There's so much crap going around about the SCOTUS's ruling, I'm actually kind of sick of it and lost my will to write one of my dreaded walls of text (TM). Here's the short (for me) (no pun intended) version:
I wish this had been allowed to happen through legislation rather than judicial fiat. The justices are nigh irremovable from their office and their rulings basically insurmountable once made. The hardest check on them is the extremely limited scope of their power. Perhaps there is wiggle room to argue that they didn't overstep their bounds given the precedent of Marshall's opinion on the broader purpose of judicial review as stated in Marbury versus Madison, but I still say they overstepped the spirit of their constitutional duties, if not the letter of them. My lawyer friends are free to chime in with their opinions.
Yes, I have friends who are lawyers, like you don't have shady acquaintances.
That being said, going hog-wild and completely redefining the entire process of judicial review, nomination, confirmation and allowing congress to remove justices they don't like would be an even bigger fracture in the system, so, no, we shouldn't do that either.
I just want everyone to start respecting the damned rules again. That is a bipartisan complaint, btw. The thing that keeps us from shooting each other is a functioning republic, once that truly breaks down it becomes a matter of who can bribe, coerce and, eventually, kill their way to what they want. Yes, that's dramatic, but seemingly stable societies have collapsed numerous times in history. The results are inevitably worse than the status-quo-ante-collapse.
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Tuesday, June 30, 2015
Friday, June 26, 2015
Justin's Lengthy and Unsolicited Opinion, Episode 3 11:23 AM
Race and the Battle Flag of the Army of Northern Virginia
This is may be my most complex rant to date, so please, if you start this, finish it. If you’re going to be pissed at me, I want you pissed at me for what I actually believe, not a sentence fragment.
I was going to leave this subject alone, I swear, but Andrew Walton, my battery First Sergeant and a man whom I respect a great deal, posted this video on the subject. It is too reductionist in that it implies the only reason to fly a Confederate battle flag (or, more properly, the battle flag of the Army of Northern Virginia) is to support racist ideals, but there are still some valid points here.
I personally do not fly the battle flag, nor would I fly any confederate flag. Whatever else it represents, and I do think it's more complex than slavery/segregation/racism, it was the battle flag of an enemy army. I am a citizen and was a soldier of the United States of America. That we reconciled with and reintegrated the Confederacy, that some of my own ancestors fought for the South, does not change the fact that my primary loyalty is always to my country, not just to any one region. Ergo, while I respect and even admire the martial virtue of the Confederate Army, I will not fly their flag on my vehicle or outside my home.
Furthermore, I really don't like the argument of omission that slavery was a minor factor in the Civil War and it was all about "state's rights." Yes, it was about state's rights, the right to own slaves.
Admittedly, it was not about slavery from the Union's perspective. There's no freaking way Lincoln was going to start the Civil War for the purpose of abolishing slavery. From politician to private, the Union's war aim was primarily to preserve the Union, freeing slaves was an incidental, and only applied to confederate states during the war, not slave holding states that remained in the Union.
But from the Confederacy's perspective, the continuing addition of more and more free states to the Union caused them to worry they would eventually be forced to abandon their "peculiar institution" by the majority. It was an essential factor in their decision to secede. In summary; the Union was not the shining force of abolitionist paladins we read about in third grade, but the Confederacy wasn't the not-really-racist, liberty-loving rebels some people want to pretend they were, either.
Let’s see, some other arguments I want to debunk before we go on…
From the Confederacy’s sympathizers:
“Well, if the South had just won, they probably would have abolished slavery eventually on their own AND it would’ve been a great victory for states’ rights,” Maybe. I don’t know. And neither do you. Counterfactuals make for fun novels and useful mental exercise, but the fact remains that we don’t KNOW that slavery was going to end due to anything short of war.
"But the vast majority of Confederate soldiers didn't own slaves, it was mostly the rich in the south who owned slaves." True statement, but those average, middle class and poor soldiers were taking orders from senior officers and politicians largely drawn from the slave-owning class. Thus, while their personal motivation may have been to repel what they saw as an invading army (and who can argue with a man’s right to defend his home?), they were, in effect, defending the institution of slavery. I'm not trying to demonize them, they were probably largely regular guys doing the best they thought they could, but they fought for an evil cause. Historically speaking, they’re hardly alone in that.
From the Left-wing contingent of our audience:
“So, Justin, we SHOULD order it taken down then, right? See- you’re actually a liberal!”
No. We shouldn’t, and no, I’m not. While I wouldn’t fly one personally, there are places where the battle flag of the Army of Northern Virginia is utterly appropriate. A memorial for the Confederate Army is one such example, and, yes, the Confederate Army deserves to have its memorials. Jesus, even the WWII Wermacht has its memorials.
“But you’re denouncing any private citizen flying the ANV battle flag as a racist, right? Come on, give in to the power of intellectual snobbery and be a ‘'smart' conservative by bashing the rednecks with us...”
