June 18, 2008

It's Time to Legalize Same-Self Marriage

Marc Comtois

After reading Justin's post, it hit me: why couldn't I marry myself? So, I am here to ask that you join me in advocating for Same-Self marriage (SsM). It's too late for me, but I'm going to fight for those of you who love yourselves more than anyone else and want to spend the rest of your lives with yourselves while enjoying all of the rights--legal, cultural and traditional--that those in two-people marriages (TPMs) enjoy.

I remember the days I spent alone. Forcing myself to meet people who might like me. Enduring dates. It was a life full of constant emotional and psychological trauma. Would anyone ever like me as much as I liked myself? Luckily, I found someone who did. But I know there are people out there who aren't wired that way. You do to. People who are still living the single life and have come to realize that they prefer it that way. The 45 year old I.T. guy; the 54 year old librarian; and, of course, the priest and nun. They all must endure the snickers and stares: why aren't they with anyone. What's wrong with them. It's time to end the stigmatization of the single life in our culture.

And single people are being discriminated against by our own government. We have tax polices that benefit married couples. But isn't the single life the ultimate expression of Liberty as defined by our Constitution? The Equal Protection Clause? Where is it written that it takes two people to be married? Surely you aren't going to argue that all of the law books say so, are you? C'mon, those were written a long time ago when people weren't open-minded enough to understand how modern society would evolve. Hey, if we can move from "man and wife" to "two parties", what's the diff if we just make marriage a solo project?

Don't give me any arguments about how this would affect the rearing of children. It's obvious that there are no practical or legal reasons why a kid needs a parent of each gender. If two dads or two moms are fine, then how can we say that one really cool, supermom or -dad can't do the job? Our society has reached a point where we have a lot of single parents anyway. If the government wants to continue to incentivize marriage, then it needs to do so without discriminating against a whole class of people. Allowing singles to marry themselves will enable them to take advantage of all of the same benefits that those in TPMs enjoy.

I don't think this proposal is that revolutionary. As I said, it comports with the self-reliance and liberties that have characterized our great nation since it's founding. It's time we align our society and government with the clear intent of the Founders, had they lived today. So let's stop the hypocrisy and legalize Same-Self marriage. It's the only fair thing to do.

Comments, although monitored, are not necessarily representative of the views Anchor Rising's contributors or approved by them. We reserve the right to delete or modify comments for any reason.

Sigh. It's a-hole posts like this that make the average visitor to this site think you guys are no better than that wingnuts over at RIFuture.

Posted by: Greg at June 18, 2008 10:03 AM

Greg, spare me the self-righteousness. I enjoy the vast majority of your commentary on this sight, but no one can argue that much of what you offer can't be considered "a-holish" on its own. I suppose one's judgment as to the veracity of a point changes based on disagreement over acute issues, eh?

Posted by: Marc at June 18, 2008 10:16 AM

It's a big difference between a loudmouth malcontent comment poster and one of the guys who's posts set the example. If someone visited this site today for the first time and read this topic the likely response could likely be "Another of those slippery-slope, hyperbolic douches like Crowley".

When somebody reads my comments they just dismiss me as a moron and move on to the next comment. Except Bobby Walsh. He hires investigators to learn everything there is to know about me because I'm SUCH a threat.

Posted by: Greg at June 18, 2008 10:26 AM

Great idea Marc!

With the cost of veterinary care getting beyond affordable, my wife wants to ask the courts to allow her to marry her true love, our dog! It's not about the sex, just the love...and the health care benefits. Can anyone ecommend a good lawyer to take up the cause?

Posted by: John at June 18, 2008 11:05 AM

Gay marriage to those of us in a healthy hetero marriage:
No harm, no foul.
'Nuff said.

Posted by: rhody at June 18, 2008 11:34 AM

Greg, Point taken and your opinion is noted. I hope you'll forgive me for indulging in a bit of smart-a**ery every now and then.

Posted by: Marc at June 18, 2008 11:43 AM

Marc, good point. Why should single people be forced to suffer tax disadvantages? Unfair if you ask me, or my brother Steve.

Posted by: Robert Kass at June 18, 2008 12:07 PM


As the biggest smarta$$ I know, I will always indulge when others partake.

