Can I gay marry Chris Kluwe?

Chris Kluwe looking unimpressed.

Chris Kluwe is unimpressed by your bullshit.

He’s called out Matt Birk, and it’s every bit as wonderful as his first effort.

The second flaw is that you’re actually arguing in favor of same-sex marriage. If children having a stable home is the main crux of your concern, then denying gay couples the benefits of 1100 federal laws can only harm the children they will raise. Not allowing those children the same health benefits, family care benefits, survivor benefits; that can only be a detriment to the upbringing and care of a child, correct? Or do you propose that same-sex couples should be unfit for adoption, should be unfit to raise children?

Go read it.  The whole thing is an eloquent punt that sent Birk’s litany of shitty arguments out of the solar system.

Richard Wade summed it up best:

A football player tells me that heterosexual marriage is the only way to provide stability for children’s lives and for society, and he tells me that same sex marriage will cause instability to both those things.

Should I go to a sociologist to ask how the Ravens can improve their defense?

Well played, Mr. Wade.  Well played.


About JT Eberhard

When not defending the planet from inevitable apocalypse at the rotting hands of the undead, JT is a writer and public speaker about atheism, gay rights, and more. He spent two and a half years with the Secular Student Alliance as their first high school organizer. During that time he built the SSA’s high school program and oversaw the development of groups nationwide. JT is also the co-founder of the popular Skepticon conference and served as the events lead organizer during its first three years.

  • Rob

    Or do you propose that same-sex couples should be unfit for adoption, should be unfit to raise children?

    Yes, yes he is. Birk was too chickenshit to say so straight out. Chris’ primary mistake is to think that this is a mark of shame to Birk in the absence of publicity.

  • Kodie

    This gives me the idea of a hypothetical proposal that we do make marriage only for those who can reproduce naturally. Restrict marriage, I am saying, to one fertile man and one fertile woman and treat everyone else who wants to get married as if they are gay. If they don’t have a child within 5 years, they have to get divorced. I’m so sick of talking about this the other way around so I just want to put this out there and see what they say about it, since it’s pretty drastic. Everyone can still be couples but they don’t get the benefits, and they can still adopt but they are treated differently. I know that’s shitty, but we have to be fair.

    • Rob

      There is one other solution. Government gets out of the marriage business entirely. No laws supporting it at all. Two people are two people, nothing more, nothing less. Any of the benefits of marriage can be gained through explicit contracts.

      • BBD

        Sure, you could contract between those two people, but then again, there’s nothing stopping gay people from doing that right now.

        But private contracts cannot be used to bestow the legal entitlements of marriage, which are significant and important. And these aren’t just government benefits – shared health insurance benefits immediately spring to mind as something a private contract couldn’t compel.

        Rather, when you detangle the complexities of civil marriage (which is, and this cannot be stressed enough, recognized as something holy separate from any religious union), it’s clear that the primary goal isn’t children, or love, or sex, or anything other than a mutual pledge of financial and moral support; most of the legal benefits of marriage underscore this (the protected nature of marital communications; the reduction in income tax).

        What government needs to get out of is trying to decide whom a marriage is between from a moral standpoint, and focus instead on the support. While Mr. Birk is legally-entitled to be as big of a bigot as he wants, the law ought to be blind to that trash; we ought to focus on how to we convince more people to get married, given the social efficiency benefits of having more people pledged to mutually support another.

        • Rob

          Yeah, there is. A lot of the benefits are only granted through marriage. Contracts aren’t going to cover it

          • John Horstman

            Exactly; things like inheritance or power-of-attorney can be set up through non-marriage contracts, but there are a lot of laws or institutional policies (e.g. tax codes, hospital visitation) that are written specifically with respect to marriage. This also addresses the polygamy/polyamory question; if there is no legal recognition of ‘marriage’ – just a constellation of legal contracts that any two people can get – then the government also stops coercing (or if I’m feeling kind, “encouraging”, but I’m not because the institutionalization of sexual/romantic/life-partnering relationships in the present cultural context is regressive and absurd) exclusive-coupling behavior.

  • SuperMental

    Kluwe is too damn awesome… Tim Tebow is a joke compared to this guy..

  • Joe G

    Slightly irrelevant, but I’d just like to point out that, I bet, if you shaved his head, he would look like Kratos from God of War …

    To Kodie, I have a hypothetical counter proposal. We should have a law stating that if you marry, then you have to marry both one man and one women, so we’d get far more interesting connection graphs.

  • Rich Stage

    Chris Kluwe (@ChrisWarcraft on Twitter) is one of my perks for being a Vikings fan.

    By the by, JT, how are the Raiders doing this year?

  • Ilaria

    No you can’t. There’s queue, you know…
    Take your ticket and wait for your turn. I’m number 2565.

    Jokes aside… he totally destroyed my total disinterest for sports and my prejudice against sports people’s…. aehm… brains :D

  • Backin15

    Richard’s comment is hitting me funny. We cheer on Kluwe for his opinion on what marriage is, but when Birk chimes in with his vile bigotry, we tell him to keep his day job? Have we forgotten that they both are football players. Birk is a bigot and Kluwe is good at kicking the shit out of bigoted arguments. If we discredit Birk due to his profession, wouldn’t we have to do the same to Kluwe, out of fairness? Or did I miss a rule change pertaining to hypocrisy?

    • tubi

      I took it more as that Richard was dismissing both. As in, “who are football players to have an opinion about something that doesn’t involve bashing each others’ heads in?” Also, his snark at asking a sociologist about the Ravens defense was odd given that Birk is a center.

      This reading is also annoying. Why can’t football players or actors or whomever be able to have opinion and express it? They often have access to a forum that others don’t, but they’re still protected by the 1st Amendment. And so are we, when we eviscerate Birk and proclaim Kluwe. The value is not in who the person is, or what they do, but in what they say-their argument and how they construct it. Birk’s was terrible; Kluwe’s was awesome sauce.