or, there really is an article other than mine, I swear!
The linked article by Jackie Guardina ( http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jackie-gardina/marriage-equality-catholic-church_b_1615618.html ) is a succinct exposition of the very basic argument showing that there's a hell of a lot more to denying same-sex couples (like me and my hunny :D) the right to marry and to have it recognized by the Federal and State government than just denying us the word 'marriage', and, frankly, that's the least of what I'm worried about... [see first N.B. at the bottom of this article]
Say the Word, and You'll Be Free
No, Wait, I Should Clarify
Now, don't get me wrong--the word is important. Being denied the word in and of itself is at its heart a designation that lets us know we are lower-class human beings in the eyes of the law, and it also lets us know that those who look down upon us for being out and gay and together in a committed relationship are right to do so... Not being able to marry basically marks us as 'abnormal', and worth somehow less than 'normal' people that choose to marry the opposite sex as is clearly right and good, operating in much the same was as 'racial' segregation (which just means they separated people who had skin that was the 'wrong' color, for some reason they especially liked white back then...) and laws against 'miscegenation' (the marriage of two people with differently colored skin or originating from different areas,)* [see historical note for more information]
[Now, the concept behind anti-miscegenation and 'racial' segregation was very important to many people, and used to be called "race". However, this term actually has no scientific meaning; DNA studies show no such detectable distinctions in our genome, and turned out we're all just humans, people, peeps, dudes, fellows, folks, mates, officially all just brothers and sisters in one big ol' human race without any further arbitrary distinctions based on outdated concepts coming from a position of ignorance. :).].
The Supreme Court Says So, So Nyan!
It has been over half a century since the Supreme Court struck down segregation laws in educational institutions in the cases of Sweatt v. Painter , McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents , and, of course, Brown v. Board of Education , reasoning that 'separate' was per se not 'equal' in the 'Seperate but Equal' doctrine underpinning the Jim Crow segregation laws, a doctrine that persisted from 1896 until those rulings in 1954. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 abolished all remaining segregation, including that which was legally enforced, and also any private segregation in almost all remaining areas. [see % [a] [b] etc. at bottom of article]
However, it was not until 1967 that the Supreme Court finally overturned the anti-miscegenation laws in the case Loving v. Virginia , finally giving people with all sorts of different colors to their skin the right to marry whomever they wanted, and there was much rejoicing.
Ohhhhh, wait, there was one more thing: this was only, of course, as long as they were not wanting to marry someone of the same sex.
The Ol' Switcheroo
Now, one thing that certain people do (and I'm not naming any names, you know who you are!) is try to pull the ol' switcheroo and say "Like, ohh, no see, I'm not a big ol' bigot; see, I just believe that the traditional meaning of Marriage didn't include same-sex couples, so I just think it's all confusing-like, and I just thought, y'know, maybe we could call it civil-unions and then no biggie, we just didn't get all confused, see what I did there?"
Okay, well, as explained above, this still turns us into second class citizens; so no that's not really a solution, plus, then there's this extra hurdle to overcome: then now you have to pass stuff in all the states and the Federal Government to recognize Civil Unions the same as Marriage and yeah, okay, let's say we manage that, then we have another issue...
See now at some point in the future now a state could go "oh, hmm, right, let's just .... STRIKE THAT OFF" and now our marriage doesn't count again, whereas you can't do that if we just got to use that word that I can't really even see how it possibly really impacts you I mean how f---king retarded are you that you can't see that two girls or two guys that are 'married' makes it a F---KING lesbian or gay marriage, wherea....
The Double Switcheroo
Wait a second!!!! You know what?!!?! F---K YOU! You've had the damn word for how long? I say, if you think Civil F---king Unions are so F---king awesome, why don't YOU give us the word for a little while, and YOU TAKE THE F---KING CIVIL F---KING UNIONS, YOU F---KING A-HOLES POSING AS REASONABLE PEOPLE who are CLEARLY JUST TRYING TO KEEP US as THIRD-CLASS CITIZENS!!!!!
