481 – The Lizard King: 08

481

Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Iowa (!) all have now legalized gay marriage. On the 1st of September, Vermont will join them. Iowa and Vermont are of particular importance as their legalization was achieved through legislative, rather than judicial means. This means it has been formally written into law, and cannot be as easily overturned. 

The federal government is not allowed to recognize any marriage that does not consist of one man and one woman. This is because the ocular sensors of the federal government depend on penises ejaculating into vaginas in order to see. Penises ejaculating into buttholes confuse the federal government’s eyes and cause it to shamble about like a drunk dog with it’s two front legs taped together. (The original eyes of the federal government were replaced in 1996 by the Defense of Marriage Act.)

This is much like the situation pre-1967 when the federal government could not recognize interracial marriages. (Back then the penis and the vagina had to be the same color or the eyes would lose track of the darker one. They eventually got special glasses.) 

The federal government is very concerned about who you put your penises into, and who’s penises you let inside you. The federal government is doing this out of a concern for your well-being, and a general sense of goodness. You can even take heart in knowing that the federal government knows best about your penis and/or vagina, given their previous stances on interracial marriage and women’s rights, which were both based on the exact same arguments as this issue.

Breaking News!

(Thanks, Ron!)

Maine just signed a bill into law allowing gay marriage, and New Hampshire legislators are immediately before sending a bill to their governor, who hasn’t revealed his intentions yet. Yay Maine!

19 Responses to 481 – The Lizard King: 08

  1. I love your blogs Kevin. You’re always so well informed about the gov’t and their views on our penises/vaginas. I love the comic. As a gm I always have to laugh when someone jumps in and kills someone else’s monster/minion right out from under them. Especially when the dice start flying.

  2. Funny stuff Sabremeister.

    As a recovering homophobe, I have to say that the gay rights movement will continue to gain strength. If a stubborn, conservative lad, like me – who was taught from birth that homosexuality was aberrant and sick – can come around, eventually the federal government will too.

  3. Ron! That’s so sweet! You make me want to cry. (In a good way.)

    In similar news, Americans in general have moved towards approving of gay marriage from 33% to 49% in just the past three years, and the GOP has run away from it as a wedge issue. (Perhaps sensing themselves on the wrong side of the wedge. I say good for them.) It seems a clearly moving tide.

    @Sabremeister: that was awesome. I think it was all hysterical… except maybe the bit about Bushes’ daughters — though I take his point. (Not completely sure I agree though. I can see W. wanting to keep and be granddad to any baby, and I don’t think he’d be willing to ditch that kid because of it’s father’s crimes. My feel of the man is that if his daughter didn’t want the baby, he and Laura would. Not defending the way he ran the country of course, but I can see W. as being a really fun granddad.)

  4. @Kevin Re: Iowa and Vermont being “formally written into law, and cannot be as easily overturned”, sadly that’s not quite true. In Vermont the law was written, promoted and basically “rammed through” (stop it, that’s not a pun) with very little debate, and virtually no “citizen” input. So, instead of a few judges deciding the issue, a few legislators did. Given that the Governor was against it, it wouldn’t take much for a very vocal group of conservative legislators to do the reverse. I seriously doubt that happening in the oh-so-blue legislature of Vermont (Iowa is probably much more likely), but still – it was really the work of a few dozen, not the whole state. Personally, I’m OK with the law itself, but the “way” in which the process was done irks me – and definitely gives ammunition to the detractors who say it was “shoved down our throats” (yeah, yeah, I know).

    As a side note, what about hermaphrodites? If a marriage has to be between one penis and one vagina, who can someone who already has both marry?

  5. @Kroneg: I guess under the eyes of the Feds, they can always marry eunuchs. The great thing there would be that they would have a loophole in that they could then marry as many eunuchs as they wanted since, technically, there is still only one penis and one vagina in the marriage.

  6. Call me an ass if you want, but I don’t believe gays should have the right to marry. I fully support civil unions, which SHOULD give them every benefit (and penalty) that marriage does, but in my eyes marriage is a religious ceremony.

    Yes, it’s an old fashioned view, but not everything old is bad.

  7. @Ed: You bring up a good point. Which is why some believe that the government should ONLY recognize civil unions – leaving the actual religious ceremony of marriage to be a private matter between you, your spouse and your god. Some might even argue that it’s a violation of the division of church and state for the government to assign any legal standing to the religious ceremony of marriage.

