Which Republicans Endorse Same-Sex Marriage?

Billy Hallowell promises a list of 75 prominent Republicans who endorse same-sex marriage. He does not deliver that list in this post:

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/02/26/which-75-prominent-republicans-just-signed-a-legal-brief-proclaiming-gay-marriage-is-a-constitutional-right/#

So, which Republicans are those, exactly? The more confused ones, I'd say...and the more greedy, venal, power-grubbing ones who want to continue discriminating against bachelors. And against widows.

Same-sex marriage is an oxymoron. Marriage is not about love; it is about uniting families through at least a claim of willingness to produce mutual heirs. Laws that give privileges to those who are currently married are designed not to preserve the traditional family, which has traditionally respected widowed elders and never-married aunts and uncles, but to break up the traditional family...by denying relatives other than the wife or husband any claims on custody of children or sick patients, inheritance of estates, and unpaid but protected leave from work to care for family members.

This web site does not for a minute believe that 99% of the homosexual activist population ever has known or will know anything about love. Nevertheless, this web site supports any homosexual people who are willing to stop screaming in public places and quietly look for love, either with their bedmates or with their friends and relatives. This web site is generally in favor of all attempts to practice love.

But the blather about calling it "same-sex marriage," whether we're talking about a homosexual couple, or maybe friends or cousins who want to share some of the benefits of legal marriage or adoption, is so totally a smokescreen for discrimination...and for greed.

Homosexual people of good will need to give up the pretense that anyone outside their immediate families cares much about their personal relationships, and face the reality that all people, including more than 49% of those who sincerely practice traditional monogamous Christian marriage until death does them part, really need to focus on the legal right of any person to choose his or her own heirs, care givers, etc., on whatever basis the person sees fit.

We all need to focus on that. We need to unite, not divide. (For the purpose of unity, homosexuals need to shut up about the disgusting details of their sex lives and talk about things we all have in common as humans.) We need to think about the situation of a married man who is his disabled wife's primary caretaker and suddenly needs someone else to be his primary caretaker. Or a paraplegic who's never needed to think about sex but does want the right to choose his or her own personal assistant, and reward that person for doing everything else a wife or husband would have done. Or any widow who wants to be part of a family, not a ward of the state, toward the end of her or his life. We need to remove the concept of sex and marriage from our idea of the individual's right to be cared for, and dispose of his or her property, in whatever way s/he sees fit. By the time most of us are ready to exercise those rights, whatever our sexuality may once have been is irrelevant.

Whether you think those little images of Adam and Steve holding hands are cute or disgusting, if you're dragging them into this discussion, this web site hereby declares you Part of the Problem.

Do the math--it's easy enough even for dysnumeric people like me. Even if 15% of the population are capable of some sort of homosexual act, only about 5% of the population want to make a public commitment to a homosexual relationship. Even marriages that are supported by the church and the state and the parents of the people involved have only about a 50% chance of lasting as long as the couples claim they want them to last, so we have to figure that something like 2% of the population, max, might stay in a same-sex marriage long enough for the legal implications to get beyond the question of who keeps the collectible LP's. A greedy government that's trying to latch on to a share of every substantial estate and take over the care of every child and every disabled patient is willing to concede the benefits of marriage to 2% of the population, max...in exchange for denying them to, let's see, the 49% of all people who really are married who will become widows, the close to 50% of all people who tried to be married who will become divorced, and does anybody out there know what percent of the population have never been married?

The challenge to most conservatives may be to stop letting ourselves be distracted by sex, stop letting the homosexuals pretend it's all about them (or has much to do with them), and focus on the rights of all individuals who are or may become disabled, elderly, or dead. That means us. We all need to reclaim the "rights" of married people for all people. We all need to make marriage just one of many bases on which people may choose their heirs or their caretakers.