I woke up today under the impressions of a vivid dream. Perhaps I have been blogging too much as of late, but I distinctly remember reading a blog, comment, or article involving a 'No' vote on the Wisconsin Marriage Amendment. I cannot remember who had written it or even what the writing was in its specifics, just the general tenor. It considered that a 'Yes' vote amounted to discrimination against homosexuals, not only by the refusal of cultural recognition, but also by governmental recognition through tax breaks and the like.
I Had a Dream
Even while dreaming I remember my thoughts upon reading. First, by an unauthorized sleight-of-hand, the writer changed the meaning of 'marriage' from 'a union between one man and one woman' to 'a union of two consenting adults'. I reject that premise out of the sleight hand. A 'Yes' vote on the amendment using the latter meaning would, indeed, be discriminatory. By the former meaning, however, such a vote would not be discriminatory. Since the 'one man, one woman' definition is the culturally accepted form and has been from the formation of the nation, it is disingenuous to sneak a twisted definition in the back door. (Pun intended- I bet I even chuckled aloud while asleep, because when I did wake up, the drool spots were scattered about my pillow.)
Tax discrimination? What's new? Unless the ghostly writer was willing to accept 'One man, one vote, one tax' (amount, not rate), I suspect this particular complaint of discrimination is discriminatory in itself.
Anyway... that all was pretty weird. Must be the season. This is G.J.'s post number 1300. Spooky.
(Flashback: I used to work nights at a convenience store in a pretty shady part of Victoria. On Halloween, every costumed customer was a potential armed robber avoiding camera identification.)