I’m Taking My Heterosexual Ball and Going Home

In a story today, the Bee reports that the Butte County Clerk Janice Grubbs has refused to perform any further marriage ceremonies in the Butte County Clerk’s office.

Don’t jump to conclusions, however, because Janice says that it has nothing to do with the recent dust-up over gay marriage. According to the piece, “…Grubbs says the county can’t afford to continue performing wedding ceremonies… [and] said her decision has nothing to do with the California Supreme Court’s ruling last month legalizing gay marriage.” (despite the fact that gay marriage just happened to be ordered by the court in the same week as her decision)

Apparently, folks in Kern and Merced counties thought this was such a good idea, they said that they’re going to stop performing marriages at their clerk’s offices as well.

In response to this, I chose three responses at random from the Snark-o-meter.

1) Can’t they see what kind of damage they’re doing? If couples can’t get married in a clean, safe Clerk’s office, then they’ll be forced to have back-alley weddings with inferior hygiene.

2) This reminds me of when Jerome Stichy pretended to be sick in junior high to get out of square dancing. He just didn’t want to have to touch a girl.

3) If I were a County Clerk, this is exactly what I’d do. Oh except for the refusing to perform marriages and being a total a-hole thing.

Spin the Snark-o-meter and see what response you get!

31 thoughts on “I’m Taking My Heterosexual Ball and Going Home”

  1. Good for her. “Marriage” is the legal foundation for “family”, whose social function is to raise AND produce more members of society. Society wants more members, raised with the values of that society, to allow that society to grow, produce, and thrive.

    So what are your values, that would allow the current (Euro-centric/white-centric/christian-centric/capitalist-centric) to grow, produce, and thrive? Or do you want this society to fail?

    1) Homosexuals, by deffinition, cannot reproduce.
    2) Homosexuals therefore cannot produce more members of society.
    3) Homosexualism is therefore antithetical to the “production” aspect, valued by (any non-short-term-thinking) society.
    4) Ergo, homosexualism is not the same as, and therefore, should not be afforded the same rights as, the legally recognized entity and act of “marraige.”

    Like

  2. 4) “No Gay Weddins in this County! I mean, er um, them there county clerk weddins are too dang expensive, so we had ta stop havin em.”

    Like

  3. Does anybody else see the humor that one of the officials in this story is “Grubbe in Butte”? I bet all the other county clerks make fun of her for it and that’s why she’s so mean.

    Like

  4. Oh, yeah… this is for Turty Squip.

    If the point of marriage is to encourage reproduction, then I say we do away with it completely and instead substitute government-subsidized orgy centers that would admit anyone over the age of majority. They’d just be big, dark rooms with padded floors. I predict that the rate of reproduction would increase dramatically. Marriage as it now exists is a hindrance to maximizing the rate of reproduction.

    Like

  5. “Raise AND produce”- not just produce, and not just raise. Orgy centers, while fun short term, do not help with the “raise” aspect of youngins. Though the “big room with padded floors” does sound a little like the Bounce House.

    Like

  6. For TS, this is stating the obvious, but do you think that infertile couples should be denied marriage? What about others who have no interest in “raising & producing?” What about gay couples who want to adopt, or have children from prior heterosexual relationships? What about couples who are statisticly likely to do a lousy job of “raising?”

    Or, what about the fact that we’re talking about state law here, and there is nothing in state law that says anything at all about marriage being about raising & producing?

    I say we abolish all legal marriage. Make it civil unions for everyone, for legal purposes. If anyone wants a “marriage” for religious or ceremonial purposes, go for it, but it will have no legal standing for anyone, straight or gay.

    Oh, and I’m ignoring your nonsense about us having a white christian society which will fail if we don’t actively strive to prevent such an outcome. If you’re a capitalist, you believe in supply & demand, and if the public demands multiculturalism, or destroying our current socieity, then that is what is right.

