Sunday, May 23, 2010

"Grandfathering" bigotry and discrimination: Sure, that's a plan.

Apparently, the latest brainstorm emanating from Canada's Wingnut-o-sphere is that Saskatchewan's marriage commissioners who are terribly, terribly upset about being told to do their (public, taxpayer-funded) jobs -- that is, to officially marry whoever comes before them that is legally entitled to be married under federal law, including gays -- should be allowed to hang on to their well-established bigotry and be given a pass from said federal law because (if I read this correctly) they were bigots long before the law was changed.

Yes, if I am not mistaken, the suggestion to "grandfather" these homophobes is based on the logic that they have been bigots for so long, and that their bigotry is so well and firmly entrenched, that it would be emotionally and psychologically cruel and traumatic to tell them to grow the fuck up and join the rest of us in the 21st century. But what an interesting compromise that is, since it opens up all sorts of entertaining and/or disturbing possibilities.

For example, just a couple years ago, the sexual age of consent in Canada was raised from 14 to 16 years. And since this was a law that was passed by Parliament, you'd think it applied to everyone, right? And, certainly, if you're an adult who's never fucked a 14-year-old before, it goes without saying that you sure aren't going to start now.

But what if you've been doing it for a while? Maybe you're in your mid-thirties and have been fucking 14-year-olds for a number of years, to the extent that you're quite comfortable with it and having to stop would be, like, really upsetting and everything. Why should you have to cease and desist?

Sure, it's the law now but you never saw this coming and why should you have to suddenly change your behaviour? The obvious solution is, of course, the grandfathering of 14-year-old fuckers and letting them continue what they enjoy, but drawing the line there and not letting anyone else get started. That sounds like a reasonable compromise to me.

Cue shrieky, ignorant wankers howling how that's totally different in three ... two ... one ...

P.S. We're not done here.


Lindsay Stewart said...

how 'bout an example that'll hit these freedom lovers where they live. say mary t is hard at work, earning her daily bread when a customer arrives and asks for the new 'double down' sandwich. the one that has so much chicken fat, bacon fat and cheese lard that there's no room left for the damn bun. sweet mother of fuck! well a patriot like mary t should be able to turn right on her heel and insist that there's no way she should have to serve that item because when she was hired, there was no such sandwich.

CC said...

But ... but ... but ... that's different!!!

No, seriously, I'm not joking. Apparently that's totally not the same thing because a new sandwich is an incredibly trivial change, whereas same-sex marriage is a whopping big change and whether or not you have to follow the new rules depends on the bigness of the change and how upsetting it is for you emotionally.

I am absolutely not making this up.

croghan27 said...

Did not just that thing what happened to Jerry Lee Lewis? He was married in one state to someone considered underage in another.

When he went to the 'other' state for a concert - he was busted for humping his legal wife.