Curiouser & Curiouser

Your Orthospherean correspondent from the front lines of the culture wars – the San Francisco Bay Area, where the bleeding edge of Progress works its way relentlessly into the drugged and comatose body politic of the West – was riding an elevator down to the street last evening when he witnessed a short indicative conversation. Two colleagues of some other firm boarded the car, chit-chatting: a man of late middle years, conservatively dressed (for San Francisco – i.e., actually wearing clothes, that were clean, and tidy, and newish, and identifiably masculine), and a pretty, portly young woman dressed in painter’s jeans and a polo shirt (also conservative by SF standards). With only a few facial piercings, she was clearly not a transgressive type.

“… so your wife is OK with that,” says he, “… is ‘wife’ the right word?” You could hear the edge of anxiety in his voice; perhaps he had committed a fatal faux pas.

“Sure is,” she responded cheerfully, “it’s all legal now. We even have a certificate to prove it. It was funny: when we went down to apply for the license, we had to swear we weren’t related.”

“Ah!” says he, visibly relieved at his narrow escape from Othering, “always good to be sure you weren’t marrying your cousin!”

They both chuckled. As did your correspondent, a moment later, walking to the train, shaking his head at the absurdity of it all. It can’t be long, of course, before the alert bureaucrats of San Francisco are taught to realize that, gay “marriage” being legal, the question about pre-existing familiar relations between proposed spouses is irrelevant, if not downright discriminatory. Why should the forms of the law presume that reproduction is at all associated with marriage? It is not, any more. So all such questions – sex, age and number of the spouses, “religious preference,” whatever – are a waste of time, and an invasion of privacy too. Would the City have denied a marriage license to two lesbians if they were indeed cousins, or sisters, or mother and daughter? Had they tried, there would have been massive demonstrations by tens of braying protesters, heavily covered by the international media, and the bureaucrats would instantly have mended their ways.

The logic of this thing is adamantine.

13 thoughts on “Curiouser & Curiouser

  1. I suspect the bigamists will have their day first, what with the groundwork already being laid with plural parenthood in a family. Who is the state to discriminate against a child’s mother, father, father, and mother cementing their relationship with matrimony? Some will even make a pseudotrad argument that marriage among the parents is best for the children. This will completely fly in the face of the pro-single motherhood arguments, but since when has sanity stopped them before?

  2. Well maybe they’d make an Austerian “unprincipled exception” for siblings or mother-daughter ’cause it’s “icky.”

  3. On the other hand, not to worry — this will all resolve itself, in time. Here’s how —

    As you correctly discern, in just a few years (far less than a decade hence) the strictures against incestuous marriages and group “marriages” will also be overthrown.

    Then, “evil rich people” … and “good” folk like the Kennedys and Bidens and Pelosis … will realize that they can shield the family fortune from the tax man by “marrying” their children of other designated heirs.

    At about the same time, criminal gangs will realize that if they all enter into a group “marriage”, then, should things go south, none of them can be compelled to testify against any of the others.

    Obviously, the only solution to these two problems will be to pull the plug on “marriage” altogether; which, after all, was the goal of the “It’s a Human Right!” gang, all along.

    And, of course, it’s those “evil rich people” (not the “good” folk, like the Kennedys and Bidens and Pelosis) who are going to ruin it for everyone!

    • Just so. Nominalism forges ahead. Destroy the capacity of the system to notice one distinction, and just by virtue of the integrity of true propositions, errors in respect to just the two newly indistinguishable terms will propagate through the whole language, through its entire discourse, and through all procedures it mediates. Error begets errors, which in their turn ruin and propagate. Thus was the Original Sin reiterated at Babel, and again in every human life.

  4. And it shall be, as with the people, so with the priest… (Isa. 24:2)

    However, the consequences may work themselves out differently than supposed. This is not a matter of logic and consistency, but of the exercise of political, legal, and social power by a particularly powerful group. Power has its own logic.

  5. Great article!

    I agree, The requirement regarding “pre-existing familiar relations” should be waived for gay marriages but not because not doing so would be discriminatory, but because by doing so we could once again confirm the founding principle of our dystopian culture, i.e. if we didn’t have double standards, we wouldn’t have any standards at all.

  6. Why should the forms of the law presume that reproduction is at all associated with marriage? It is not, any more.

    And if reproduction is not at all associated with marriage, then really, why should it even be limited to two (or more) humans? That old grade-school taunt was perhaps prescient:

    Child A.: I love (fill in the blank with an inanimate thing like chocolate cake or recess)!

    Child B: Well, if you love it so much, why don’t you marry it?

    Is there any objective reason why I should be able to marry another girl and not, say, chocolate cake?

  7. Cousin marriage has been far more common throughout human history than gay marriage. Far-left thinkers with the intellectual fortitude to think their position through to its logical conclusion are already way ahead of you in championing this cause. Cousin marriage is so prevalent throughout history, and so widespread, that in fact I do believe is a natural and basically unproblematic relationship. Far less problematic than gay marriage.

    See the excellent Justin Erik Halldor Smith for a fine defense of cousin marriage here:

    “Now the snickering might simply result from a lack of information; it might cease were they to learn that at present roughly 15% of marriages worldwide occur between first cousins. The eminent kinship scholar Robin Fox estimates that fully 80% of marriages in human history have been between either first or second cousins.”


Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s