There's more to love than boy meets girl....
Well when I set to write a blog I thought I'd mostly write about music, the biggest part of myself. However, I figured I can also put in anything else I've been thinking about. I spend a lot of time reading about politics and current events, not for any aspirations but to keep up with what's going on and to try to make informed choices especially when it comes time to vote. So from time to time I'll rant on one thing or another. There's a great many wonderfully written and informative political blogs out there like AmericaBlog, Atrios, DailyKos, TalkingPointsMemo, Digby...heck I can go on and on. But hey, I can put my two cents in as well. I can only bow down to the men and women I've been relying on to pull in and interpret the tons of information that's been clouding the news cycle into a coherent package. On that note...
John Aravosis at AmericaBlog has been preparing for a media blitz by the Bush Administration about pushing for an Amendment to ban gay marriage. Yeah. Gay Marriage. That's what America's most pressing issue of the day is. Not gas prices. Not global warming. Not the War in Iraq. Not rebuilding the hurricane and storm-stricken south. Gay Marriage. Apparently the "Lets fight the evil brown men" didn't go over as well as they'd hoped as a distraction, so they had to pull another old card from the deck. Of course, it's already a given that #1) this wouldn't have a chance to pass as it is (you need not only a 2/3 majority in both houses, but also it must be ratified by 3/4 of the states...38.) and #2) it would invariable start a maelstrom of arguments over other specific rights. That doesn't matter. This is even more of an obvious combo diversion and intimidation scheme than the immigration issue. Are we going to see commercials with "congressman so-and-so refused to protect the sanctity of our marriages by not voting for this amendment" or "So-and-so, candidate for senator, refuses to approve the amendment to protect marriage between a man and a woman"? Their modus operandi is to shake everyone into a frenzy to either defend or reject gays and lesbians.
This Is Bullshit.
First off, the obvious. I am a gay man, and have been "out" all of my adult life. Now I respect the right of anyone else to not support something that falls against their religious beliefs. For themselves. If you believe that being gay or lesbian is immoral or even blasphemous, then don't be. If the thought of marrying someone of your own gender makes you either uncomfortable or angry, then don't marry someone of your own gender. I don't mind. I dont feel slighted. I won't feel let down. If you'll be happy, than more power to you.
However, when you are trying to invoke your own moral or religious beliefs to affect anyone else, the line from faith to prejudice on the outskirts of Hates-ville has been crossed. Think about it. The reality is that gay men and women have always been here, and will always be here., whether or not you have an anti-marriage amendment. People are not going to go "Oh well, there's this amendment, so I'll never be married, so I guess I'll be straight". Gay men and women already can't get married in any state save one so far (and as far as I checked, Armageddon hasn't happened there yet). We still will be living with the ones we love, and still will be carrying on lives in different measures of commitment (just like everyone else). The only thing this amendment seeks to do is to permanently restrict the rights of a group of people whether or not it's legal, approved by a state legislature, OR even by it's own people. A "punishment" as you will. However the effects of this would reach beyond the gay community. We've already seen this in states where "Gay-marriage" laws have been passed, and in consequence have also destroyed the rights of non-married heterosexual partners. Children have been torn away from loving and nurturing homes due to "anti-gay" foster care and adoption policies.
And of course, the burning question is, how does gay marriage threaten the sanctity of marriage? I mean specifically, how does it threaten it? Do you have less love? Did your ceremony get more expensive or less people came? Were you prohibited from having the 2 kids you've dreamed of? The Beemer? No one has ever came with a concrete and physical evidence of what gay marriage would erode for anyone. On the other hand, I still get the privelege of paying the same taxes to provide for the services I am not using (public schools, marriage registration, etc.) that I am not able to use.
As for cheapening marriage, Ronald Reagan. Frank Sinatra. Harrison Ford. Johnny Carson. Larry King. Newt Gingrich. Peter Jennings. John Wayne. Does any of their multiple marriages and subsequent divorce put a strain or stain on yours? If not, why? They are in most of the cases committing adultery. Isn't that just as much a dishonor on your "sanctity"? Or is it something else? Something more sinister, something more evil. An outlet where you can declare your superiority over just someone in your small-minded world? Give me one reason why Ronald Reagan's divorce/dalliance/whatever is in any way different from Bill and Tom up the road who just want the security and legal protection for their commitment to each other.
And don't give me the "this will give way to the bestiality, pedophilia, and polygamy" Santorum bullshit. The last time I checked, the Constitution didn't really delve into animals, sex with children is already illegal for good purposes (well of course unless you marry them in those states that let you), and polygamy, while beyond the fact that it's already being simulated in the very few spots that it pertains to anyways, but also changes the agreement itself on the relationship of the parties (by including more than two individuals), and isn't exactly going to be the "fad of the moment" either way.
As for religious freedom, this amendment would further prohibit the freedom of those people of faith who do want to recognize their fellow sects' vows. I don't think there will be any rush to St. Patrick's to get hitched up, mind you.
The constitution has only been amended 5 times in the last 50 years. Only once since 1971, and that was to cap congressional pay raises (a mostly administrative task as it were even in the best light). The other amendments (besides providing for the succession of the president a little bit after the assassination of Kennedy)? They include the prohibition of keeping anyone over the age of 18 from voting, the ban of any "Poll Tax" used on elections (used commonly to disenfranchise poor and minority voters), and the creation of electors for the Electoral College from the District Of Columbia, allowing residents finally to be able to vote for president. ALL of these are correcting past predjudices and expanding the freedoms this country was founded for. And here it is to decide is as a nation we will be bullied into writing into this text something with no other purpose than to repress and deny the rights of millions of Americans that simply are living their lives with possibly a glimmer in some of them that one day they can not be treated as second-class citizens of this country.
