The Axis of Stevil Show. Your world, my spin.

The Gay Marriage Equality Lie

If you think it is about equality, than you are sadly mistaken. Creation Date Saturday, 30 March 2013. Hits 29235

The Gay Marriage Equality Lie

I want to start this off by saying that conceptually I am a guy who supports gay marriage. If you called my house for a polling agency and asked if I thought that people of the same sex should have the right to marry each other, I would answer in the affirmative. If you put it on the ballot in my State, however, I would vote against it. Both of these things are evolutions in my stance on gay marriage, but unlike President Obama, I can (and will, further down) explain the evolution of my stance. I'm not trying to get elected, and I don't care if you like me or not. I would not vote for gay marriage because I am sick and tired of the gay community lying to me and treating me as if I am stupid. There is no better evidence of this strategy than the latest "=" sign you see popping up on facebook.

Let me start off by making a bold but true statement that I can prove with the facts, but it will shock many of you. There is no discrimination in the current legal structure of marriage in this Country. Got that? Let it sink in. Prepare your argument, liberals. Now look at the facts.

If I am a straight male over the age of 18 who has a twin brother who is gay, whom can I marry that he cannot marry? The answer is nobody. He and I can both marry any female who is over the age of 18 and is not an immediate relative and is not already married. The list of people that the straight brother can marry is the exact same list as the list of people that the gay brother can marry. So where is the discrimination?

At this point, liberals and "gay rights" activists will pull this card on you. That's not the same, because a straight person is allowed to marry the person that they love and all we want is the same opportunity.Now on the surface, this sounds right and thus a lot of people fall for it. But is it? What if the straight brother falls in love with his sister? What if he develops true and deep feelings for a woman who is already married? What if his true love is unrequited? There is no right, neither explicit nor implicit, to "marry the person that you love." There is only a right to marry people that fall within the legal structure of the institution.

So what about gay people? Is there some law preventing them from marrying? I cite the following example because this stone will kill two birds and save me some time.

Three Marine corporals have received bad-conduct discharges for entering sham opposite-sex marriages in order to receive housing benefits and live with their same-sex partners. Because unmarried couples (including all same-sex couples) are not permitted to live together on base, these fake marriages were the only way they could qualify for the for the $1,200/month spousal housing benefit to supplement living together off-base. Though gay and lesbian servicemembers can now serve openly, the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act still denies them the same spousal benefits that opposite-sex couples are eligible for. Cpl. Ashley Vice, Cpl. Jeremiah Griffin, and Cpl. Joseph Garner were each fined $5,000 and sentenced to confinement for from three to six months after pleading guilty to stealing from the government through fraud.

Was there a crime in these people marrying? Did the government deny them the right based on their sexual preference? Absolutely not. So what was their crime? As gays who served in the military under "Don't Ask Don't Tell" they married to receive benefits from the military. Upon the repeal of "DADT" they came out of the closet and into a jail cell for defrauding the government. They were legally allowed to marry and only got in trouble because of the reason that they got married.

Now, wouldn't it be nice if two gay men could enter into a legal marriage with each other and receive the legal benefits of their union without having to find a way to get those benefits fraudulently? Of course. Isn't that what they are trying to do now? Absolutely not. Here is the fraud that is now being perpetrated. The fraud of "equality." What is really happening as the Department of Defense attempts to implement their plan to give same sex unmarried couples benefits?

"If ... the Department of Defense creates a new category of unmarried dependent or family member reserved only for same-sex relationships, the Department ... itself would be creating a new inequity -- between unmarried, committed same-sex couples and unmarried, committed opposite-sex couples," the report said.

And there you have it. A new, unequal class of citizens. We have gone from a scenario where the gay and straight twins could marry the exact same people, to one where the straight twin can marry anyone from "List A" while the gay twin can either marry from "List A" or shack up with someone from "List B" while receiving all of the benefits that the straight twin has to marry for. Meanwhile, no shacking up benefits are offered to the straight twin. And this is what you tell me is equality? Sorry, I'm not that stupid.

About 10 years back, I dropped my opposition to gay marriage. The issue had become a more prominent one and I decided to give it some thought. I could come up with multiple scenarios where it could help, and none where it would hurt, so I decided it was acceptable. About five years ago, I began to get frustrated with this disingenuous nature of the gay marriage proponents. During the 2008 campaign, Ellen made her comments comparing gay marriage rights to voting rights for blacks, and I found that to be so offensive that I was shocked. How is a gay person's lack of interest in exercising a right that they share with straights equal to a black person being denied any level of participation in a right that whites have? The insensitivity of this statement might have something to do with how low gay marriage polls in the black community. How dare you mock the real discrimination faced by an entire race of people by attempting to mirror it to your comparatively minor inconvenience?

