Monday, November 10, 2008

With Apologies to XTC

Dear [insert the name of your deity here],

I want to thank you for answering not only my prayers, but the prayers of the billions of right-thinking folks in this country. You truly do hear us, and you heard us at a time when we needed you more than perhaps any time in our history. I’m speaking, of course, about the recent election.

The results could not have spoken louder. The will of the people is clear. We now have hope for the future. You see, if California can ban gay marriage, everybody else should be able to as well.
I, for one, am glad. Who wants people of the same sex to get married? It’s wrong. It shouldn’t be allowed anywhere. It’s just…icky.

I’d have to look at their rainbow flags and ‘gay pride’ bumper stickers, and those little window stick-ons that say trite things like ‘hate is not a family value.’ It would suddenly be all around me.

They’d have gay pride parades and dress in drag while raking their leaves—all on my good old, American street, where my family has lived since my grandparents came to this country in the 20’s.

I’d be forced to live next to gay couples and watch them do their gay things in their gay bedrooms of sin, through the gay glass walls they’re sure to erect. And, yes, that pun was intended.

The next thing you know, should gay marriage actually be allowed in California, the law everywhere else would have to change, right? And then, it would require me to get divorced and find some queer to take as my husb..er…wife. And that’s just wrong.

Churches would be forced to perform these perverse ceremonies, these…these unions. Even churches that are anti-homo would be required to marry them inside their hallowed walls.
And since they’re all child molesters, I’d have to accompany my kids everywhere they go, just to make sure they don’t get accosted by some out of control homo, drunk on his newly-gained power.

I really don’t care that all they want—besides professing their alleged love—is a chance to give each other medical coverage, insurance protection, tax benefits and such. It’s not my fault if some pole smoker’s father can get his will invalidated after he dies (probably of AIDS—they all have it!) because he says his son’s gayness indicates he was “mentally ill” and therefore the will isn’t legal and he can take everything away from his partner. (Partner…eww…what a gross term.) I shouldn’t have to put up with a change in a law that will effect me, a straight-as-an-arrow, [insert-the-name-of-your-deity-here]-fearing [insert your whack-job ultra-right-wing religion here] so profoundly on an everyday basis.

I can’t believe a Reagan-Republican Governor like Arnold Schwarzenegger actually supports gay marriage—he likens it to allowing blacks and whites to marry. I know that’s supposed to be okay these days, but doggone it, something about that just rubs me the wrong way, too.
I particularly thank you for motivating all those decent, yet peculiar folks from Utah, whose church suddenly and officially abandoned its political neutrality for time and all eternity by encouraging them to meddle in the affairs of a neighboring state. Without them, gay marriage in California might have passed, and then, there in Provo and Salt Lake City, where would have they been? Up Gay Creek, that’s where!

I thank you for your bounty and your wisdom, and for the peace I have knowing that none of my children will ever grow up gay. I know that fact simply because we pray, and because gayness is a sickening, deviant choice that we would never even allow to enter their precious, fragile little minds. I know that parents who end up with gay kids—even if they express disapproval—will join them in hell one day, because it was probably some failure of theirs in the child-rearing process.

Good night, [insert the name of your deity here] Bless America, and Amen.

12 comments:

necrodancer said...

There are only so many rights. Marriage is not one of them. Marriage is not a right. If it were, I know of a few women and men who would be married. They aren't married. No matter how much they want to be married or think they should be married, they haven't successfully accomplished that goal. If it were a right, a basic human right, each of these individuals would be married. It is not a right.

Marriage is a responsibility. It is my responsibility. It is your responsibility. A responsibility on which I place significant importance. It is not, however, a right.

Those who think the only reason a couple would want to be married is to gain access to the rights given a married couple do not understand California state laws. The only difference between being married and living in a civil union: calling it marriage. Those in a civil union have the same access to the same rights as a married couple, every single one.

The truth of this whole matter: people want to have everything, regardless of the direction they take in life. Yes, making the legal definition of marriage to encompass same-sex unions opens the door to litigation that would force churches to embrace that definition. No, most (99.9999%) would not even consider going down this track. It doesn't take 10%, 5% or even 1%. It takes one couple and a lawyer.

Tolerance. I'm tired of the arguments and the hate. It seems that TOLERANCE is only appropriate if we are considerate of the feelings of those who might live a more flamboyant lifestyle. I don't want to use the word liberal or conservative since this is not about political beliefs. There are many who believe my choice not to drink, join in debauchery and just "have a good time" mark me as prude, uptight and arrogant. These people are not tolerant of my lifestyle and yet they expect me to be tolerant of theirs.

I am. I believe people have the right to live their lives. Every man is entitled to enjoy, whether out of society or in it, certain rights, inalienable. These rights include the rights of personal security, of personal liberty, and private property. They do not depend upon the Constitution for their existence.

I don't know if you saw what I saw on the news over the past week. Protesters rallied outside the Los Angeles temple, holding signs condemning the Mormons to Hell. They claimed to be fighting hate with hate. They suggest they can fight intolerance with intolerance. "Live and let live" died last Thursday evening. The death nail was driven into the coffin by those who claim a stronger grasp on tolerance.

You see, I work right near the Los Angeles temple. I was directly affected by the intolerance. I was directly affected by the anti-proposition 8 protesters. My religious beliefs set me apart from many of those around me. The mob assumed that since I was mormon, I was bad. Screw tolerance. The tolerant are only tolerant toward those who believe like they believe. While employing their right to assemble and protest, these people infringed on my right to personal security. Constitutional rights should never infringe on natural rights. They did Thursday.

The premise for your argument and those others who argue certain laws infringe on individual rights - whether we speak of same-sex marriage or other "rights" - is a misunderstanding of what are our rights exactly. Many would suggest certain responsibilities are actually rights. This is rather problematic and provides for a shaky foundation on which to build an argument.