Oh, sorry about that. Hope only those who make that switcheroo argument came across that, certainly do apologize there to anyone who heard that outburst without... MAAAAN!!! ... no no, everything's okay now.
The Issue According to Garp... I Mean The Church
So let me just address, quickly, the arguments I hear most frequently, and give a quick quote from the article that I thought gives the argument for same-sex marriage quite well.
*But, ZOMG Same-Sex Marriage Will Kill Normal Marriage ZOMG, Why Would You Want To Do That To Normal Marriage, It Never Did Anything To Hurt You?! *
Okay, okay, two responses are coming to mind.
[a] Um, see, I think this argument relies on the fact that these people are so out of touch with reality and have never actually been in close contact with anyone gay and they think we are gonna 'recruit' their sons and daughters and "OMG ur gonna get The Gay all over 'em!!!"... and then they'll want to marry same-sex too, and then POOF a generation from now, there'll be no kids 'cause everyone caught The Gay. There are two responses coming to mind for this.  "Um... Yes, you're absolutely right, and if you don't give us the same rights you have once you're married right now we are gonna smear GAY ALL OVER YOU!! ... and your little dog, too. (Oh wait your girl dog is already humpin' my leg, too late!)" or  Oh don't worry we can always come over to the big gay orgy that will be going on in your house and scrape sperm offa the walls and faces, so, no worries, we'll still have kids... Don't get The Straight all over 'em please. Or The Vanilla. Eccchhh. Boooorrrring. We'll end up havin to tie 'em up and, um, 'educate' them. Let's see, you guys ever heard of Gor? Here's some reading material so you can get them a little prepared before you send 'em. Less beatings for the poor little soon-to-have-caught-gay bastards, y'know?
[b] Dudes, you guys must be nuts; 1 out of every 2 Hetero marriages ends in divorce, you guys somehow managed to kill "Normal" Marriage all by youw wittwe seweves. [or however you spell that, imagine Tweety-Pie saying 'all by your little selves'... there we go...] Oh, I know, maybe if you do some gay stuff it will spice up your sex lives? Wait, hello? Where'd ya go.
In other words, this argument is so far off base there's no real way to answer it; like, there's never any real explanation of the supposed mechanism, so I think the concept here is to throw this out there and while we stammer and try to figure out WTF that could even mean, they go
"Oop, well, see, obviously you see what we're sayin... Gonna ruin "Normal" marriage. Okayyyy, we're gotta run now... Bye bye!" [tires screeching]
and we're just left to scratch our heads and wonder how people that clearly unable to reason were able to learn to drive
[crassshhhhhing trash cans in the distance]
*But... But... It's not NAAAAATURAL! A.K.A. Sex is only for Havin' Kids! *
Srsly? Sigh. Look, basically
[a] You're wrong. In fact scientists have documented tons of animals out there, and not only have they documented 1,500 different species in which homosexual behavior has been observed, and it's been well documented in 500 of those. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals , )
Ohhh, yeah, and same-sex penguin couples are very common, in fact they do a very good job at hatching eggs and get together and break it off after a few years, just like with "Normal" marriage. [rimshot] ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_and_Silo )
And did I mention that some Rams actually even have permanent homosexual orientations? I betcha didn't see that comin.... HEY AWAY FROM MY SHEEP DOOD! ,( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals , )
Since I don't trust that you can find the link prominently displayed on the wikipedia page on homosexual behavior in animals, here's even a nice list for ya: ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_displaying_homosexual_behavior ) .. suck it...
[b] so basically you're saying a woman that is barren or post-menopause would be sinful for having sex. geez, it just blows me away how big of an a-hole you guys can be while claiming you're Christian. As far as I see, you would have been the ones at the witch trials goin' "she weighs the same as a DUCK!! burn her burn her!!"
I mean, here's the story, you're so transparent... Basically you find us gross, you think we're sinful and goin' to hell, and because of that you want to deliver us whatever portion of hell on earth you can despite the admonitions of Jesus not to judge and to only cast the first stone if you haven't ever sinned, or to love your neighbor as yourself, or even to love your enemies since that's really the hard one...
