Right, I was raised not to discuss politics or religion publicly. Those two topics are guaranteed to incite strong emotions, cause the reason and logic centers of the brain to shut down, and result in nothing but hurt feelings.
Well, get ready for some hurt feelings.
North Carolina, in a move of stunning boneheadedness, followed the rest of the anti-liberty, anti-Constitution pack in amending their constitution to forbid the recognition of any same-sex couples. Yes, I am all in favor of gay marriage — or at least complete and utter neutrality in the government’s recognition of marital status. I think you should have to draw up your own marriage contract. I think that both parties involved should have to sit down, negotiate, discuss, and come up with a contract that they both sign. Then, the government’s job is to oversee the orderly enforcement of that contract. There shouldn’t be laws concerning child custody, visitation, support, alimony, or any of that crap because it should all be spelled out in the marriage contract you and your partner drew up. The only “regulation” I’d have on this would be that all parties have to be over the age of the majority. You’re adults, by Liberace’s sparkly suits! As long as you’re not physically harming someone or destroying someone else’s property, do whatever you want. Your neighbors can be scandalized and can decide not to invite you to their ice cream socials but they cannot use the law to force you to live the way they want you to live. God/Frog/Whatever bless America for that.
But then, I’m just logical and rational like that. Unlike the vast majority of my fellow members in the Homo sapiens sapiens club, I am categorically unable to turn off my logic and reason centers unless I am under the influence of some really fun substances.
Now, why am I riled up about this? Well, because, for one, it’s stupid to decide that a civil state can only be reachable by certain privileged members of a given society. That’s like saying that skin color should determine if you can vote, genitals determine if you can own property, and bloodlines determine if you can get a discount on an overpriced college education.
But, ya know what, my liberal/Democrat friends? You idiots brought this on yourselves! And the fact that you turn around and bitch about it — Madre de Dios that takes a special kind of stupid.
Why do I say you brought this on yourselves?
Set the time circuits for January 22, 1973 and let ‘er rip.
People deserve the government they get, and they deserve to get it good and hard.
On January 22, 1973, the US Supreme Court handed down a landmark decision in the case Roe v Wade. Later, the same body would reject its own trimester outlining and overturn state regulations on later term abortions.
Now, am I against abortion? Not really. I’m against late-term purely elective abortion, yeah. I’m not thrilled about abortion at all but it’s not my place to judge so I’d say that a sane rule would be “up to the point where the kid can live outside of your body. After that, it can only be by medical mandate in a case where the mother’s life is at an extremely high risk of ending if she continues the pregnancy.” Current jurisprudence in the US (for my European readers) is that, basically, a woman can have an abortion up to the minute the kid’s head comes out of the birth canal. In Europe — as I understand it — abortion is only allowed up to like the 22nd week of pregnancy (varying by country, I know).
Basically, the abortion group did an end-run around the legislature of every state in the union and had legalized abortion up to the moment of birth rammed down the throats of everyone. This, of course, galvanized the pro-life movement (seriously, Roe v Wade did more to ignite the fire under conservative voters and politicians than anything else in history), and has led to the politicization of the judiciary — the one branch of the government that, according to US history and political theory — is supposed to be neutral. By Craig Montoya’s bass strings, that was fuckin’ dumb.
Nowadays, watching the Senate confirmation hearings on any judge nominated to the Supreme Court is like watching a circus. I’m seriously waiting for some judge to be smart enough to remark “hey, ya know what? This whole thing about believing when life begins and beliefs about abortion is very close to a religious test for office — something expressly forbidden by the Constitution (Article VI, paragraph 3). As a matter of fact, by pressing this issue, you’re violating your own oath of office and could, theoretically, be considered guilty of treason. So, how about you stop asking me illegal bullshit questions, you look at my conduct as a judge, stop posing for the cameras, and we just get on with this before I file a lawsuit against all one hundred of you for violating my First Amendment rights? By George Carlin’s ghost, this shit is getting old.”
And it didn’t have to be this way, my friends on the left. It really didn’t. If you guys hadn’t pulled that end-run, elective abortion would be legal in just about every state in the union. It would be legal probably up to the point of fetal viability outside the womb — like it is in the Europe so many of you worship! After that, it’d be legal only under medical necessity. And then you guys wouldn’t have to sweat through every Republican administration wondering if the composition of the court was going to change, judges wouldn’t be subjected to the farce that is modern confirmation hearings, and we could all be getting on with our lives.
