The Marriage Melee

Marriage-equality proponents have finally had their day in front of the Supreme Court of the United States; we await a decision.

Before their decision, though, let's take a moment to examine why this is even an issue in the first place. It is a perhaps unfortunate situation that the word "marriage" is used for two entirely unrelated issues in the United States (and elsewhere): we use "marriage" for the religious commitment ceremony and also for the secular legal contract. Those arguing in favor of marriage equality are not attempting to somehow force the church to condone gay marriage; the church can believe whatever it wants, and given that the separation of the affairs of the church and the state is one of the principles this country was founded on, the opinion of the church should have no bearing here anyway. Rather, proponents of equality want simply for the government to be forced to treat heterosexual and homosexual unions equally, as guaranteed by the 14th Amendment to the Constitution.

That this is an issue at all is only because the government decided to get into the marriage business in the first place. By law, married couples enjoy all sorts of rights and benefits, such as tax benefits (the ability to file jointly, for example), medical benefits (a legal spouse is generally granted the power to make decisions given the incapacitation of the spouse), spouses not being compelled to testify against each other in court, and more. By refusing to view gay marriages as equal, all of these rights are denied to gay couples who wish to be married. Whether we turn to the 14th Amendment or simply to our own moral compass, this just isn't right.

There are two possible solutions: either affirm the right of gays to marry and have this marriage recognized in every state, with all of the benefits that entails, or completely eliminate the role of government in all marriage, returning the idea of marriage to a simple religious commitment. If we do not wish to be hypocrites in claiming America as one of the most free and equal places on the planet, these are the only options. Given these options, it is desirable to many, and frankly much easier, to take the first route.

Arguments that we should not be "redefining" marriage to "accommodate" the homosexual "lifestyle" fall flat. The church does not own the word marriage; allowing gays equality under federal law is not a redefinition of anything. Rather, for the first time in human history, science understands that homosexuality is not a choice, and more and more people are accepting this. I'd argue that all it takes is to ponder a simple question: whether you're straight or gay, is your attraction to a beautiful person automatic, or do you have to make a conscious decision every time you see one? If you answer the former, congratulations; you now understand why homosexuality is not a choice. It is, therefore, illogical to make any distinction in law between straight and gay relationships or marriages.

Religious people don't have to like it, but we do not govern this country based on religion. The equality movement takes exactly zero rights away from the religious; marriage equality does not affect a person's free practice of their religion, it does not harm the "institution of marriage", and it most certainly does not "destroy the fabric of morality of this country". It would be like a vegetarian claiming that other people eating meat in the same cafeteria as them somehow affects their ability to practice their choice of type of food to consume; the only difference is that one could make a logical argument that the smell of a delicious hamburger is tempting to a vegetarian, while marriage equality could not possibly tempt someone who isn't gay.

If you believe in the ideals on which the United States were founded, you must be for marriage equality. Love is love, and there is no rational reason to draw a distinction between heterosexuals and homosexuals on this issue.

A Not-So-Civil View On Civil Rights

civil rights (n): Personal liberties that belong to an individual, owing to his or her status as a citizen or resident of a particular country or community.

With that out of the way, I'd like to direct you to Ann Coulter's comments on who deserves civil rights.

I'll give you a moment to recover from your shock.

.......

Ready? Okay.

While there are many good choices, I think this was my favorite quote:

"We don't owe the homeless. We don't owe feminists. We don't owe women who are desirous of having abortions or gays who want to get married to one another. That's what civil rights has become for much of the left."

So it seems that, in Ann Coulter's mind, a certain class of people deserve equal rights only if they have been enslaved in the past. I could go on a diatribe explaining why this is categorically ridiculous, but I'm not sure Miss Coulter leaves anything to be said. The fact that she thinks rights are some sort of currency to be doled out based on the degree to which a class was repressed is nonsensical. Whether or not this is more crazy than the fact that she seems to believe that immigrants, women, and homosexuals have never been repressed is debatable. Miss Coulter's ignorance of who deserves rights is surpassed only by her blatant disregard for current and historical events.

