US “Conservative Wisdom” – On Marriage
November 26, 2013 in Humour | Tags: Facepalm, Marriage, Teh Stupid, US Conservatives | by The Arbourist
We need more facepalm stat!!!
We need more facepalm stat!!!
Your opinions…
The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation
- B.C. premier doubles down on calling Alberta separatist movement seeking U.S. support 'treason'
- NASA's moon rocket experiences fuel leak during critical test ahead of launch
- Latest Epstein files include more mentions of Trump and other powerful men
- Hamilton soldier who died in Latvia to be honoured at repatriation ceremony
- Arizona police suspect crime in disappearance of Today show host's mother
- Body cameras being immediately issued to ICE agents in Minneapolis
- Conservatives confirmed Poilievre's leadership. Can he regain the moment?
- Fact check: Fake Grammys photo of Justin Trudeau and Katy Perry
- Police docked pay after red-light cameras capture them rushing to emergencies express anger, frustration
- Former minister Bill Blair appointed to diplomatic post, resigns as MP
Posts I Like
Blogs I Follow
bleatmop
Mystro
Dead Wild Roses 
11 comments
November 26, 2013 at 6:17 am
bodycrimes
In a funny way, I have some sympathy for the position. Marriage originally became a legal contract because it was about the transfer of property and about the legitimacy of children (also a property issue). Gay marriage has been driven in large part over property issues – especially during the AIDS epidemic, where the issue of pensions and the right to inherit became a huge issue. So by talking about it as a solely romantic issue, that hard underlying reality gets overlooked – interestingly, rich people don’t see marriage as ‘just a piece of paper’. They recognise it as the wealth building/consolidation institution that it really is and take it seriously for that reason.
LikeLike
November 26, 2013 at 8:36 am
john zande
B’wahahahaaa!
Arb, did you know Rick is a now a (Christian) film producer? I kid you not.
LikeLike
November 26, 2013 at 9:16 am
The Arbourist
@BodyCrimes
I’m interested in your analysis because it would seem to me that this issue, along with abortion, are mainly are the smokescreen that has been erected to keep social conservatives happy and securing their votes for corporatist candidates into power.
I can see where this would be an elite concern, but allowing more people to enter a binding contract – for love or legacy – should not change elite access to said institution.
Thus, I am still unclear as to where elite concerns lie other than as a sop to the social conservatives.
LikeLike
November 26, 2013 at 9:18 am
The Arbourist
@JZ
Really? I’m so glad he is contributing to the cultural wealth of the US…
LikeLike
November 26, 2013 at 9:48 am
bodycrimes
I’m getting very interested in marriage as a political institution. The conservatives would have it that marriage is a kind of sticking plaster for society – because people in marriages, or whose parents are married, do better on a whole lot of outcomes, it’s assumed it’s marriage that does it. But it’s possible the causation runs in the other direction, and it’s certain types of people that tend to marry, and forcing marriage on single mothers etc, might actually trap them in violent and dysfunctional situations. And conservatives rewrite history – they keep saying that marriage is a traditional institution, where widespread marriage is actually very modern. Marriage has always been expensive to arrange and for a lot of history was how elites bound themselves together. At its core, it has a lot to do with the protection of property.
LikeLike
November 26, 2013 at 9:51 am
syrbal-labrys
Wasn’t that just….surreal. Yep, I’m sticking with surreal as the word of ANOTHER week.
LikeLike
November 26, 2013 at 10:15 am
bodycrimes
I’m pro gay marriage, just to make that clear.
LikeLike
November 26, 2013 at 10:56 am
The Intransigent One
I love being devolved with you, darling!
LikeLike
November 26, 2013 at 10:58 am
The Arbourist
@TIO
Awwww…thanks dear. :) The feeling is mutual.
LikeLike
November 26, 2013 at 7:57 pm
Rob F
I think that much of wingnuts’ opposition to same-sex marriage is due to patriarchy. To them, your own marriage to The Intransigent One can’t possibly be a “real” marriage. To them, only a marriage with a submissive subordinate woman and a dominant leading man. Anything else cannot be a “real” marriage.
Applying this to marriage equality, between two gays, you either get a man in the “submissive” role, or a partnership of equals between two men. Likewise, between two lesbians, you either get a woman in the dominant role, or a partnership of equals between two women. In either case, you end up with stereotypical gender roles subverted, hence explaining wingnuts’ opposition.
LikeLike
November 27, 2013 at 1:00 pm
The Arbourist
@Rob F.
Isn’t the gender binary grand? :/
LikeLike