 That is the point where I fell off of the bandwagon. I'm not saying that I couldn't be prompted back on, because I could. I would support gay marriage with a vote, not just a nod, when the gay community tells the story like it is. We all currently have a right that has a much higher participation rate amongst straight Americans than gays. Would it somehow infringe upon my rights to allow the gay community to change that right in such a way that it allows my participation in that right to continue unchanged, while simultaneously making it more likely that they would participate? Not at all. And when you address the topic that way, you will have my full support. But when you demand equality and deliver new protected classes with special benefits I will oppose you in the only place that really matters, the voting booth.

Related Articles

About the Author

Steve Parry

Steve Parry

Steve Parry is the creator and host of The Axis of Stevil Show. His articles can be found here at the site. For more information, click the following link.

Comments (5)

  • Big Gay Al

    Big Gay Al

    • 30 March 2013 at 17:05
    • #

    This is hate speech and needs to be silenced. It is people like you who are responsible for 90% of the wrongs and evil in this world. I hope someone puts you in your place.


    • Steve Parry

      Steve Parry

      • 01 April 2013 at 02:03
      • #

      How is this hate speech Al? And if "people like me" (a stereotype, I should point out) are responsible for 90% of the evil and wrongs in this world, are people like you (assuming there are any) responsible for the other 10%?


  • Jeanluc


    • 05 April 2013 at 08:09
    • #

    Good job. I have always been against gay marriage, as I do not wish ANY family to automatically lack what my awesome family has. Mother, Father, and kids.


    • Steve Parry

      Steve Parry

      • 07 April 2013 at 02:45
      • #

      Thank you for the feedback, Jeanluc. Yes, the nuclear family is the ideal situation. Yet as we know, ideal cannot always be achieved. I do believe that it is better to have a mother and a father first for the psychological impact on the child of having a parent that they don't know, and also for the insight that each gender brings into the raising of the child. I do believe that, since we know that this ideal isn't always reality, having two loving parents of the same gender is probably better than a single mother struggling to make it on her own. But that isn't really the debate here, because nobody is saying that the two people of the same gender couldn't live together and raise the child. Now, if we are going to allow them (as we should) to live together and raise a child, by not allowing them to marry I believe we are getting off into semantics on the word "marriage." I have no desire to protect an originalist interpretation of the word. I believe that the time has come that we allow these parents to marry, but let's do it honestly and not under some guise of "equality" that already factually exists.


  • Alfred


    • 11 July 2014 at 19:49
    • #

    I don't know whether it's just me or if everybody else experiencing
    problems with your website. It appears as if some of the text within your content are running off the screen. Can somebody else please provide feedback and let me know if this
    is happening to them as well? This might be a issue with my browser because I've had this
    happen before. Thanks


Leave a comment

You are commenting as guest. Optional login below.

Hot off the press.

More From The Axis

  • Watered Down Travel Ban

    Watered Down Travel Ban

    I have some friends and family who supported President Trump from early on in the process. From time to time they will ask me when I will admit that I was wrong about him. "If Trump does x... If Trump gets y... If Trump supports a policy that results in z... will you admit that you were wrong?" My answer is always "no", because I wasn't wrong. To be clear, I could be wrong in practical application, but that isn't what an election is about. Elections are about theory and speculation and, generally speaking about judging records. Trump had no record to speak of, and his history of stances on issues was all over the map. I opposed his candidacy for several major reasons, all of which are proven valid in this single issue we now refer to as the "travel ban". Here were my reasons.

    Continue reading
  • Fraudulent Rant by Judge Jeanine

    Fraudulent Rant by Judge Jeanine

    If you're not familiar with Justice with Judge Jeanine, it is a show on the FOX News Network starring Jeanine Pirro. She is known for her over-the-top rants where she serves up gobs of fresh red meat for her largely hard right wing audience. While it's not unusual for her to be a little fast and loose with the facts, she has been known to occasionally return from the break with a correction from her producers. Last night, however, there was no such correction to an outright lie she told on the show, and the matter being discussed should have (at the very least) contained a disclaimer from the host. I would cut her some slack, but as a former prosecutor and judge, she should be well aware of what proper protocol should have been here.

    Continue reading
  • Wake The Hell Up, GOP!

    Wake The Hell Up, GOP!

    It's not cute anymore, Republicans. The President of the United States is completely detached from reality, and you can't fix that. You can't cover it up, you can't explain it away, and let me make this as clear as I possibly can for you. You cannot possibly undo the damage you are doing to the party brand by trying to pretend this man is anything other than completely unhinged. I'm watching Sean Hannity borrow guests from the Alex Jones show in an attempt to bolster Trump's conspiratorial claims. I'm seeing relatively mainstream conservatives make themselves look like the crazed fringes of the paranoid right wing. Don't believe me? Look at this.

    Continue reading

Articles © The Axis of Stevil Show 2009-2017