Wednesday, June 26, 2013

Love Wins

So it turns out I have some political views. I don't write my books to preach, but I feel no need to hide what I believe.

DOMA is dead. Prop 8 is dead. The valiant fight against SB5 in Texas succeeded, at least for now.

I could stand to wake up to news like this more often.


  1. Absolutely! Only yesterday, I was hiding from the news to avoid depression. Today, I am following it avidly, and it's making me happy.


  2. First, let me say I really like your books. However, I don't agree with your viewpoints on DOMA\Prop 8. I am a Christian and believe that same sex unions are wrong. However, if we are going to go this route, then I think that the government should say any union(s) that a person wants to enter (polyandy, polygamy, group marriage, same sex unions, traditional marriage) should all have the same benefits (with an exception for adoption until studies have borne out that there are no ill effects for these other union types) under law. The other aspect of this would be the government would say that marriage is strictly the domain of your religion. There would also be protections for people running for-profit businesses so that they could follow their religious beliefs without fear of a lawsuit.

  3. Will,

    With regard to Christian beliefs, I would point you toward the First Amendment. That's there to protect people like yourself, too, because if we DO go down the route of letting religion dictate our laws, there's no guarantee that they will be in line with YOUR particular religion. We're all better off that way.

    I have no particular beef with multi-partner relationships. I was once in a poly/open relationship myself. I'm not anymore, but that's not because I've decided poly/open/etc is awful and wrong; I'm just comfortable with the monogamous relationship I have now. So all that said, I would not entirely agree that poly-style marriages should get the same legal rights, because that gets legally complicated in all the ways that marriage equality matters so very much: ONE person has to be that designated next of kin who can decide things for me when I'm medically/legally incompetent, or when I die and my property has to get handled and all of that. I don't have a problem with poly-ish stuff on principle, I'm just not sure there's a practical way to manage all that.

    But I am absolutely, 100% behind same sex marriage equality. I've never heard an argument against it that didn't boil down to religious intolerance or some other stripe of bigotry, and we made a commitment in this country that we wouldn't base our laws on that.

    Also: the single biggest hurdle faced by the children of same-sex couples is that their parents are discriminated against and shunned by their society -- NOT because of any inherent failing on the part of said parents as human beings.

    As for my books -- thank you for the compliment, but for the record, the only reason there isn't a gay male romance angle in any of my books is because it's a little too far out of my personal experience & interest. Not all of the kinks & situations in my writing are my personal kinks in real life, so it's not like I've practiced everything I've imagined or written about, but the lack of gay male romance in my books isn't because I have any particular disapproval or aversion to the subject.

  4. I, for one, believe in the infallibility of machines, and therefore am of the opinion that we should hand all civil and federal services over to the automatons. Because, as the Japanese have taught us, their ascendancy cannot be stopped. I believe the time has come for us to embrace our machine overlords, and remind them that we saw this coming and are willing to round up others to serve in the mines in our place. They do, after all, need pets to show their victory off to.

    1. yeah i'll finally have an excuse to sign on with John Connors tech com unit maybe i'll be put under Perry with Kyle Reece.

  5. You know what homosexuals call gay marriage?

    Answer: marriage.

    - Not my joke, but I like it.

    It's none of my buisness who my fellow human beings choose to fall in love with. If you are able to find love and trust, I am happy for you.

    The very concept of marriage is antiquated, but it is the best thing we have when it comes to making gestures of love, commitment and intent. The idea of preventing others from showing their love to each other is nothing but pure evil. It is evil fueled by ignorance, which is as bad as the evil one finds in indifference.


    I actually typed a lengthy tirade about the correlation between empathy and morals, but I guess there is a time and place for everything. So I'll just say this: Let people be happy and content. It should not be in your power to take the happiness of others away from them. So do not strive to do so.


    Oh, And I bought and read your books. Decent entertainment and some nice concepts. I just checked in here to see if I could get another one yet. No such luck. Good intentions reminds me, for obvious reasons, a bit of Good Omens (that's a compliment).

  6. @tokrika: This is pretty much the same argument for polygamy. As for the legal requirements for next of kin.... I think the series Big Love has shown how that can work. But ignoring TV pop culture. Right now we have power of attorney for health care that legally designates a person who may or may not be your wife to have every power to make health care decisions for you.

    @ Elliot Kay: I would tend to think that anyone interested in a Poly marriage, if presented with this obstacle would, assuming they really do love eachother, be more than willing to, as a legal requirement of their being married, designate their personal choice for making such choices. The same thing with legal estate settlements and such.

    Heck requiring an iron clad Will to be designated and in effect at all time, subject only to revisions and changes but never nullification as the years passed on would again solve those pesky little legal issues you seem to envision. To me all these road blocks you envision are quite simply evidence of a monogamy-centric society. I mean unlike gay marriage, polygamy actually has both a historical and a biblical basis in societies.

    To be pro-anything monogamy and suspicious of anything other, smacks too much of the same sort of discrimination that pro-gay marriage members have had to deal with for decades. How would that work in reality? It could be harmful to society. What are the moral, legal and ethical implications. And so on and so forth. I mean heck, polygamy isn't just something practiced in the backwood hill compounds of Utah. Muslim countries all over the world routinely sanctify such unions. Openly. And with biblical/koran support and sanction.

    Just like with the gay marriage issue, if government and the 'concerned citizens' would just get out of the way, those who 'love' one another would be able to live their lives openly and share the same legal benefits as the rest of us.

    That said I'm for neither gay marriage or polygamy. But as an ethical and moral stance we must either discriminate indiscriminately or else what is good for the goose had by goodness better be blasted well good enough for the gander.

    I would decry giving historically unprecedented rights and privilges to one group and simultaneously deny them to another group which both used to have such rights and then had them stripped from them.

    my 0.02c

    The Deposed King

  7. I've read this blog post the moment it appeared and just chose to not say anything to it.
    1. because I'm not that good at ... what's the word ... verbalisation? phrasing?
    2. This is the internet, and I actually could see a storm brewing ... kinda surprised there wasn't one, actually.
    But then again, I never could've put it into words like you did, Mr. Kay.

    Anyway, it's been a while since you blogged something (anything), and I'm wondering... should I find Trevor (what I do not hope I have to), or are you just busy with life? :)