I don't think it possible for anyone to defend Miss Coulter's remarks. Whether or not you are pro-choice, whether or not you agree with gay marriage, no matter your beliefs on immigration, you cannot possibly believe that personal liberties and freedoms should be bargaining chips to be used as payment to bury the past. Shame on Miss Coulter for her remarks, and I believe that she should apologize: not to women, or gays, or immigrants, but to all Americans who should be offended that a woman who claims to be an American can have this sort of view on civil rights.

Forgetting the 47%

We've all seen the video clip by now, with Mitt Romney discussing how he feels about voters who support President Obama:

Romney has since doubled down on his comments, while allowing that they "were not elegantly stated". I suppose that's smart; he'd have a hard time trying to explain that he didn't really mean what he said. After all, the comments were made during a private fundraiser that was not supposed to be filmed, which would seem to be a perfect setting to speak candidly about what he really believes.

Most people shouldn't be surprised that Romney feels this way. By now we are all well aware of his total and utter disconnect from the issues that trouble anyone not at the very top of the income spectrum. His "lower the rates and broaden the base" statement is about the only concrete piece of policy we've heard from him in the entire campaign. Apparently, the 47% of people who owe no income tax each year are all completely dependent on entitlements, and have no desire to move up the economic ladder.

After all, we all know that the 50% of recent college graduates that can't find a job are just sitting back and loving it. The elderly who receive no income could be in the factory working their butts off, but they just think they're too good for that type of work. And soldiers? They think that just because they're on the front lines of the War that Never Ends that they should be exempt from getting a real job and actually doing something for their country? Please.

Humorously, many of the 47% that Romney has such contempt for are probably supporters of his. Seniors have tended to back the GOP for some time now. The military will always have a strong connection to the party that can't cut a penny from defense spending (even though our military spending is more than the next twenty largest military spenders combined). Many southern states that back the Republicans based on religious and social considerations (the "Bible Belt") are among the poorest states in the nation.

The former governor's comments are ridiculous in every sense of the word. He has tried some damage control, but cannot stop himself from saying stupid things. As quoted in this article, Romney believes that his comments underscore his effort to "focus on the people in middle". How are you focusing on the middle of the country if you have thrown out nearly half of it? The hits just keep coming in an interview with Fox News:

"There are a number of retirees and members of the military and so forth who aren't paying taxes and that's how it should be. 

"But I do believe we should have enough jobs and take-home pay such that people have the privilege of higher incomes that allow them to be paying taxes. 

"I think people would like to be paying taxes. The good news is if you're doing well enough financially that you can pay a tax. And the problem right now is you see in this country so many people have fallen into poverty that they're not paying taxes they have to rely on government and the right course to help them is not just to have government handing out but instead government helping people to get back to good jobs."

It's funny how in one breath you can stand by your comments, and in your explanation, you completely change what the comments said in the first place. The quoted remarks are clearly in direct conflict with the position that the 47% of people who do not owe income taxes are dependent on government and do not want to take responsibility.

We all knew how Mitt Romney felt. Still, there's something sickening about hearing it come so bluntly out of his own mouth. It saddens me that a man such as this can be so close to becoming the President of the United States of America.

Kansas Bans Islamic Law

......really?

Really?


Sam Brownback, the Republican governor of Kansas, has signed a bill that "makes it clear that Kansas courts will rely exclusively on the laws of [their] state and our nation when deciding cases and will not rely on the laws of foreign jurisdictions".

I'm sure Kansas, like most of the country, has its own share of pressing issues facing it. I would guess that an alarming amount of judges suddenly choosing to throw out the US Constitution and abide by sharia law isn't one of them. This is nothing but pandering to the Islamophobic segment of the GOP base; what else could make the lawmakers think that this was really necessary?

Did it really need to be made clear that the US abides by US law? I think not. This law can only be harmful. The only time sharia law is allowed to be referenced now is in very special cases, such as divorce cases between Muslims, where both parties consent to sharia law being used. This is no different than prenuptials going around what the law would normally require and acting out the agreement that was consented to by both parties.

This reeks of racism and hatred. Now, some members of the GOP will probably call me "un-American", or say that I would "choose Muslims over Americans" or something ridiculous like that for taking this position, but that's hardly surprising. If the GOP wants people to stop viewing them as racist, maybe they need to stop doing things like this.

Going Backward

There are many reasons I weep for America, but I think this may jump straight to the top of the list.

