Q:1) Gay Marriage becomes recognized country wide at all levels of government. NO EXCEPTIONS! 2) Americans become healthy though an aggressive government initiative that stops things like corn subsidies and provides free gym memberships, subsidizes fresh produce, and so on. 3) Very strict gun control. Guns have to be registered, assault weapons are banned, etc. Basically everything short of banning guns outright. *What option would you choose? YOU CAN ONLY CHOOSE ONE!!! The other two won't happen!
I choose #1, and here’s why:
1. Marriage equality is not an imposition of a stricture on anyone, but is indeed the lifting of strictures from an entire group of people. It is a move for greater liberty, equality, and justice.
2. I’d love to stop corn subsidies (they’re illogical, unnecessary, and environmentally damaging), free gym memberships don’t bother me (no, that wouldn’t mean the jack booted thugs of the gubmint are going to force John Galt-like entrepreneurial business owners to accept anyone for whatever the price the government dictates. Socialization of certain goods and services, because we live in, you know, a SOCIETY, does NOT automatically mean the specter of fascism), and fresh produce subsidies might not be a bad idea, but unless that is coupled with a change in culture, attitudes, and industry-wide food marketing prices then those initiatives could just as likely be for naught. Those aren’t bad ideas at all, but I think other changes need to happen to make those changes effective, otherwise they could just be a waste of money.
3. I’m not against this much gun control, and in fact it could be helpful. I grow so tired of the “protection against tyranny” argument…it is bankrupt in all formulations. With the invention of modern warfare, and now remote control warfare (something I find unctuous in the extreme), you will never achieve parity of arms with the government. If you get in a firefight with the military you have lost already. Now, I think there is a very important discussion to be had about the state’s monopoly on violence in modern society, and I find it amusing that so many people who think Obama’s going to take our guns also support the military so full throatedly…after all, if Obama were going to take our guns, who do you think he’d send to do it? His daughters? But gun control is NOT going to be the nail in the coffin of freedom in this country. I’ve been too many different kind of places and seen too much to think that. Additionally, research and studies simply do not support the idea that a better armed citizenry leads to a safer society, so I find that argument wanting. However, though those strict gun controls could help somewhat, implementing them will take time to do justly and carefully, and will not eliminate all, or maybe even most of the problems we have with gun violence. We are a nation that imprisons a truly staggering number of people (most of them minorities), engages in extrajudicial assassination of foreign and US citizens, and monitors the communication of its people in ways that would make Orwell jealous he hadn’t thought of them first. And yet we don’t get truly up in arms until someone says maybe we shouldn’t be able to get firearms quite so easily. That tells me our main problem is NOT firearms, not by a long shot. I think there are systemic problems to acknowledge, address, and begin working on before stricter gun control becomes my first choice.
All of these are things I would support, with some degree of modification; marriage is the only one that will have the immediate desired effect without requiring large chunks of society to address and modify certain ingrained patterns of behavior, it simply makes it so that those ingrained behavior patterns no longer dictate the freedoms of a whole segment of the population. All of the choices given contain pernicious social ills; #1 contains the most perfect pairing of ill and remedy, and that’s why I choose that one.
I hope that soon after Tuesday’s arguments in front of the Supreme Court, people like me won’t have to speak up for those sons or daughters. No one owns the definition of love. It comes in all shapes and sizes. As Toni Morrison wrote, “Definitions belong to the definer, not the defined.” One thing I know for certain is that you can’t put a face on love, and you can’t tell me what a family is supposed to look like.
I recently received a message from a friend who has been in a committed relationship with her partner for eight years: “Pretty much my entire adult life I’ve always felt like I should settle for not having similar rights because I’m old enough to see how far we’ve come. I’ve grown accustomed to it. But I so hope it changes for the next generation because I hate to think that because they love, they should feel ‘less than.’ ”
I don’t ever want to explain to my daughters that some “versions” of love are viewed as “less than” others. I’m not prepared to answer that kind of question.
Instead, in just a few short years, and in the same way we now sometimes ask the previous generation, I hope my daughters will ask me: “What was all the fuss about back then?” I’m looking forward to hearing that question.
“Acceptance by Example, on the Field and at Home,” by NFL linebacker Scott Fujita (via smdxn)
A very moving and eloquent editorial.
Source : The New York Times
Q:Are you pro gay marriage?
Well, I’m sort of agnostic as to whether the state should be involved in religious ceremonies at all but, insofar as marriage is a civil institution, HELL FUCKING YES I’m pro marriage equality.
I have never heard a rational, observationally supported objection to gay marriage that didn’t boil down to “Ewwwww, gay people.”
Well, I’m sorry, you may have ill-thought out ideas if you wish, but you don’t get to decide public policy and restrict the freedoms of others based on them.
Also, the world has never, not once, been made a worse place because there was more love in it.
So yes, I fully support marriage equality.
Well this is hateful and stupid…
North Carolina Voters Pass Same Sex Marriage Ban (from New York Times)
While we’re on the subject, can someone offer me a LEGITIMATE argument against gay marriage that doesn’t boil down to “God says ‘no’/gay people, ewwww”? Because seriously…
Rick Santorum has just managed to offend me on almost every possible level simultaneously. Not only does he want to impose his hateful theocratic nonsense on the entire country, he wants to do it via constitutional amendment. Because, to quote him, “We can’t have 50 different marriage laws in this country, you have to have one marriage law.” And the fact that most people support marriage equality isn’t sufficient cause to, at the very least, not get in its way because "Just because public opinion says something doesn’t mean it’s right. I’m sure there were times in areas of this country when people said blacks were less than human." Also, in further douchebaggery, Peter Sprigg of the Family Research Council said "If you were to have some sort of sweeping decision … which would essentially impose same-sex marriage on every state in the country, I think that would perhaps create a huge backlash."
So, to sum up…
- The party of states’ rights, the GOP, has at least one candidate who supports a constitutional amendment to take away the states’ power to decide their own marriage laws.
- The fact that blacks were once seen as subhuman is proof that public opinion can be wrong. Ergo, public opinion can’t be used to support marriage equality. Makes sense until you realize that you have to see dehumanization of Black people and support for marriage equality as morally equivalent, therefore nullifying the importance of public support for them. There is no end to the blind fury with which that argument fills me.
- Rick Santorum is (or his handlers are) very good at making arguments, peppered with hidden appeals to emotion, that are logically valid (on first inspection) but wildly unsound.
- When the GOP say states’ rights they’re talking more about the right to pollute and discriminate, not so much about the right to elevate an entire group of people out of second class citizenry.
- Allowing people the freedom to do something that will affect no one else is “imposing” it on the country. Yes, because we’ll ALL have to attend the next same-sex wedding in our neighborhood if it becomes legal. We won’t have a choice. We’ll be marched to the church/temple/yurt-on-an-organic-farm to pay grudging respects to the benighted couple, who will probably have butt sex right in front of all the guests.
- Distilling the GOP/Santorum position on homosexuality: Ewww, gross, I’m scared, make it go away.
Give it up, guys, the train of freedom is rolling on through. You can get on board or you can get run over. Me, I’m buying a tux for the next yurt wedding I’m forced to go to.