Well, y'know what' I do love you. Unconditionally. No sarc. And I really do hope that everyone with these attitudes has a chance to get past it once we're no longer denied the fundamental human right to marry who when want. and then maybe you can finally work on overcoming whatever horrible guilt or whatever it is that makes you act this way. I do feel sorry for you but I know there's little chance I could do anything if you're the one I've been talking to, because I'm lesbian and clearly could never have a clear understanding of anything religious.
oh BTW, "For the wages of sin is death, and all fall short of the glory of god." Just thought I'd mention that. Y'know, I accepted Jesus when I was a child in a Southern Baptist Church. And I took what He said to heart. Only, I think we must have had a different version of what he said; you oughtta check to make sure you had the right book when you were reading his commandments to his disciples. That's all. :P
And no, I don't think God has a problem with me basically being Zen Buddhist and a Christan at the same time; I don't so much do the religious part of Buddhism, just the mystical part, and I think that's cool with Her.;) Wait, or was I Discordian and Christian?
But basically ....
The point is that there's really no good non-religious reason to keep us from marrying our partners, and the more serious issue is that, without having our Marriage recognized by both Federal and State authorities, basically we are told that because of how we were born, we are not only 10th-class citizens, we also aren't entitled to equal treatment under the law, because there's a hell of a lot more than just a name at stake here.
There are tons of benefits granted to opposite-sex couples that are denied to us by the government at this juncture, even if we DO get married in a state that allows it, because the Federal government won't recognize it due to DOMA, although it looks like good news could be coming soon. ( http://www.cnn.com/2012/06/21/politics/house-gop-scotus-marriage/ )
And F the tax benefits. That's not what I care about.
I care about being allowed without question to visit my parter or for she to be able to visit me if one of us ends up in the hospital. I drew up some documents for us, but I'm not a lawyer, and from what I understand it would probably take a court battle if a few key SOBs tried to keep us apart because he found us gross or sinful or evil or whatever.
Or if the worst happens: for us to get survival benefits in the case of Federal stuff like Social Security (yeah right, that's not gonna be around but I just bring it up as a clear case of Federal discrimination; again the above may render this point moot) but more importantly, although, again I drew up my own documents for a will and got them notarized, there's enough wiggle room in there that it's possible someone could screw us over if they had the desire.
Or for us to be the ones to decide what to do with the other's remains. So we could have the normal rights any spouse has in the event of shit like this happening. Oh, or for that matter, a friend of ours knew a transsexual girl that was killed in an accident, then 'claimed' by her parents and buried under her old name after she had been transitioned and with her significant other for like a decade That's seriously f---ked up if you ask me.
As far as I'm concerned marriage shouldn't grant special privileges anyway; how about just let any two people that want to form a domestic partnership for tax purposes (e.g. filing jointly or as head of household) and then people that want to remain single won't have to be permanently penalized for not makin' enough babies (I guess?) for you a-holes out there that want to lord over everyone and decide who gets what special favors from the gov't.
Hell, just get rid of there needing to be anything like that regarding taxes, make sure that single people can get half the benefits of a couple filing jointly. And while your at it how about you stop giving your buddies at failing banks more of all of our treasure and our sweat and blood and tears so that they can go back to their multimillion-dollar lifestyles and leave us to rot in the stagnant economy because you decide to prop everything up? Eh?
Oh wait, off track again. So, here's the quote from the article. Then if you like it you can always read the whole thing. Excuse me, apparently for some reason I had a bug up my butt tonight and wanted to get a bit silly dealing with these issues. Go figure. I'm off to get some soda now... or something.
Eww, I think I just got some of The Vanilla on me hope that comes off. [in the distance: "Honey, where's that Kinks album?"]
Article by Jackie Guardina', quote:
"Yet the Catholic Church wants to imbed its beliefs in the nation's law to restrict my freedom, to deny me access to the more than 1,000 federal and state benefits associated with marriage. How does my access to inheritance rights affect any church? How does my ability to file a joint tax return interfere with religious freedom? How does my ability to obtain Social Security benefits upon my spouse's death undermine the institution of marriage? Can someone explain that to me? And can you do it without citing the Bible as the justification?"