On 5/8/12, the state of North Carolina voted to amend the state constitution to say that the only valid "domestic legal partnership in the state is marriage between a man and a woman". 


This is troubling for many reasons. We have:


- A majority voting to deny equal rights to a minority,
- Religious arguments (mostly erroneous and misquoted even if we accept the Bible as truth, by the way) being the basis for laws/amendments,

among other issues. These are just the two flagrant violations of the founding principals of America that immediately come to mind. I thought that we had done away with both of those long ago, but apparently not.

As a side note, I continue to be amused at the hypocrisy of those that use the Bible to condemn gay marriage because it is convenient for their belief system based on hate, but completely ignore the parts of the Bible that are bothersome for them (i.e, the people that have been divorced 2 times. Go see what the Bible has to say about that.)

Sigh... every so often I get my hopes up that this country may finally move into the present day in terms of social issues. It seems so simple... equality. One word... about as simple as it gets. However, Americans demonstrate time and again their inability to grasp even the easiest concepts. This episode has pretty much knocked down my hopes again, and all I can do is wonder what it would be like to live in a country that doesn't openly condone hate.

GOP Is Stuck In The Past

I suppose the title of this post is very vague; the GOP is stuck in the past on so many issues.

Today, I'm talking specifically about their opinion on homosexuals. Mitt Romney recently appointed Richard Grenell as a national security and foreign policy adviser for his campaign. Unfortunately, Mr. Grenell is openly gay. As one might guess, that did not sit too well with social conservatives. Because apparently, even having a gay man as an adviser is an affront to all that is right with humanity.

Bryan Fischer of the American Family Association tweeted "Romney picks out & loud gay as a spokesman. If personnel is policy, his message to the pro-family community: drop dead."

I cringe every time I hear that pro-family nonsense. Since when are gay people "anti-family"? How does the fact that gay people exist tear families apart? The only thing I can think of is that these families spend far too much time concerning themselves with what homosexuals are doing, and don't put any effort into their own family life. I'd have to say that's something they need to learn to deal with themselves. Sounds like some deep-seated issues there.

Mr. Grenell voluntarily removed himself from the Romney campaign, stating that he was becoming too much of a distraction. However, I think we all know the real reason, and I can't blame him: who wants to be criticized for just existing? My political leanings notwithstanding, I'm sure Mr. Grenell is a perfectly competent adviser. The fact that he was driven out of his position by people like Bryan Fischer and the AFA, in 2012, is sickening. These people should all be ashamed of themselves, and I am embarrassed for America that we still condone such behavior.

Maybe some good can come out of this... maybe Mr. Grenell will be able to see the GOP for what they really are and come over to the light side.

Hate Masquerading As Religion

This is something most people know about, but media attention lately has made me feel like talking about it.

It is positively sickening what passes for "religion" nowadays. Now, I am not religious at all, but I respect the rights of others to believe in whatever stories they want to. The funny thing is, they want me to respect their right to be religious; however, in turn, the frequently do not respect my right to believe and live as I choose. All too often does outright hatred get a free pass in the guise of "religion".

I've recently become aware of a group called One Million Moms, and they disgust me. One of their most recent campaigns has been a failed effort to remove Ellen DeGeneres as the spokesperson of JCPenney. Because, apparently, even having a gay person on television is toxic to our youth. I hate to say it, but if your child becomes gay just because Ellen was on television, then... it was going to happen anyway.

I looked over the group's website (which I will not link to here, under protest). They call themselves a conservative religious group, but all I see is rampant homophobia. Groups like this which associate themselves to the Republican party are constantly voicing the opinion that government should not interfere in their lives; however, they are only too happy to support anything the government can do to take rights away from gays. I'm sure they would also support taking rights away from anyone who doesn't agree with them, such as atheists. Maybe an "atheists can't marry" bill or something.

The ability to voice such extreme hate towards certain groups while protected under the blanket of religious freedom is ridiculous. I wonder how they would feel if an anti-Christian "religious" group popped up and started harassing them the same way. Of course, most gays, atheists, or other groups that are targeted by them are far too ethical to sink to the same level. So it would probably never happen. It's a shame... I would love to see how they would react to a taste of their own medicine.