CrowLakeCliffJumper said...

I'm feeling a bit lazy. I thought that was quite humorous...

You can't make up anything anymore. The world itself is a satire. All you're doing is recording it.

Art Buchwald

If you're going to get into social criticism with absurdity and satire, you can't be politically correct when you do that.

John Cusack

necrodancer said...

I guess I would have probably found it a bit more humorous had I not been so close to the protesters. I would have been a lot more entertained had I been living 2000 miles from the epicenter - I know this is truth. When I lived in Illinois, I was far enough away from the nuts and fruits in the golden state to make everything seem a bit less important.

Humor. Mel Brooks did a fine job describing tragedy and comedy when he suggested, "tragedy is when I cut my finger. Comedy is when you fall in a manhole." Perspective dictates how much humor we find in given situations.

Craig F said...

Perhaps "right" is not the correct term. After all, what is a right? You can say it's God-given, but what do we really know about what's a God-given right and what's not. We think free speech is a God-given right, but those in charge in Muslim countries think it's an Allah-given right to kill you if you speak against them.

I don't think people want to have everything; I think, in this case, they want the same legal standing as everybody else who "pairs up." They're not asking to be recognized as "married" per se in the eyes of your God, my God, Buddah, Allah, or the Great Spirit.

People are only not tolerant of your "prude, uptight and arrogant" lifestyle when you try to force your views on them--I know for a fact you don't do that, but there are others, certainly, that do. And they're they ones who are getting hate fought with hate.

How did the mob know you were LDS, just because you worked near the temple? And I would disagree that personal liberty, personal liberty and private property are inalienable "rights." That's precisely why we *have* the Constitution, so that it's in writing, in the law, that they must be respected. If they were automatically and naturally respected, why the need to write them down? Why so many governments that ignore them?

Finally, I would say that all those in need of a law supporting gay (marriage, union, etc.) are simply trying to gain the same right to personal liberty, personal security and private property as heterosexual couples. And if they do it a little vocally, or in a manner which steps on the toes of one in disagreement, well, I'm kind of reminded of the Boston Tea Party...and no one today thinks that was such a bad idea.

necrodancer said...

Inalienable rights - those rights not given by man but exist naturally. This was the premise of the declaration of independence.

California law already protects the rights of couples, regardless of their marital status. My sister-in-law has been living with her boy friend for a few years and though they aren't married, their union is recognized civilly. They have a civil union. They have the same legal rights as a married couple. In fact, this is the same rights any couple (same sex or otherwise) has. The only thing we're talking about as far as proposition 8 is concerned is naming what their relationship is "marriage".

California provides the same rights. If rights do not change whether you're married or not, what are we after?

necrodancer said...

Approximately 92 million Americans are unmarried, according to the United States Census Bureau. Of that, 54 percent are women. Another 25 percent are divorced, and 15 percent are widowed.

So, I wonder. Is marriage a right?

Craig F said...

Wait...54 percent of unmarried people are women? I'm not so good at math, but how does THAT work? I guess if there's more women in the general population, that would do it, but that just struck me as funny..

Craig F said...

I agree as to what you mean about inalienable...but who's to say what's inalienable? I don't think they're absolute. Just because Thomas Jefferson, et al., pointed out a particular set of three of them, doesn't mean there can't be more or less, right? Somebody with a different governmental/ religious philosophy might think completely differently, and who's to say their philosophy is any less right than ours. That's kind of the mentality that got the US embroiled in Korea, Vietnam, and Iraq, isn't it? Everybody said communism was so horrible, so bad, we had to keep it from spreading, and we had the Red Scare and blacklisting as a result. Granted, it collapsed under the weight of its own bureaucracy and corruption fairly quickly, but, then again, so might our version of democracy.

necrodancer said...

"Democracy is the road to socialism." - Karl Marx

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can exist only until the voters discover they can vote themselves largesse (defined as a liberal gift) out of the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that democracy always collapses over a loose fiscal policy, always to be followed by a dictatorship." - Alexander Fraser Tyler

I don't believe it has to be... I do believe that the tendency is there. Strict oversight and a lot of effort will prevent the failure of our form of government. Sadly, I feel more and more in the minority.

The tyranny of the majority might continue to grow stronger and stronger until there is truly a dictator and our government is broken beyond repair.

Craig F said...

Doesn't "strict oversight" translate to bigger government, something conservatives are against?

necrodancer said...

In all actuality, that strict oversight is already present in our government. The matter of checks and balances and described in our constitution, provides significant oversight and channels our efforts in the direction that could sustain the democracy. It is only when we work to overcome these balances that our form of government is endangered.

Checks and Balances. The courts interpret the laws passed by congress and enforced by the president and the department of justice. Times have proven that each of these branches overstep their bounds and in turn the other branches move to put things back in proper balance.

The problem arises, however, when the public decides a certain problem justifies systemic changes. Once the changes are made and the problem resolved, moving back to a balanced system is not as easy. Here are some examples: The New Deal, The Patriot Act, a 700 billion dollar bail out.

I don't know if you get my point here. Times required drastic measures. The problems resolved but the drastic measures persist.

California's system of ballot measures provided a manner in which the voting public could move legislation that would not otherwise pass the State Legislature. There are times when I think this truer form of democracy is superior to the representative version of government. In most cases, it is not. Mob mentality and tyranny of the majority persists. It is by this cause that we've had proposition 22, overturned by the legislature, and proposition 8.

No, I prefer a smaller government. I think the founding fathers were pretty smart to put in place a system that checks itself against its own destruction. I think much that has happened since then has weakened that system.

necrodancer said...

Proposition 22 was not overturned by the legislature but rather by the judiciary.