Additionally, you idiots also wouldn’t have given the conservatives the idea of cutting you off at the pass by amending state constitutions to forbid gay marriage in order to prevent you morons from doing another end-run around the legislative process! You guys paved the way for this epic own-goal just as surely as Art Alexakis has daddy issues. C’est incroyable, cette merde !
And don’t you folks on the right get too comfortable. The ass-reaming I just gave my friends on the left? That was what I like to call a “warm up.”
As Americans, there is only one document we should hold to be sacred and inviolate when it comes to politics, law, and government. That document is the Constitution of the United States of America. In it, things like a religious test for office are forbidden (Article VI, paragraph 3 — I referenced this earlier), and Congress is forbidden to interfere in matters of religion (First Amendment). State governments cannot pass laws that violate the Constitution or its amendments (Article VI, Clause 2). If a state law is in conflict with the Constitution, the Constitution wins.
Now, some of you have a book (or books) you believe are religiously sacred. I do, too (I’m an Orthodox Christian). In these books, you’re told that there are certain behaviors that are okay and certain behaviors that are not okay. Feeding the poor = okay. Killing people for no good reason = not okay.
However, your beliefs cannot — and should not — form the basis of our government. You should not pass laws regulating behavior based on what your personal guidebook says. If you’re going do that, then I’m going to write my own guidebook that says that it is morally required for me to punch you in the face. Then, I’ll get a majority of people to vote to make that a law and then I get to punch you in the face. Will that make it right? If you answer “yes,” to that, by the way, then, by Elvis’s hip gyrations, I fear for the fate of the human race!
If you use your majority status to enshrine your religious beliefs into law, putting the force of government behind them, then you really, really are not going to have room to complain when some other religion you find abhorrent does the same. You think gay marriage should be outlawed because of something you read in a book? Well, there’s a group of people who think that women ought not be allowed to go outside without a male escort because of stuff they read in a book. If they get to be the majority (an event that is not outside the realm of possibility) should they be allowed to amend a state constitution to require that women have male escorts at all times and have to wear a damned tent over their bodies? If you’re against that, then why are you okay with doing the same friggin’ thing when you’re the majority?
Scheiße! You can’t really be that stupid, can you?
And another thing — the Bible doesn’t really condemn modern homosexuality. It condemns visiting a temple prostitute. That bit of information comes from a Jewish friend of mine and since he uses the Torah as his book of religious reference, I’m pretty sure he knows what it’s talking about, right, Vic?
And, even if it did condemn homosexuality — it only condemns male-on-male homosexuality outright. Lesbianism? God’s cool with that otherwise He’d have made sure it got in the book. I mean, He wrote the thing, didn’t He? And don’t give me that “oh, it’s implied.” Especially don’t give me that if you’re Protestant. Protestants say that the Bible is literal but then do some serious goal-post moving when you get to the bit about Jesus being down with cannibalism (“This IS My Body. This IS My Blood.” The word is “estin” in Greek, “est” in Latin — the two languages used by the early Christian church. I’m pretty sure that if the Son of God wanted to say “represents” or “stands for,” He’d have used those words because He isn’t an idiot!) I refuse to let you get away with your goal-post shifting. Either the Bible is completely literal or it’s not. Pick one and stick with it for the love of Jon Bon Jovi’s lustrous locks!
Oh, Sodom and Gomorrah, you say? God wiped them out because they were homosexual? Really? So, you’re telling me that 1) Jesus is a liar or a moron and 2) If the townsmen of Sodom had been fine with just raping Lot’s daughters, God would have been okay with that because hetero rape is fine in His eyes but that gay stuff — that He has a problem with? If that is honestly your belief, then I am going to start worshiping the Flying Spaghetti Monster because I want no part of a God who will burn a town to the ground because gay rape is bad but would leave that same town alone after they gang-raped His servant’s daughters.
And, honestly, how do you rape a creature that has no genitalia? Jesus tells us that angels do not marry and are not given in marriage. The Bible tells us that marriage is supposedly for the begetting of children. So, it stands to reason that angels can’t have children. Since the whole primary function of breasts, vaginae, and penises is propagation of the species, then it also stands to reason that God didn’t give those things to angels. If they’re physical beings in the same sense as humans are, then they probably have nothing between their legs and just get mistaken for being male since they don’t have breasts. I doubt they have beards or body hair either (just a few other secondary sexual traits for those of you who think biology is a godless science). I don’t know for certain, having never knowingly encountered an angel (let alone asked said angel to strip to the skin so I could verify this) but, based on what the Son of God said, it stands to reason.