    Like

  7. Turty, your argument holds no water. It might, if there were not hundreds of thousands of children in foster care and others up for adoption throughout the world; some of the best parents I know are homosexual.

    Your argument can only be consistent if you suggest that those unable to reproduce must also be denied the ability to marry. I.e., senior citizens, the infertile, etc. (or simply those who do not wish to have children).

    Please keep your religious dogma out of the argument, if that’s possible for you. And learn when what you say is a direct product of dogma, vs. actual rational reasoning.

    Like

  8. Since we are messing with traditional deffinitions, why is the age of majority 18? Why not 7? Eichman would be proud of all you “let technology determine the morality of actions” people. Testing for Downs, shortness, and stupidity, are we?

    Like

  9. “Euro-centric/white-centric/christian-centric/capitalist-centric”

    Not that I think this has anything to do with gay marriage, but what about european, white, christian, capitalist, gays who opt to adopt children. Should they be allowed to get married while non-european, non-white, socialist, straights who have no interest in children are prevented from obtaining a marriage license?

    Like

  10. You have to draw a line somewhere to catagorize (i.e.; allow discrimination between groups [oh don’t be so niggardly with the language- discrimination isn’t always bad]) people. “Married” people have always had certain attributes. Once the courts change the fundemental elements of the attributes required to catagorize, you can not longer catagorize, and the catagories become meaningless. “Marraige” and “being married” will become meaningless. And that is not a good thing for society. Remember “bastards,” anyone? The stigma? How much less in “tax” dollars would you have to pay if society still frowned upon, rather than ignored (if not actually encouraged) the parantage of children? How much less crime? Fewer people in prison? Because I think society as a whole would be much better off without some of the horrible policy mistakes of the 1960s that directly lead to a generation of youth without fathers.

    Either
    1) You don’t see the connection between such governmental action and the consequenses, or

    2) You don’t think that things, like a generation of fatherless children (and related issues), is a bad thing, and you don’t mind paying the ongoing (and apparently unending) social/economic costs.

    Like

  11. The problem with this whole argument is that it hinges on artificial and arbitrary rules of morality and ethics, as TS ironically illustrated in trying to establish that there is some sort of universal, absolute moral “right”.

    And “rational induced and/or deduced conclusions” don’t necessarily always work out the way you would think, either. When we start getting into “a generation of fatherless children (and (ambigious) “related” issues”), the whole issue becomes a free for all. There may be some statistical evidence supporting this claim, but you can easily produce other statistics that probably show a benefit from a generation of fatherless children, and yet another report showing that there was no generation of fatherless children whatsoever, in the first place.

    Perhaps it is better to wonder what business the State has being interested in the recognition of a ceremony of the Church. I agree with the poster who suggested that Civil Unions or “Domestic Partnerships” as business contract with nothing to do with gender or romance is probably the way to go. Having lived near gay and lesbian couples in Land Park, I can say that they were otherwise model neighbors. Cops didn’t show up at their houses, they kept their lawns cut (as a matter of fact, in almost every case, they made home improvements that significantly affected the area to the positive, although I’m trying not to make any stereotypical assumptions here) and they seemed interested in the same kind of pursuits that “normal” couples in the area were chasing.

    My capitalist, free market, moderate perspective says, “why shouldn’t we give people like this the same economic advantages and liabilities that we give to any other two people who decide to enter a partnership together”?

    Why not? Because giving them an economic advantage is going to somehow cause the moral integrity of the State to dissolve? Really?!?

    I suppose you have to buy into a fickle God who either rewards or punishes an entire society based upon a group of arbitrary rules developed 2000 plus years ago and how well that society, broadly applies those rules.

    Is God going to turn his back on the U.S. because we’ve grown lax on his decrees regarding what kind of meat we eat, and when, also?

    Like

  12. And uh…

    If a generation of fatherless children is a bad thing with negative consequences…

    doesn’t it follow that a generation of children with TWO fathers would have positive consequences?

