News talk 2014-01-06: Gay weddings on hold

Poker1.com default content graphic


Poker1 news discussion

This news entry is repeated as it appeared on the Poker1 News page (in the main menu).

Your comments are invited below













Monday → 

January

6

2014

Held over


U.S. Supreme Court puts Utah gay weddings on hold
Salt Lake Tribune ↑

Mike Caro says:

I have mixed feelings on this. I tend to wear pink a lot and feel warm and fuzzy toward guys having loving relationships with each other, if they choose.

Yeah, I know, the previous sentence was bigoted and insensitive. I’m not sure how or why it was, but let me save some of you the trouble of pointing that out to me. I acknowledge it.

The citizens of Utah voted overwhelmingly (two to one) in 2004 to disallow gay marriages. The population is largely Mormon. Hmm. Let’s think about that. Individual Mormons might or might not like gays, but they shouldn’t be voting on public policy from a religious perspective. They can legally, but they shouldn’t. Is that what happened? To some extent, yes.

So, score a point for the gays. It shouldn’t matter what the majority wants if it denies legitimate rights. But, then again, what are the rights here? Ah, yes, to get married. But marriage shouldn’t be a right granted by government. It should just be something people do because the government has no authority to stop them from doing it or to authorize them to do it. In other words, it’s none of government’s business who gets married or who doesn’t.

If the custom of marriage were just being invented, gays could and should argue for inclusion. And they can and should argue for inclusion in any government authorized sanctioning of a two-person relationship. And, no, I’m not saying “two person” because I have a bias toward traditional marriage. More than two is fine with me. But tradition has its place, and that’s why government shouldn’t be involved at all.

Sure, I understand the argument that government sanction of marriage was partly intended to help promote family. And that’s kind of an argument against gay marriage, although lately many gays have strongly argued that they do promote strong families (but can’t create them by bearing children unassisted). My position is neutral on the family issue, but it also doesn’t matter to me. Government should neither encourage nor discourage marriage, gay or traditional. Again, none of its business.

Bottom line. I side with gays on government sanctioned marriage, but I don’t think there should be any such thing. And I side with churches in excluding gays from marriages that they sanction. Whether or not I believe there should be any churches is another issue for another day.

Sure, I know. Many of you aren’t comfortable with my remarks on various issues. I think you’ll need to get used to people speaking their minds again, changing their opinions from time to time again, sticking to their guns at other times again, and sharing their thoughts again. I have officially declared the era of political correctness over. I know for a fact that I’m not a bigot or a racist or homophobic or sexist. But you might sometimes think I am when I share myself with you. If I avoid that possibility, I might as well not share at all, because it would all be bullshit. Maybe you don’t think I’m the right general to lead this charge, but I’m leading it, anyway. — MC




Published by

Mike Caro

Visit Mike on   → Twitter   ♠ OR ♠    → FaceBook

Known as the “Mad Genius of Poker,” Mike Caro is generally regarded as today's foremost authority on poker strategy, psychology, and statistics. He is the founder of Mike Caro University of Poker, Gaming, and Life Strategy (MCU). See full bio → HERE.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Let's make sure it's really you and not a bot. Please type digits (without spaces) that best match what you see. (Example: 71353)