No, I’m not doing that either. I disagree with individuals flying the battle flag of the ANV in a place where they might display the stars and stripes instead for reasons stated above. But I do not presume that anybody who disagrees with my reasoning hates black people or wants to return to the antebellum wholesale- because that’s a stupid assumption. I know guys who have displayed the battle flag who are as demonstrably not racist as you can possibly be. As an aside, it’s incredibly difficult to prove a negative, which is what makes a charge of racism such a handy tool for anyone losing an argument. Let us just say I saw the content of their character in garrison and combat and could not detect the slightest hint of racial favoritism or antipathy.
It is possible to take pride in your ancestor’s virtues while acknowledging their sins. No, it’s not just possible, it’s essential. You know why? Because if you examine your family tree with any degree of honesty, there’s going to be a lot of shame there- I don’t give a damn what ethnicity you are. That doesn’t mean you shouldn’t still be proud of your heritage, because there’s also likely something there to be proud of.
White southerners should not lie to themselves about the Confederacy, but they should be allowed to retain some pride for those ways in which their antecedents were admirable. And the fact is the CSA fought a better supplied and numerically superior enemy to a standstill for years- from a military perspective, they were impressive and, as aforementioned, the common Confederate soldier probably did believe he was just protecting his homeland from invasion. He was wrong, he was also keeping black people in chains by default, but his motives weren’t quite as purely evil as some are trying to paint.
I truly believe that most folks who embrace the rebel flag aren’t trying to show support for the KKK, or segregation or any number of other racist ideas or causes. They’re not thinking of George Wallace, or Woodrow Wilson or LBJ, they’re thinking of Robert E. Lee as portrayed by Martin Sheen, or Tom Berenger as Longstreet, or Richard Jordan as Armistead. And while Ted Turner did give us a squeaky clean vision of the Civil War in the movie, Gettysburg, the fact is there were admirable qualities about those real men, even as there were things we rightly revile about the Confederacy.
So, no, I don’t assume someone flying the battle flag is racist. I’m not sneering at you if you’ve got one outside your house or on your bumper. I get it. Separately, but related, I also would violently oppose, and that’s not hyperbole, any attempt by the government to force citizens not to display the battle flag or any other symbol, however controversial. This is America and if we give up on something as basic as freedom of speech we will have lost too much, no matter how offensive the voices we silence.
But when Top tells me that he sees the battle flag as hateful and that it offends him, it damn well gives me pause. Andrew Walton is not part of the screeching horde of the perpetually offended. The great American people have basically destroyed the meaning of the word hero by hanging it on every swinging Richard in a uniform, not to mention anyone who has ever been trolled on the internet for an unpopular life style choice, but Top is actually a certified freaking hero. He was decorated for valor for saving another man’s life in Iraq (while being wounded himself in the process) and, furthermore, is one of the most capable, self-motivated people I know- this is not one of the world’s professional victims.
That doesn’t mean I defer to his opinion because badass. I didn’t even do that when I was his commander, although I damned well listened carefully to everything he ever had to say to me… except maybe a few entreaties to be more politic when dealing with my superiors... oops.
But if he thinks the flag is offensive, then that’s at least one honest man who thinks so; not a race baiter, not a bigot- a damned good man. The least I, and you, should do is not dismiss that opinion out of hand.
I’ve rambled a bit more than usual, but I’ll try to tie it up neatly as possible.
1. No, the South should not remove all confederate symbols from everything ever and wear hair shirts for being descended from a slave-holding society.
2. It would probably be a nice and considerate thing to question when, where and in what manner it is appropriate to display those symbols not as a matter of law but as one of courtesy. No, that won’t be enough to appease the shrill cries of the professional race baiters, but to hell with them anyway, I’m worried about what’s actually right, not what demagogues think.
3. When you see some dude with a battle flag on his truck, there’s a good chance it’s got nothing to do with racism in his mind. Likewise, when someone objects to the battle flag, you should consider the possibility that it’s not about white guilt, but upon his honest evaluation of the flag’s symbolism in history. We have to go back to assuming good faith until conclusively proven otherwise in this country. It's difficult, I know, but that leads me to-
4. Ad hominem may be a fallacy, but considering the source is still a valid practice. If a whiny college kid is bitching about your privilege and the evils of white patriarchy, I'm probably going to ignore it. We're all entitled to our opinions, but some have backed those opinions with more than hot air.
This is may be my most complex rant to date, so please, if you start this, finish it. If you’re going to be pissed at me, I want you pissed at me for what I actually believe, not a sentence fragment.
I was going to leave this subject alone, I swear, but Andrew Walton, my battery First Sergeant and a man whom I respect a great deal, posted this video on the subject. It is too reductionist in that it implies the only reason to fly a Confederate battle flag (or, more properly, the battle flag of the Army of Northern Virginia) is to support racist ideals, but there are still some valid points here.