    *smirk*

    Like

  13. A benefit of fatherless children? Now don’t get me wrong- I LOVE my gay neighbors- they keep the BEST DAMN YARD out there (after mine), an’ throw the ROKKIN’EST (note 80’s ref) PARTIES!! But for PiddlyD to ignore the 20x (convicted) crime rate between fatherless and father-havin’ boys is too much.

    What business the State has being interested in the recognition of a ceremony of the (historical) Church is called “society,” bubs and bubettes. You want more job-havin’, non-rapin’, non-carjackin’ members of society taking care of you (through “social security taxes,” walking you accross the street, etc.) in your old age? Then you want, statistically, born in America, nuculer-family, educated kids growing up, getting jobs, and producing stuff (moms- keep your kids away from “cowboyan” “finance” and “law”) to keep you in extra hips and livers.

    You want anarchy, a free for all, people marying groups of other people, an’ no one working to pay for old people’s hips, then by all means, marry a same-gender “partner.” And you are going to contribute exactly what to society 100 years from now?

    Being “gay,” unfortunately, entails NOT HAVING SEX with people with whom you could *procreate.* Ergo, a growing society should not encourage, through policy, recognition of “gay” relationships. Have at ’em. Live together. Buy (for god’s sake don’t rent) next to me- but don’t pretend to be “gay” AND want to have kids. Have the right to inherit, visit in the hospital, etc.

    But don’t pretend that any “marraige” between two same-gender people is the same as a “marraige” between two people who can have children. You are fooling yourself, and not doing future generations any favors.

    Like

  14. “the 20x (convicted) crime rate between fatherless and father-havin’ boys is too much.”

    I smell a potential cause for correlation error here. I would imagine economic conditions of single mothers have as much to do with this statistic as the lack of a father sitting on the couch drinking beer and dominating the television after a hard day at work. I imagine we see a disparity in this statistic across cultures where grandparents have a more significant role than parents in child rearing. Your statistics are culturally and socially biased, and the conclusion you have drawn from them is easily discredited. Your recommendation likely addresses a symptom rather than fixing the root problem. In any case, the correlation between this statistic you have provided and an argument against homosexual marriage is spurious and unsound at best.

    “What business the State has being interested in the recognition of a ceremony of the (historical) Church is called “society,” ”

    Lots of different societies exist and have existed throughout history that do not follow the model of the American nuclear family, Ward. Let me get this straight, your thesis is “Gay families will lead to rape and car-jacking”?

    So, educated, upwardly mobile heterosexual couples who are statistically likely to have 1 or less (and shrinking) children are ALSO relatively useless to society? Unless the wife is home breeding a litter, marriage is a false institution? Listen, population is spiraling out of control, and it isn’t YOUR picture of domestic bliss that is procreating in record numbers. As pointed out above, same-sex couples who can’t procreate themselves are likely to adopt, creating a home for those surplus children that would otherwise not just go fatherless, but would go parentless. Seems like a win/win to me. Gotta be better than being raised by an uncaring State.

    “But don’t pretend that any “marraige” between two same-gender people is the same as a “marraige” between two people who can have children. You are fooling yourself, and not doing future generations any favors.”

    Who said I am? Rather than fighting a bitter fight to have MARRIAGE recognized, I think the Gay community should fight to have the institution of marriage no longer recognized by the State. Instead, they should focus on state sanctioned domestic partnerships that convey the same rights and obligations to any partnership, regardless of religious ceremony. Marriage is a spiritual bond recognized by organized religion. The State has no business there.

    Like

  15. PiddlyD: Are you saying you think the economic conditions of a single mother has nothing to do with the lack of a father? That completely blows my mind.

    Like

  16. Where do you guys extrapolate your assumptions from???

    The economic opportunities available to a single mother have traditionally been limited by a society that does not offer the same opportunities to women that it offers to men.

    This one is easy. A single woman has less economic opportunity than a single man or married man, statistically. Irregardless of parental status. That is what I am saying.

