Piece on earth! Peace on earth!

A few laughs about the gay marriage debate

By Tim Campbell
Copyright November 3, 2004

It seems self-evident that gays and lesbians should be able to marry. America is the land of the free and the brave, right? Then if fearless straights can give up their freedom, so can fearless gays. Above intelligence is not required by law. Shucks, average intelligence isn’t even required.
Speaking of average intelligence, according to a couple of courts and a handful of new laws, gay men can now legally marry straight women; lesbians can legally marry straight men; gays can marry lesbians; but practically nobody can marry logical partners.

Now, I have followed the legal fights over gay marriage pretty closely over the years and only one court decision about marriage has impressed me. In 1887, the Oregon Territory high court defined marriage as a civil contract establishing "the most important relationship of one’s life." Now there’s a definition of marriage that seems good for both straights and gays. Ironically, the Oregon court came up with this definition of marriage when a couple wanted a divorce.

The two most frequently used arguments against same-sex marriage are as follows: One, gays can’t marry because they can’t have children. Two, gays can’t marry because marriage has always been between one man and one woman.

So where is the law that says all married people must have children? Hell, we don’t even have any laws saying all married people must have sex. Indeed, some claim nothing ruins sex more surely than a really long marriage. The moral is, diversity is not just politically correct. Sometimes it’s downright hot!

Does God say all married people must have children? I don’t think so. That’s His department, right? Then why are so many married couples begging God, without success, to give them children? Maybe Danna Carvey's Church Lady should give him a sermon on God’s law.

And those who say marriage has always been between one man and one woman need to read a few chapters of the Old Testament. In those times, one man with seventy young virgins was the ideal. Eternal virgins--now there’s a novel idea! Holy Sesame Seeds, Tonto! Maybe all those Arab men are really gay!

Another funny thing about the Moral Majority is they get upset with straights for having kids outside marriage--then they get upset with gays who certainly don’t have kids outside marriage. There’s just no way to please the Righteous. Perhaps they’d get upset less if only they got more. Webster’s upcoming Unabridged uses these morals as its example of "petal-plucking ethics: We like it. We like it not."

So why is America having so much trouble with gay marriage? Why do we hate Islamic religious fanatics so much, but vote for Christian religious fanatics so often? Maybe we’re just a nation full of religious flip-flops seeking a shower.

And finally, I think it’s time we acknowledge that the Muslims are right to fear America is secretly run by Jews. Face it, we circumcise our baby boys faster than a rabbi can grab his skullcap and scalpel. Ouch! Martian anthropologists visiting in 1980 even called us "a prick-oriented society," in their little red women dialect. "Wombish nonsense," say I.

Do you want world peace? Well, the quickest way to get world peace would be to give Utah to the Palestinian polygamists in exchange for Israel, and then start busing gays to the east and west coasts once again like they did during the ’50s. Holy Scattoly, let’s establish a gay strip from San Francisco to San Diego and call it Newpromisedland.

And on the final day, God W. (some say God the Son) plopped down in His Recliner and said, "Uh...This is hard work."

Piece on Earth! Peace on Earth! Seasoned Greetings to All and to All a Good Night!

Tim Campbell
208 Caylor Street
Houston TX 77011
(832) 282-9104


Judge Ericksen now considering Baker and McConnell’s gay marriage lawsuit
Government arguing in a time-warp
By Tim Campbell
ãDecember 5, 2004
U.S. District Judge Joan N. Ericksen, Minnesota, now has under consideration the lawsuit filed by J. Michael McConnell and Jack Baker for joint income-tax benefits flowing from their same-sex marriage on September 3, 1971. Judge Ericksen has been asked by the government to dismiss the lawsuit. Her Magistrate, Jonathan Lebedoff, has granted that motion. In lay terms, that makes this an appeal at an administrative level.
At this point, the government argues a term called "claim preclusion bars McConnell from relitigating issues he actually raised, as well as issues he failed to raise during the prior litigation (the government’s italics)." That prior litigation was a suit for Veterans Benefits entitled McConnell v Nooner, 1976. Generally speaking, claim preclusion bars relitigating issues already litigated by given parties.
The government’s brief says further that back in 1976, "This Court (U.S. District, Minnesota) heard oral argument on the motions and then granted McConnell’s motion to amend to add the count concerning taxes. Following the amendment, this Court granted the government’s motion to dismiss as to all counts." (This reporter’s undelining)
McConnell and Baker claim, however, they never amended the previous complaint to include tax issues and that the current lawsuit should be allowed as that amendment. To say it differently, the couple says they have not litigated the tax issues.
The government claims "the fact that the Amended Complaint was never served … is irrelevant-because the additional count, as contained in the Amended Complaint, was dismissed by the same order permitting its filing."
Apparently, Judge Ericksen primarily has to decide whether the government’s time-warped argument holds.

278 words