So, if angels are genderless, 1) how could you have sex with them and 2) how could it be considered homosexual sex? Homosexual implies that angels are the same sex as the other party involved. By George Takei’s epicanthic folds, that doesn’t make any sense, now does it?
Okay, so you’re giving up on the Old Testament excuses now? Wow, I didn’t even have to go into Onanism or eating shellfish? Oh, you’re going to throw the stuff from Paul’s letter to the Romans at me? Yay! This is fun!
The letter to the Romans deals with the fact that everyone is a sinner. No one sin is better than or worse than another. Paul talks about how those who don’t follow God inevitably become overwhelmed with their own sin and give in to it. How men (and women) grow so overcome with lust that they just screw anything that will stand still long enough. It’s not being homosexual and wanting to be in a committed, monogamous, loving relationship with some of your gender that is sinful: it’s being promiscuous or just having sex to have sex that’s condemned! The concept of modern homosexuality was about as prevalent as the concept of Jim Steinman’s superior musicality in the first century A.D. In case you’re wondering what that means — it means that 1) Jim Steinman is awesome and that people in the first century A.D. didn’t know this and 2) they also didn’t have the same concept of homosexuality that we’re discussing today. To them, it was pederasty or temple prostitution, not gay couples living happily together, committed to one another, and just wanting the same rights as heterosexual couples have.
In Acts 15, there’s the first council of Jerusalem where Gentile converts are told they don’t have to uphold the Mosiac covenant to be Christian. “You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things. Farewell.” Well, sexual immorality in the first century included oral sex or sex with the woman on top. So, if we’re going to use that one, well, then, I think all of us are going straight to hell. By Link’s left-handedness, hell’s going to be a pretty crowded place, it seems. I’m foreseeing a bull market in housing in Lucifer’s neighborhood.
Now, people, even if the Bible, Judaism, and Christianity did all condemn homosexuality as we know it today — that’s still not a good enough reason to deny gay couples the right to have legally recognized marriages. Unless you, the Christian majority, are willing to concede that a Muslim majority would have the right to dictate that all ladies wear burkas or a Hindu majority has the right to forbid us from eating delicious steak, then you cannot and should not say that just because you’re the current majority and your religious beliefs say thusly that gay people can’t marry their partners. But then, I’ve covered this already.
Some of you are going to come out and say I’m pulling things out of my ass or I’m just using “worldly reasoning” and “vain thinking” to proclaim myself “wise.” I got news for you: I am many things — short, smart-mouthed, sarcastic, and cynical among them — but “wise” ain’t on the list. God’s Word is eternal and unchanging, you say? “Everyone” knows that homosexuality is a sin, you say? Well, three hundred years ago, God’s eternal and unchanging Word said that the negro bore the Mark of Cain and that it was the white Christian’s duty to take them from their savage peoples and cultures and Christianize them. Also, since “everyone” knew that the negro was little more than an intelligent beast and that the white Christian was given dominion over the earth, it was the white Christian’s place to enslave the savage negro. Three hundred years ago, God’s eternal and unchanging Word was pretty clear on women owning property — they couldn’t do it! It belonged to their husband or their father who was the head of the household, as God had so clearly ordained. And women voting? Perish the thought! “Everyone” knew that women were incapable of making rational decisions — it was her husband or father’s duty to vote. She could not be counted on to carry such a heavy responsibility. Not even one hundred years ago, “everyone” knew that interracial marriage was against God’s eternal, unchanging Word. God had clearly ordained the races and decreed that there should be no intermarrying between them, right?
Oh, no. Those were all interpretations based on societal prejudice of their eras. God never said any of that. Man just put those words in God’s mouth — just like some of you are doing now. People just justified their positions of power or their place within the majority as being reason enough for imbuing the law with their prejudice. By Meat Loaf’s wasted youth, you mean that none of that is really in the Bible unless you deliberately misinterpret it! Well, slap my ass and call me Leonard Nimoy — it’s true!
At any rate, in the long run, it doesn’t matter. All of those state constitutional amendments will get repealed. Gay marriage will become legal. It’s just another hurdle for those of us who have actually read, comprehended, and who uphold the entire Constitution to clamber over. But, I’d really like to give another round of applause to the liberals who used the court to ram their beliefs down the nation’s throat in 1973 and gave this idea to the conservatives who are now using their state constitutions to ram their beliefs down our throats. Good going there, everyone! I’ll bet you’re all so proud of yourselves for taking this sacred American document and wiping your asses with it.
Now, if you’ll excuse me, I’m going to go do some serious, serious drinking. ><