    So, the presence of or lack of a man in the woman’s life has little if any bearing on her economic opportunities, in the absence of offspring and/or marriage. Either way, she has less economic opportunity than a man.

    I suppose you can *twist* that into, “Well, if the single woman would just find a man, get married, and start being a baby-making machine, she could increase her economic opportunity”.

    Is that what YOU are suggesting?

    Like

  17. A single woman is not the same thing as a single mother. A single mother implies a missing father. Sure, lots of mothers are single because the father is dead. But that’s not the epidemic we’re talking about. I’m not suggesting anything about single mothers other than that their struggles are directly related to missing fathers.

    Like

  18. I’m not saying that homosexual “marraige” leads to increased crime amonst offspring of that “marraige.” 1) There ain’t no offspring, and 2) the altering of the deffinition of marraige from “1 man 1 woman” will have social ramifications down the line– just as the really great welfare programs of the 60s/70s have had such a wonderful impact on society. Or do you deny a link between social policies such as money payments to single mothers (rather than a policy of, say, providing money assistance to married mothers who are poor), and current national levels of fatherless children?

    Ah! The truth comes out. Piddly is a fan of getting rid of marraige alltogether now. Removing all catagories of social distinction, comrade? We see the goal here. Gay marraige isn’t the end- its just another stepping stone on the pathway toward “ultimate equality”- where any behavior is accepted as equal to any other behavior. No thanks- western morality built the country and allowed it to thrive. Western morality will allow the country to survive and thrive in the future. Rather than be short sighted, I think we should take a longer-term approach to determining what policies to institute.

    I’d simply rather not have to pay the social/tax costs of policies that encourage bad (immoral) behavior- like having kids and not raising them. Or degrading the notion of marraige to make it meaningless- “Everyone is married”- I see it now. Great. And that would make my marraige seen as what exactly in my kids’ eyes? And that would make their view of marraige exactly what Piddly is hoping for: To make it seem like a useless anachronism. No thanks.

    Like

  19. But this is a mistaken conclusion. The struggles of a single mother are due to the stifled economic opportunities available to women, in relation to men.

    TS threw out a broad statistical argument with all kinds of possible variables. As we drill down into that statistic, I’m sure we would find that a FATHER is not nearly as important as a strong support network of close friends and family, as well as economic opportunity.

    I’m not trying to diminish the role of a solid nuclear family, in particular in a society where that is the vision of stability. There is even clear scientific evidence that a paternal presence in the house has a biological affect on offspring living there as well.

    But there are supporting facts and then there is extrapolation and conjecture based on false conclusions.

    Again, your suggestion is a mistaken cause for correlation error. If you can provide more convincing evidence or argument otherwise, please feel free, but so far, all I see is opinion you’ve drawn from statistics that it isn’t at all clear you’ve really done any significant research on.

    I see a thesis and a conclusion, but the middle of your argument seems pretty empty..

    Like

  20. “I’m sure we would find that a FATHER is not nearly as important as a strong support network of close friends and family, as well as economic opportunity”

    Can you list all the schools you have attended? As a father I want to make sure my daughters can go there too and learn to be super smart like you.

    This is the 4th or 5th draft of this comment and the only one that avoided the F bomb

    Like

  21. Do you mean all kids don’t need fathers at home or just poor kids. I see your point, because the poor kids fathers would just be crack-smoking gang members anyway right?

    Like

  22. “I’m sure we would find that a FATHER is not nearly as important as a strong support network of close friends and family, as well as economic opportunity”

    Sounds like something a man would say in lieu of parenting his child. Not something someone seriously concerned about family wellbeing would say. You can’t possibly be trying to suggest that fathers are irreleveant in the family structure, though that does appear to be what you’re getting at. I’d be amazed if you could find me even a large minority of single moms who seriously believe their parenting work wouldn’t be easier with help from an engaged, live-in father for their kids. That is totally idiotic.