_ % - I want to clarify that my simply mentioning the Civil Rights Act as an important piece of legislation and one that I think most of the direct results of were very good, does not mean I believe it was 100% constitutional; nor 100% productive; and simply mentioning Supreme Court Decisions that I agree did made good things happen in a particular case does not mean I agree it was 100% constitutional or .. and so on and so forth.
[a] I believe that the Government especially has no business either discriminating nor creating laws that enforce discrimination.
[b] I believe that the world would be a hell of a lot better place with a decentralized united states, that didn't have a Federal Government big enough to totally f@(k up the world economy all by its lonesome by inflating via the Fed, nor a standing military and weaponry big enough to kill definitely over 100,000 and probably even well over 1,000,000 innocents in the last two centuries; or a CIA/NSA/WTF that undertakes false flag operations to start these wars or to overthrow governments etc. to overthrow all sorts of validly elected governments of countries which reflected the will of the people and replacing them with our puppet dictators; or to start wars of agression but be so big that no one dares call them on it due to fear or fealty; or.... well, you get the picture, right?
[c] and as it stands I do not believe the Federal Government actually had or should have had the authority to pass legislation or make Supreme Court Decisions which strike down the laws of a state, although the 14th does make it at least quite arguable on both sides as to whether it did indeed have it.
[d] ok ok before you guys lay into me: look, I think all the things that happened were good things; I just think that given all the power that a government that had the power to do every one of these particular good things also had enough power to do all the things in [b] and you can maybe start to see where I'm coming from.
[e] seriously; the u.s. has basically directly killed likely over 1,000,000 people not to mention all the suffering it has caused indirectly or directly in other ways than killing people and it's STILL TRYING TO START NEW WARS. basically the u.s. is like that a-hole bully of a cousin that was born way after you and everyone thought how cute that the baby was, but then all of a sudden, it can now literally come and destroy you if you don't do what it wants.
[f] and in many cases, does.
[g] even if you do do what it wants.
[h] so, basically the point I wanted to bury here to avoid as many flames as possible with those that are all like "ZOMG FFFFFUUUUUU TL;DR,!!" is that I think the Federal Gov't by whatever means likely did have a moral and legal right to do any of the things it did that were directly related to the operation of things like schools that were funded by it... well, that's another story, but anyway... or anything directly relating to to the operation of the Federal Gov't itself, certainly under it's purview, but probably neither strike down state laws, although like I say, that's arguable, nor anything having to do with privately owned stuff. less arguable.
[i] yes, I know they basically do whatever the F the want without regard to the Schmonstitution, that's my point. If you are okay with them disregarding it for that, then you're basically giving them the power to do everything up there in [b]!!! See the real story is that many businesses didn't want to turn away people with differently colored to begin with, (thus the a-holes in power in those states passed Jim Crow laws because they ... well, did.) so certainly after striking down the state Jim Crow laws, there would have been plenty of non-segregated places; so, let's just give due to the arguable nature of the 14th and such and say let's keep the state strike downs but not the private ones leave it at athat.
[j] oh yeah, the reason I don't also think eliminating private discrimination is necessarily a good idea, just sayin, is that in general businesses have every reason not to discriminate because it will put them at a competitive disadvantage, and the main thing that forcing people who for whatever reason force groups of people together is it basically uses the force of government to pit people against one another, and while this was arguably an exception, [b]!!! [b]!!! goddammitt!!!
[ike] we're cool right? Tina, Baby? Kevin Nealon, Baby?
[N.B.: the article focuses on the Catholic Church, but the same applies at least as much to other evangelical and fundamentalist churches; e.g. the Southern Baptist churches, which I mention only because I was raised Southern Baptist and my family is still a member of a very fundamentalist church which belongs to the Southern Baptist Convention.]
