Today on Blogcritics
Home » The Ambiguously Gay Corporation Act of 2006

The Ambiguously Gay Corporation Act of 2006

Please Share...Print this pageTweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

I think the whole Gay Marriage issue is completely and utterly wrong. Completely based in false ideals and beliefs, and wrong on so many levels, let’s observe for a moment, shall we? The Senate of course failed to ban Gay Marriage again today, and microbial influence peddlers including the likes of the esteemed lady from Florida, Katherine Harris, all claim great victory and miniscule headway with a growth of seven new votes since 2004. Hoorah, hoorah, the tide is turning and soon we will have complete inclusion of Church and State!

I mean take a close look here, and what is actually occurring? The religious right is appalled at the scandalous idea of including married homos in Better Homes and Gardens, President Bush is waving a flag over his Bible in support, and the American Gay society is simply looking for a social, as well as a legal stamp of approval on their lifestyle. So what is so wrong here that all sides can’t have their cake and eat it too?

I propose the Ambiguously Gay Corporation Act of 2006. That’s right, the beginning to an end of needless fray between Gays and Lesbians joined against the Ambiguously Grey Corporation of Bushco, Robertson and all of their collective grey haired, old world, mindless money grubbing, holier than though, anti-gay neophytes. It has something for everyone!

On the surface, marriage looks to be a holy union, reverent, based in faith, and binding before God. When looked at under the glass, marriage provides a union, reason for perseverance, tax-shelters, financial inclusion, inheritance laws, and a piece of paper to stand up in court, in more layman terms an “Articles of Incorporation!” See? An end to the meanies, with a means to an end.

The way I see it, the whole argument merely revolves around money, as is usually the case when major factions go to blows, and yes Virginia, the Gay Community is a major faction, why just look at Broadway and shudder to think if all the Gays didn’t attend and aspire to be Liza!? Seriously though, this is a war among titans, and I always follow the money trail when looking for a story, and/ or resolution.

The idea that Bush et al could possibly be strictly motivated by religious beliefs and foundations of marriage between a man and a woman in itself is a complete violation of Separation between Church and State. Ah, but when the tax laws and the money angles enter, and then the juxtaposition of adversaries is quite changed indeed. A man and a man, or a woman and a woman can attend church freely today, in fact there are quite a number of Gay and Lesbian oriented churches to choose from in America.

So being married in the eyes of the Lord is simply a relatively minor symbolic gesture, one that could be achieved through private ceremonies. What is then left is the legal aspects, and the complex monetary and legal advantages and protections. This is where a simple use of America’s laws of incorporation comes into play.

By the way, did you know that the rights of the corporation outweigh the rights of an individual? Were you aware that corporations never die like people, they simply pass on to future shareholders, the benefits of this angle actually far outweigh the traditional marriage. Why I suppose if Bob and Ted, or Carol and Alice, broke off their amorous ties, they could actually maintain quite a profitable business venture until such time as a more perfect union could be formed, (damn, that would have been awesome if my first wife and I could have managed that one, I might have never filed bankruptcy, holy cow Mr. Bush, I just stumbled upon an important side benefit!)

And think of the amicable ties with the mainstream that could open up, Pat Robertson would not have to wage war with his inner soul, er, I mean with the Gay community, because hey! It’s strictly business, right? The logistics are simple, for instance in most Gay unions, and Lesbian pairings as well, there is an outright on the surface domineering party, there’s your Chief Executive Officer.

As it is in all relationships, there is a more dominate, yet underlying party with subtle financial skills, that’s gonna be the Chief Financial Officer! If you want to take it to extremes and go multiple on the titles, well the one who thinks they are in charge of said relationship is the Chief Operating Officer of course, whereas the one who IS actually in charge of said union is the company lawyer!

All of this can actually be achieved today, right now, under existing American law, and the worst thing that could happen would be if Congress actually rolled over and enacted some pretty drastic and steep laws constricting the behaviors and freedoms of American corporations, and hey!!! That might be cause enough for the whole damned world to celebrate, and in which case, the actual fight for Gay Marriage rights would actually stand a prayers chance in hell.

When you cut them off at the money source, you literally have a grip on the short hairs. This as in all my writings, has simply been my humble opinion and in no way did I mean to offend Pat Robertson for his inner soul, er, I mean Gay community, er, uh, I mean, well, you get the point.

Technorati Tags:
, , , , ,

Powered by

About Paul Jordan Sr

  • http://clatch.blogspot.com/ A.L. Harper

    I think this article may be very unPC. Therefore I love IT! I also think this may be the most sensible answer I have ever heard. Good home-truths here.

    I have always thought that it was a big step to go for gay marriage. While I think it’s wrong to deny someone the right to marry just because you don’t like to think about them having sex, or because you wouldn’t do it yourself (there is some bible thing too right) it would seem to me that there must be so middle ground. Like in Scotland. Works well. And eventually people will see that society hasn’t broken down and we are all still the same.

    As for social inclusion/acceptance well that comes with time. You just have to wait.

  • http://pjordansr.blogspot.com Paul Jordan, Sr.

    Thanks for the “SHOUT” at my site, and yes this is very UnPC, as am I at most times. All kidding aside, this is actually meant to be looked at with some seriousness, solutions can come from anywhere at anytime.

  • mojotek

    What a great idea! I think if you just get passed calling gay unions “marriages”, then you will have nullified the vast majority of these religious zealots’ arguments. You’re absolutely right that marriage is really all about its ‘corporate’ benefits, instead of its sacred religious values. Now all we need to do is get a congressman to sponsor the Ambiguously Gay Corporation Act of 2006 and we’ll be on our way to ending this nonsense!

  • http://pjordansr.blogspot.com Paul Jordan, Sr.

    I am all over it, emailing Congress as we speak, seriously though, there is some very real merit to my proposal, if only the talking heads would listen to us little guys!!!

  • http://absent-mind.blogspot.com/ Jet in Columbus

    With my eyes they way they are, I thought the title read “The Ambiguously Gay Coruption Act of 2006″

    silly me.

  • http://pjordansr.blogspot.com Paul Jordan, Sr.

    Hmmm, that would definately be a departure from the gist of things! LOL