I've often argued (but then again I'm no lawyer) that one of the more solid arguments against the current "one man one woman" marriage paradigm, is that it's gender discrimination.
Really. It seems pretty straightforward to me.
Let's say I want to marry this guy, call him Abe. If I'm a woman I can marry Abe. If I'm a guy, I can't. That to me sounds pretty cut-and-dry discrimination based on my gender.
To the jump.
I've been arguing this for a while, and have to agree with Jesse Ventura, (fast forward to 2:10) I don't think there should even be gender boxes on the damn license.
Well, something happened a week or so ago that had me exclaiming, "See! That proves how obvious it is. If the guy had been a woman, they could have gotten married" You see, two men went to get married in Virginia, and in order to slip under the gaydar - so to speak-, one of the guys did some crossdressing. Alas they were found out and their marriage was made null & void.
Well, today I read an article about it on The Guardian that included a quote that freakin' just makes this a slam dunk for my argument.
A Newport News judge voided the marriage after a court clerk asked McCain, "are you male or female," and McCain answered male, the Washington Post reported.
Imagine. You want a job and you're asked, "are you male or female."
You want to buy a car and you're asked, "are you male or female."
You want a home loan and you're asked, "are you male or female."
You want to get a business license and you're asked, "are you male or female."
I guess the upside with this issue is that it's only a matter of time before this relic is buried. Just wish it was sooner rather than later.
And if you missed this last week.
Your marriage failing? It's those damn gays!