[N.B. oh, and I just read that a small majority of the Southern Baptist Convention, due to the poor associations people have with the church and the high percentage of people in a study who would not attend a Southern Baptist church that they voted to allow individual churches to call themselves "Great Commission Baptist" if so desired. So don't be fooled. (The 'Great Commission' is what the instruction from Jesus to go out and convert people is called.)
Since the poor impression of the church came from it's actions and teachings, and the actions and words of its members, I'm not really sure what they think this will accomplish in the long run, being that people will just learn to associate the new name with the same old, same old.
Frankly I'm very disappointed in the convention, since this is little more than raw deceit and it's geared towards tricking people (specifically, the people who would otherwise not even consider attending a Southern Baptist church based on the exclusionary attitudes and judgmental doctrine; and who would reject a church that chose to associate itself with an organization like the SBC which, in my view, espouses things that stray quite far from the fundamental things that _I_ learned from Jesus.]
F this, it's way too long, I ain't proofreadin' no way, no how.
I may be all over the place, but you'll find it all comes back to a few basic themes. Well, today I'm on #ronpaul201 but tomorrow I could be on #humanrights #technology the #drugwar the #waronterror or whatever catches my interest. I was against #sopa #pipa and whatever other crap the members of any government were or are trying to ram through in the hopes of pleasing #bigmedia or #bigbusiness so they can fill their campaign coffers in another horrid display of #cronycapitalism . (Can we say #acta ?) Or for that matter the things they do just to enrich themselves in either power or treasure.
I am #libertarian , more or less as described by #mises and #rothbard , not so much #aynrand , but that for specific reasons. I believe that #voluntaryism is a philosophy that deserves more credit and really more or less describes how most of the actual good things in the world happen. You could also easily call me a #laissezfaire libertarian or an #anarchocapitalist without falling too far off the mark. I also believe that you should #love your neighbor and hope that, as the years pass, people do not miss the importance of the "3VOL" in the #rloveution . I mean #revolution . ;)
I believe that all coercive government is doomed to failure and will eventually fall, simply due to the nature of complex systems and how such governments, no matter how good the original intentions, will accumulate power unto themselves, and over time will exponentially draw precisely the people who will abuse that power into its structure as it eliminates those who would govern well.
I believe that each of us has a duty as a human being to help others attain happiness as we strive for our own, and that in doing so we, and never politics, will improve life for others. I also believe that government will almost always do the opposite, and that whatever good you can point to that a government has done, say, #civilrights in the U.S., will always be outdone by the evil, say, like the #waroneverything . Is millions of dead innocents; men, women, and children just trying to get by, truly worth the good that has been done by the same? I do not believe it.
So, in a nutshell, that's a very small piece of me. If you want to know anything just ask, I'm sure it will spawn an overly-verbose article on whatever topic it might involve. :) #ideas will truly be that which change the world, I hope I can enlighten someone on at least one before I die.
Thanks to +Jo Sparkles for this one!
cartoon: three glasses filled halfway with a yellow liquid, with captions for each
first glass: "I'm half full"
second glass: "I'm half empty"
third glass: "I think this is piss"
subcaption: "The only ones who really know what's going on."
The only way to beat racism/sexism/whatever-ism is to just STOP. You don't need laws to make it OK, because it was never supposed to be NOT OK in the first place.
I hear many people stating that our Founding Fathers wanted Religion in Government, but this is completely false. Do you research to two seconds, or simply read this collection of accurate quotes from Thomas Jefferson concerning this topic. #religion #catholics #republicans #rightwing #christians #cristian #quotes #ThomasJefferson #freedom
- caching.inSoftware Guru, 2012 - present
If you want to know something, just ask!
- Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State UniversityB.A., Philosophy
CISPA: Where’s The Outrage And The Anger That We Saw With SOPA?
The Cyber Intelligence Sharing And Protection Act (CISPA), otherwise known as the bigger, and nastier brother to both the SOPA and PIPA acts
Chelleliberty's Favorite Techdirt Posts Of The Week | Techdirt
Unintended Consequences My favorite posts from this week are definitely the ones highlighting 'things unseen'. Many people have b