Marriage, as they seem determined to be, they need to allow all forms of marriage.

  29. I never understood the “gay marriage will destroy traditional marriage” argument: i simply dismissed it out of hand as pure garbage.

    This week Ruth Bader Ginsburg explained it to me…
    {link}: http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/apr/28/ruth-bader-ginsburg-gay-marriage-arguments-supreme-court

    Basically, if we accept gay marriage, the idea of the traditional marriage of one man & one subservient woman will be gone: women will have to serve in the role of men & verse-vice-a {hence equal…oh the HORROR}.

    It’s the same cultural attitude of gender inequality that killed the ERA {written in 1923, ‘killed’ by a-holes in 1980}.

  30. Evolution hurts! Looks like some of the elected (and unlected) ones are hard at work trying to dodge evolution.

    “Don’t you boys know any nice songs?”
    – Frank Zappa

  31. “…just grab me by the throat and force my hand.”

    Weren’t you afraid of putting your foot in your mouth by writing that?

    • I’m libertarian when it comes to personal freedoms, but not in the field of economics. I’m much more of a socialist of the European/Canadian style.

Leave a Reply

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