Wednesday, January 27, 2010

Sister and Brother

It is really a sad that this young woman is struggling to openly enjoy the intimacy she shares with her brother. She shouldn't have to be concerned. She is afraid of harsh, hateful reactions from others, and you can see some of them right there in the discussion, along with ignorance. Fortunately, other people validate her love.

She is happy, and nothing should stand in the way of that happiness.

I look forward to a day when she can not only enjoy their consanguineous love without legal oppression, but without social oppression and with legal protections. It is for people like her and her brother that I am calling for full marriage equality.
— — —

Tuesday, January 19, 2010

Persecuted, Prosecuted

Two adults could be jailed for two years for a consensual relationship. This news article refers to them or their actions as:


Stephen Paterson is 43. His lover, Kristy is 27. They have been prosecuted because of their love.

Kirsty was born exactly 27 years ago today after a fling between Paterson and an Ayrshire crimper, who were both 16 at the time.

The teenage parents put the tot up for adoption, and she was raised by a Lanarkshire family.

But just over two years ago Kirsty tracked down her dad in Girvan, Ayrshire, where she also now lives. And within months she and her new-found father were meeting for SEX at her home.

Stephen Paterson was married, and it is a shame he was secretive in keeping this love from his wife, and a shame that she couldn't be more accepting. If she had been, then perhaps he wouldn't have been secretive. It was his wife who turned him in to authorities.

Notice that under law, not only can these lovers not marry, but they can actually be jailed and ordered to stay away from each other. Why is this anybody else's business? These people are our neighbors - productive members of society who pay their taxes. Why can't we leave them alone? Why does a news source attack them?
— — —

Monday, January 11, 2010

Marriage Equality in California

A federal court is now hearing a case on California's ban on same-sex marriage (Perry vs. Schwarzenegger). On the positive side, there are people working hard to fight for the freedom to marry. Unfortunately, they have neglected to stand up for a full and complete freedom to marry.

I know it is unlikely, but I would very much like to see the court decide to remove all bigoted restrictions on the freedom of marry, so that the mother and her adult children I will be writing about could share in the happiness of marriage together.
— — —

Tuesday, January 5, 2010


I argue for marriage equality. By that I mean that society and all local, state, federal, and international laws, institutions, and programs should recognize any marriage registered by any persons without restrictions on the basis of race, color, creed, ancestry, national origin, sex, gender, sexual orientation, or religion.

In some places, laws against polygamy and consanguineous intimacy would have to be repealed, overruled, or superseded, just as some places have done with laws against sodomy, interracial marriage, same-sex marriage, cohabitation, etc. - and I argue in favor of that in that people have right to engage in these things and receive equal treatment from their government and larger society and protection against certain forms of oppression.

As long as a locality has a justice of the peace or some other agent authorized to perform legally binding marriage ceremonies who will do so without discrimination, I do not argue that any ordained clergy with conscientious objections should be required to perform ceremonies without discrimination unless said clergy is receiving government funds or is employed by the government.

The global definition of marriage should be as follows:*

The uniting of consenting individuals in a witnessed ceremony.

In other words, marriage should involve only these requirements:*

1. The participants shall have consented to the marriage.

2. The participants shall undergo a witnessed marriage ceremony.

I represent a biological brother, sister, and mother who are seeking marriage equality. They are all above the age of consent where they reside. Bigotry, hatred, discrimination, ignorance, intolerance, fear, and resistance to change are the forces preventing from being able to have a public marriage. As it stands now, in many places. they could be prosecuted for crimes if it could be proven to a court that they had simply expressed their love for each other in certain ways, even in the privacy of their own home.

I do not advocate anyone engage in activity that is currently illegal in their jurisdiction; I do advocate changing or repealing any law that prevents the freedom of association, love, and full marriage equality. I do not believe anyone should have to move away from home to be legally free to express the fullness of their love. Perhaps this blog can help bring enlightenment and understanding, and as a result, equality.

Comments are welcome, especially from open minded and positive spirits.

I know this blog is sparse right now, but I hope to build it as I go along.

*UPDATE: I have removed the word "unmarried" from the definition, and thus I also removed the third requirement previously listed here. This was due to a reconsideration I made after I began this blog per the challenge of others. The change means that I support being able to marry someone who is already married, rather than forcing any previous marriages to be dissolved into a new marriage when an additional person is added. That would be just one option, but people should have the options of marrying someone who is already married, and to do so without necessarily marrying anyone else, such as that person's other spouse, unless that is what they all want. If an existing spouse does not consent to the new marriage, they should be free to divorce the spouse who is taking on a new spouse.
— — —