  8. @Ed: What an ass! (Totally kidding!) As the ever-thoughtful Ron points out, the problem with this is that our very secular government calls it marriage, and attaches a bunch of legal hoo-ha to it. (Therefore it is fact very much a legal ceremony, and not just a religious one.) Now if we changed all of the legal language to “Civil Union” and then whatever churches wanted to could call it “Marriage”… no, that wouldn’t work either. What about gay churches who wanted to call their unions marriage?

    In the end, it really comes down to the fact that no one can own a word, and you can’t make it mean a thing just because you really want it to. I can call my marriage a raspberry creme pie and there ain’t nuthin’ nobody can do about it… and in fact it would be a legal raspberry creme pie with all the benefits and associations attached to any other non-raspberry creme pie marriage in the nation. AND, it would be a raspberry creme pie most pointedly NOT religious in ANY sense of the word, because I am an atheist! (Or a non-religious marriage… which is closer to the point.)

    Basically, what you are advocating for Ed, is that people of a particular belief set should be allowed to dictate the grammar of people outside of their belief set based on beliefs not shared by those people. It would be exactly like me saying that Christians shouldn’t be allowed to say “god,” and should be forced to call him “the invisible man in the sky.” Well I’m not a Christian, so my opinion doesn’t count.

    Now you could argue that by that logic my opinion doesn’t count on what to call gay marriage either, since I am not gay, and you would be absolutely correct. It doesn’t. My point however is that my opinion doesn’t count in exactly the same way that yours doesn’t.

    (Though it is still entertaining to chat about. Especially when you’re wrong.) 😉

  9. You had me at “penises ejaculating”… as is the blood from the victim’s neck. Coincidence? I think not you little pervert you! 🙂

    It is ALL about legal issues, not religious. But our uptight government officials can’t stand having “penises ejaculating” anywhere but where “God intended” it. Oh yeah? Then why did he give women mouths? Just ask Bill Clinton…

    I’m stopping now as I’m getting faint…

  10. I think Ed has a point, to a point. Marriage used to be a religious thing, but nowadays in America anyway, it’s more of a government form than a ceremony. My marriage was hardly a religious affair. The guy who performed the ceremony was an atheist. Neither I nor my wife are religious and I’m leaving it up to my kids to make up their own minds so our marriage isn’t exactly based around God. We did however have to pay the fees and sign the papers to send to the government so we could be legally married in the eyes of the state of Oregon. Far as I’m concerned gays have the same rights as anyone else to marry, so long as they can pay the fines and sign their names.

  11. Agreed.

    Personally, I’m with Slick from the old Sinfest comic. I’m okay with gay marriage, because ALL marrige is pretty gay.

    You wanna stay with someone for the rest of your life? Fine, you do that. I don’t care if they’re teh same gender or diffrent from you.

    You wanna give someone the ability to visit you in the emergency room, default to a power of attorney, and get a tax break with you? Fine, whatever.

    You wanna dress up in silly outfits, and recite a bunch of words in a big building with a giant plus sign up front? I’m fine with that too, just quit waving that damn ring in my face.

  12. Bah. Ruin perfectly good relationships by shackling yourself to a ring eh? Whatever.

    Hey, did you hear about the taxpayer funded study to determine what effect drinking has on “risky behavior?”

    Yah, let’s spend millions of dollars to determine that getting drunk makes you do stupid stuff.

  13. Guys? Marriage has -always- been both a civil and a religious institution… Notice there’s no actual definition in the Bible of what constitutes a marriage? The implication is pretty strong that people were assumed to know what was being referred to, which implies heavily that the concept existed outside of religious conventions even as far back as almost six thousand years ago. And as far as the problem coming down to a matter of definitions and who gets to determine what those definitions are, well… This is a problem that is going to exist as long as people are using language to communicate. People tend, just by our nature, to define things in our own minds, and when we hear others use the word assume they mean the same things we do when we use it. In general in society, the meanings people have in their own minds overlap with other people’s definitions enough that this works. Some things, though, have radically different definitions to different groups: things like “peace”, “love”, “tolerance”, “marriage”… even “law” and “homophobia”.

    And I’m going to stop for now because my ADD chose to activate, and I totally lost my thought. I’ll be back later, when the pretty shiny thing has gone away…

  14. @Sabremeister That was a GREAT video. LOL.

    Heh. Heh. Kro said “rammed”.

    All this discussion is really great. I’ve enjoyed reading everyone’s take.

  15. Technically, what he just done is no good or lawful. Honestly, what DM don’t punish that ?