    Like

  23. Wow… Sacramentans still remain as neurotic and self-righteous as ever. Glad to see some things never change.

    I actually did a 3+ year stint as a stay-at-home dad when Intel let me go, HeyMeg. Try the alienation of being one of the few males at the playground in Land Park, before you start preaching to me about the trails of being a “single mom”.

    I think my point was that a father is not the essential element to a productive, well adjusted person and that the “statistics” provided here do little to justify any argument to the contrary. Neither is a mother. The lack of either or both may present challenges, but there are other elements just as important in the development of an individual’s character. The assumption that a gay couple raising a child will inevitably lead to a decay in the morality of a society is the claim, specifically that it will lead to “rapes” and car-jackings…

    CoolDMZ, I doubt it will make any difference what school you send your kids to. A big part is genetic, and if it took you 5 drafts to come up with that tiny paragraph, there isn’t much hope.

    Like

  24. Yeah- takes a village instead of a father now, huh? Fathers are pretty much just icing on the cake- nice if you have a good one laying around, but never necessary?

    “The struggles of a single mother are due to the stifled economic opportunities available to women, in relation to men.”

    No. You are flat out wrong and dangerously stupid. The struggles of the “single mother” are a CONSEQUENCE of a decision (Oh yay- A CHOICE!) to have a (or 6) kid(s) with an unstable man outside of a stable comittment- like- oh, I dunno- marraige? A decision (CHOICE!) made all that easier by a well-intentioned but fatally-flawed in the long term “safety net” called welfare and all the other “social programs” for such people. Not to mention the lack of social stigma formerly associated with such piss-poor decision making skills. You see the connection between social programs and peoples’ behavior now? How well-functioning social norms can be wiped out in only a generation by “social programs.”

    And you are ignoring the fact that this “single mothers” decisions (CHOICES!) now impact me- a “doing the right thing,” taxpaying, working American, trying to raise my OWN family, without having to pay for someone elses’ piss-poor decisions (CHOICES!).

    You take some poor dolt, tell her she don’t need no man, provide for her financially if she gets knocked up, remove social stigma from unwed motherhood, and what do you have? A dolt with 5 kids (5 kids with no father figure), no job, who are all leeches on the working taxpayers. Thanks for giving her that great “choice!” Maybe a little nuclear family training isn’t that bad after all? Should have maybe had a social program that ENCOURAGED marraige? Oh no- that “degrades women”- makes them think they need a man to support them. Well- yeah- otherwise these same women are relying on MALE TAXPAYERS (strangers by the way) to support them. THAT’S less degrading (snort).

    See what happens when you start messing with family structure?

    Like

  25. This is not an issue (mine isn’t anyway) about a gay couple raising a child (uh- whose child would that be?) will that inevitably lead to a decay in the morality of a society is the claim, specifically that it will lead to “rapes” and car-jackings…

    This is about the social impact of altering the deffinition of social bedrock institutions. Once you mess with the deffinition, you lessen the value of the institution. When you lessen the value of the institution, people are less likely to participate in the institution. When people are less likely to be married, poeple are less likely to produce future members of society that have the values that have produced a pretty darn good society so far.

    A father is not “essential” to be productive- and a wedding certificate is not “essential” to being in love. So why not leave fatherhood, and the institution of marraige just the way they are meant to be?

    Like

  26. “PiddlyD” – I’m sorry the other mommies weren’t nice to you when you got laid off from your important corporate gig and you found the “trails” of being home with your kids to be a burden, but maybe it’s time to let some of that go.

    Like

  27. PiddlyD I think we’ll have to agree to disagree … on whether or not you are an incomprehensible moron.

    Like

  28. Ay- yo! I thought it was only my job to call the well-intentioned liberal maroons on thier insane opinions and utopian whacky ideas. Will ya’ll other wierdo bleeding heart libs lay off this poor guy?!? The other mommies already rejected him, and he feels bad enough without fellow commies/socialists rejecting him as well.

    Like

Comments are closed.