Sunday, April 5, 2009

Et tu, Iowa?

So, Iowa now has gay "marriage", eh? If such a wholesome piece of the nation's heartland has gay "marriage", the other states will fall like dominoes, and soon this will be the United States of San Francisco. That's the conventional wisdom, at least. Actually, this country was doomed to have gay "marriage" ever since the fateful Supreme Court Decision in Griswold v. Connecticut, nearly forty-five years ago. If it is perfectly legal to have deliberately sterile sexual intercourse, then one can have no legal objection to gay "marriage. It is that simple. The legalization of the condom and The Pill leads ineluctably to the acceptance of barren homosexual acts.

Now, what I want to know is this: With the legalization of gay "marriage", what will now be the legal definition of consummation? If Lesbian Couples do not use a strap-on at least once, will their "marriages" be considered null and void? Or will heterosexual couples now be able to consummate their marriages with buggery? Or simply with strategic licking? Or by holding hands at a production of My Fair Lady?

One could say, I guess, that consummation will be defined according to the nature of the couple's "love". Vaginal intercourse for heterosexuals, anal intercourse for gay men, and cunnilingus or, perhaps, fisting for Lesbians. But if that's the case, wouldn't that undermine the chief argument for gay "marriage", namely that the government has no business whatsoever defining something as intimate and private as Romantic Love?

It's really quite simple. If "love" can't be defined, then the consummation of "love" cannot be as well. It all depends upon the perspective of the lover and the beloved. For some phone sex is enough to consummate "love". For others cybersex. An erstwhile illegal immigrant* can say he really knew that his marriage was genuine the moment he got his Green Card, and who will be so arrogantly dogmatic as to say that the receipt of a Green Card cannot be a truly romantic experience? Yeah, for some that is simply gaming the system, but for others it is "love". No one has the right to tell others what "love" is between consenting adults. That's the law. Well, in Iowa, Connecticut, and that state I can't spell right now, at least.

*Yes, I know that some frown on the term "illegal immigrant", arguing that no human being is illegal. But the premise of this argument is false. "Immigrant" does not refer to the human being as such. It merely refers to the doer of an action, which can be legal or no. If it is impermissible to use "illegal immigrant", then it is also impermissible to call a physician or a plumber "unlicensed" because physicians and plumbers are humans, too, and it is outrageous to imply that one must be licensed in order to be human. I've been wanting to write this for months now, by the way. You sanctimonious PC Police with the poles up your holier-than-thou sphincters, come and get me.