November 23rd, 2003-Special Addition |
A Sacred Insistution?
I have heard an awful lot of rheetoric this week against the Massachusettes Supreme courts decision to question their stand on bannning gay marriage. The argument is quite silly, I think. Here's why.
Homosexuality is not a political stand, it's a phenomenon that happens in the world, with Human beings, Animals and birds. It's not a "New Idea", but has probably been around as long as heterosexuality. Why? No one knows. Probably as a population control mechanism because heterosexuals don't know how to stop breeding, but to discriminate against homos in any way today, knowing what we know about biology, sexuality and culture, is ignorant to say the least. Denying a Gay person the right to ANYTHING a straight person has is the same as denying restrooms to Blacks, segregaating Jews from mainstream society, or locking children out of school because they have big ears. It's just silly and frankly downright wrong. Period.
Many say that granting gays the right to marry is a threat to traditional families, yet they flatly fail to show how. If asked how two men or two woman marrying is a threat to anybody, the only real argument I hear is some incoherant mumbling about "The children, the tradtitional family". Again, where is the threat? Are gay couples going to start invading homes and stealing kids? Are gay couples suddenly going to start "Changing" the face of the american family? Well, maybe that face needs a lift.
many "traditional Families" I've seen these days consist of a Mom that got knocked up too young, a Deadbeat Dad, and a teenage kid selling drugs on the corner. When people can get 'hitched" in five minutes at a drivethru window in Las vegas, someone needs to show me where the heck this "Sacred Institution" is.
The traditional Family threat lies in the concept that these well meaning religous right winged conservative parents are going to have to start being nice to their Gay neighbors, and paying attention to those Gay parents at the PTA meetings.
Soon, one will have to hold their tongue, because you might not be ablee to tell the Gays from the straights anymore, as if you ever could. The idea of gays marrying means that the gay lifestyle is going to end up one more foot closer to visible, in your face, and taking over the society that straights have fought so hard to preserve, where the lesser humans know their place, and those we detest stay out off sight, where we can look down upon them, make jokes about them, beat them up and string them to fences and left to die. Pushing forward and demanding the right to pursue happiness is just the GAY way. It's a civil right, and we're not asking, we're just letting you know were taking it.
Remember, it is no longer illegal in the United States to be gay. It's is, however, illegal to deny anyone the basic human rights, of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Hapinness.
The simple fact, DENYING someone the right to do something that is in their interest to do for the sake of their own happiness because an opposing person or group has feelings about it, and those fellings are based on the concept of personal, moral or religous beliefs is, according to our values in the United States, unfair, and frankly, fascist .(See Adolph Hitler's "Mein Komph")
It is not a Special right the gay people are askig for, but an equal right. Though many people oppose the thought of Gay people marrying, it's not necessarily something they can stop. I would venture to say that marriage is a sacred institution between two consenting human adults WHO LOVE EACH OTHER.
When the constitution of the United Steates was formed, no one could forsee in the future that something as obscure as homosexuality would ever show it's face in an area like this. The Constitution should uphold any argument for, and deny any argument against the lifting of such a ban on Gay marriage as a civil trust . Today, most conservatives might be looking at those words "Life, liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness" and thinking "we created a monster!"
|