I'd say no offense was intended, but it was. Not because I don't like you but because I do.

Posted by: Greg at June 18, 2008 12:18 PM


I agree with Greg to an extent that the post is an extreme exaggeration not to mention malicious. You are effectively asserting that there is no coherent argument to support the legal recognition of same-sex couples.

You mocked that same-sex couples right to marry is the legal and social equivalent to someone wanting to marry themselves. This puts you in the same class as those who mock George Bush for the Iraq war by saying, ‘what next? Will he bomb Africa, Cuba, maybe even Canada?’ Of course there is a huge difference in the realities of those countries and Iraq with regard to National Security, but those realities are ignored just as your post ignores realities for the sack of rhetoric and humor.

If you would have gone to something like ‘if opposite-sex marriage is unconstitutional then denying me the right to marry myself may also be unconstitutional’ or even the linking the same-sex marriage arguments to incest or polygamy, those are legit issues to take on and even mock, but your post went much further than that.

I think Greg has a point in saying the post was unworthy of you and this site.

Posted by: msteven at June 18, 2008 12:19 PM

Hey, we're all entitled to some occasional Swiftian excess.

Posted by: rhody at June 18, 2008 2:35 PM

Geeze, sometimes these things just go right over my head. I thought Marc's post was meant to be satire.

Posted by: George at June 18, 2008 7:26 PM

Rather than take offense at Marc's post on the grounds that it trivializes or ridicules the opposing position, and rather than just chuckling at its Swiftian satire, I think we should take the argument pefectly seriously.

Why DON'T we let people marry themselves?

I see two consequences to asking the question.

1) It makes us ask, why DO we confer benefits (tax and otherwise) on people who marry at all? Why do we encourage marriage (and thus punish those who, for whatever reason, don't want to permanently partner with another)? If there is no good reason to do so, then we should just abolish civil marriage entirely (letting the churches do as they will, of course).

If there are reasons, Marc's post suggest this requires a secular argument based on public policy and social consequences, one that neither simply defines marriage, a priori, as a relation between a man and a woman, nor proclaims that opposite-sex marriage is divinely mandated. I think this is actually a positive step in the debate.

2. Once we've specified those secular reasons why we reward marriage, we can then ask whether or not those reasons apply equally, or differently, to same-sex and opposite-sex marriages.

Thus, I think that Marc's "immodest proposal" is, perhaps ironically, very helpful.

Posted by: Thomas Schmeling at June 18, 2008 8:59 PM

Funny that you should find Marc's commentary to introduce something new to the discussion, Thomas, inasmuch as every argument against SSM that any Anchor Rising contributor has ever made, to my recollection, has been founded on (and often explicitly stated) precisely the intellectual consequences that you suggest.

Perhaps it just took the satire to pierce the prejudice.

Posted by: Justin Katz at June 18, 2008 11:21 PM

Hi Justin,

I didn't say Marc's post raised "something new"; I just said that seeing it as a sincere question was actually more helpful that seeing it as derision or satire.

I don't think you should be so quick to impute "prejudice". While it is true that the vast majority of anti-SSM commentary I see day-to-day is based on religion or some form of natural law, I wasn't making any comment on AR contributors. Nor would I, because I generally just skip the SSM posts here. This one just caught my attention because of the title.

Posted by: Thomas Schmeling at June 18, 2008 11:42 PM

Your reaction was the one I was hoping to elicit and the goal of my satirical post. Justin is right: we've brought these up before. But the fact that I was able to catch your attention with that type of post illustrates that sometimes satire is the best way to draw people into a good-faith debate.

Posted by: Marc at June 19, 2008 9:04 AM

I thought the whole posting was satire laid out with a compelling argument.

Of course no one is going to read the post and think someone can marry themselves or their true love that doesn't involve another person.

Steve Bousquet would marry a quahog, right?

I've visited this site only because of the immigration post from Monique and started to read other topic posts.

Very interesting and this site gives me hope that there is intelligent life in RI.

Posted by: Roland at June 22, 2008 10:16 AM

i dont understand you all

Posted by: jac at August 18, 2008 8:34 AM
Post a comment

Remember personal info?

Important note: The text "http:" cannot appear anywhere in your comment.