OK I'm off my soapbox.
More cheesy music later. :-)
John Aravosis at AmericaBlog has been preparing for a media blitz by the Bush Administration about pushing for an Amendment to ban gay marriage. Yeah. Gay Marriage. That's what America's most pressing issue of the day is. Not gas prices. Not global warming. Not the War in Iraq. Not rebuilding the hurricane and storm-stricken south. Gay Marriage. Apparently the "Lets fight the evil brown men" didn't go over as well as they'd hoped as a distraction, so they had to pull another old card from the deck. Of course, it's already a given that #1) this wouldn't have a chance to pass as it is (you need not only a 2/3 majority in both houses, but also it must be ratified by 3/4 of the states...38.) and #2) it would invariable start a maelstrom of arguments over other specific rights. That doesn't matter. This is even more of an obvious combo diversion and intimidation scheme than the immigration issue. Are we going to see commercials with "congressman so-and-so refused to protect the sanctity of our marriages by not voting for this amendment" or "So-and-so, candidate for senator, refuses to approve the amendment to protect marriage between a man and a woman"? Their modus operandi is to shake everyone into a frenzy to either defend or reject gays and lesbians.
This Is Bullshit.
First off, the obvious. I am a gay man, and have been "out" all of my adult life. Now I respect the right of anyone else to not support something that falls against their religious beliefs. For themselves. If you believe that being gay or lesbian is immoral or even blasphemous, then don't be. If the thought of marrying someone of your own gender makes you either uncomfortable or angry, then don't marry someone of your own gender. I don't mind. I dont feel slighted. I won't feel let down. If you'll be happy, than more power to you.
However, when you are trying to invoke your own moral or religious beliefs to affect anyone else, the line from faith to prejudice on the outskirts of Hates-ville has been crossed. Think about it. The reality is that gay men and women have always been here, and will always be here., whether or not you have an anti-marriage amendment. People are not going to go "Oh well, there's this amendment, so I'll never be married, so I guess I'll be straight". Gay men and women already can't get married in any state save one so far (and as far as I checked, Armageddon hasn't happened there yet). We still will be living with the ones we love, and still will be carrying on lives in different measures of commitment (just like everyone else). The only thing this amendment seeks to do is to permanently restrict the rights of a group of people whether or not it's legal, approved by a state legislature, OR even by it's own people. A "punishment" as you will. However the effects of this would reach beyond the gay community. We've already seen this in states where "Gay-marriage" laws have been passed, and in consequence have also destroyed the rights of non-married heterosexual partners. Children have been torn away from loving and nurturing homes due to "anti-gay" foster care and adoption policies.
And of course, the burning question is, how does gay marriage threaten the sanctity of marriage? I mean specifically, how does it threaten it? Do you have less love? Did your ceremony get more expensive or less people came? Were you prohibited from having the 2 kids you've dreamed of? The Beemer? No one has ever came with a concrete and physical evidence of what gay marriage would erode for anyone. On the other hand, I still get the privelege of paying the same taxes to provide for the services I am not using (public schools, marriage registration, etc.) that I am not able to use.
As for cheapening marriage, Ronald Reagan. Frank Sinatra. Harrison Ford. Johnny Carson. Larry King. Newt Gingrich. Peter Jennings. John Wayne. Does any of their multiple marriages and subsequent divorce put a strain or stain on yours? If not, why? They are in most of the cases committing adultery. Isn't that just as much a dishonor on your "sanctity"? Or is it something else? Something more sinister, something more evil. An outlet where you can declare your superiority over just someone in your small-minded world? Give me one reason why Ronald Reagan's divorce/dalliance/whatever is in any way different from Bill and Tom up the road who just want the security and legal protection for their commitment to each other.
And don't give me the "this will give way to the bestiality, pedophilia, and polygamy" Santorum bullshit. The last time I checked, the Constitution didn't really delve into animals, sex with children is already illegal for good purposes (well of course unless you marry them in those states that let you), and polygamy, while beyond the fact that it's already being simulated in the very few spots that it pertains to anyways, but also changes the agreement itself on the relationship of the parties (by including more than two individuals), and isn't exactly going to be the "fad of the moment" either way.
As for religious freedom, this amendment would further prohibit the freedom of those people of faith who do want to recognize their fellow sects' vows. I don't think there will be any rush to St. Patrick's to get hitched up, mind you.
The constitution has only been amended 5 times in the last 50 years. Only once since 1971, and that was to cap congressional pay raises (a mostly administrative task as it were even in the best light). The other amendments (besides providing for the succession of the president a little bit after the assassination of Kennedy)? They include the prohibition of keeping anyone over the age of 18 from voting, the ban of any "Poll Tax" used on elections (used commonly to disenfranchise poor and minority voters), and the creation of electors for the Electoral College from the District Of Columbia, allowing residents finally to be able to vote for president. ALL of these are correcting past predjudices and expanding the freedoms this country was founded for. And here it is to decide is as a nation we will be bullied into writing into this text something with no other purpose than to repress and deny the rights of millions of Americans that simply are living their lives with possibly a glimmer in some of them that one day they can not be treated as second-class citizens of this country.
OK I'm off my soapbox.
More cheesy music later. :-)
Comments