I personally do not fly the battle flag, nor would I fly any confederate flag. Whatever else it represents, and I do think it's more complex than slavery/segregation/racism, it was the battle flag of an enemy army. I am a citizen and was a soldier of the United States of America. That we reconciled with and reintegrated the Confederacy, that some of my own ancestors fought for the South, does not change the fact that my primary loyalty is always to my country, not just to any one region. Ergo, while I respect and even admire the martial virtue of the Confederate Army, I will not fly their flag on my vehicle or outside my home.
Furthermore, I really don't like the argument of omission that slavery was a minor factor in the Civil War and it was all about "state's rights." Yes, it was about state's rights, the right to own slaves.
Admittedly, it was not about slavery from the Union's perspective. There's no freaking way Lincoln was going to start the Civil War for the purpose of abolishing slavery. From politician to private, the Union's war aim was primarily to preserve the Union, freeing slaves was an incidental, and only applied to confederate states during the war, not slave holding states that remained in the Union.
But from the Confederacy's perspective, the continuing addition of more and more free states to the Union caused them to worry they would eventually be forced to abandon their "peculiar institution" by the majority. It was an essential factor in their decision to secede. In summary; the Union was not the shining force of abolitionist paladins we read about in third grade, but the Confederacy wasn't the not-really-racist, liberty-loving rebels some people want to pretend they were, either.
Let’s see, some other arguments I want to debunk before we go on…
From the Confederacy’s sympathizers:
“Well, if the South had just won, they probably would have abolished slavery eventually on their own AND it would’ve been a great victory for states’ rights,” Maybe. I don’t know. And neither do you. Counterfactuals make for fun novels and useful mental exercise, but the fact remains that we don’t KNOW that slavery was going to end due to anything short of war.
"But the vast majority of Confederate soldiers didn't own slaves, it was mostly the rich in the south who owned slaves." True statement, but those average, middle class and poor soldiers were taking orders from senior officers and politicians largely drawn from the slave-owning class. Thus, while their personal motivation may have been to repel what they saw as an invading army (and who can argue with a man’s right to defend his home?), they were, in effect, defending the institution of slavery. I'm not trying to demonize them, they were probably largely regular guys doing the best they thought they could, but they fought for an evil cause. Historically speaking, they’re hardly alone in that.
From the Left-wing contingent of our audience:
“So, Justin, we SHOULD order it taken down then, right? See- you’re actually a liberal!”
No. We shouldn’t, and no, I’m not. While I wouldn’t fly one personally, there are places where the battle flag of the Army of Northern Virginia is utterly appropriate. A memorial for the Confederate Army is one such example, and, yes, the Confederate Army deserves to have its memorials. Jesus, even the WWII Wermacht has its memorials.
“But you’re denouncing any private citizen flying the ANV battle flag as a racist, right? Come on, give in to the power of intellectual snobbery and be a ‘'smart' conservative by bashing the rednecks with us...”
No, I’m not doing that either. I disagree with individuals flying the battle flag of the ANV in a place where they might display the stars and stripes instead for reasons stated above. But I do not presume that anybody who disagrees with my reasoning hates black people or wants to return to the antebellum wholesale- because that’s a stupid assumption. I know guys who have displayed the battle flag who are as demonstrably not racist as you can possibly be. As an aside, it’s incredibly difficult to prove a negative, which is what makes a charge of racism such a handy tool for anyone losing an argument. Let us just say I saw the content of their character in garrison and combat and could not detect the slightest hint of racial favoritism or antipathy.
It is possible to take pride in your ancestor’s virtues while acknowledging their sins. No, it’s not just possible, it’s essential. You know why? Because if you examine your family tree with any degree of honesty, there’s going to be a lot of shame there- I don’t give a damn what ethnicity you are. That doesn’t mean you shouldn’t still be proud of your heritage, because there’s also likely something there to be proud of.
White southerners should not lie to themselves about the Confederacy, but they should be allowed to retain some pride for those ways in which their antecedents were admirable. And the fact is the CSA fought a better supplied and numerically superior enemy to a standstill for years- from a military perspective, they were impressive and, as aforementioned, the common Confederate soldier probably did believe he was just protecting his homeland from invasion. He was wrong, he was also keeping black people in chains by default, but his motives weren’t quite as purely evil as some are trying to paint.
I truly believe that most folks who embrace the rebel flag aren’t trying to show support for the KKK, or segregation or any number of other racist ideas or causes. They’re not thinking of George Wallace, or Woodrow Wilson or LBJ, they’re thinking of Robert E. Lee as portrayed by Martin Sheen, or Tom Berenger as Longstreet, or Richard Jordan as Armistead. And while Ted Turner did give us a squeaky clean vision of the Civil War in the movie, Gettysburg, the fact is there were admirable qualities about those real men, even as there were things we rightly revile about the Confederacy.
So, no, I don’t assume someone flying the battle flag is racist. I’m not sneering at you if you’ve got one outside your house or on your bumper. I get it. Separately, but related, I also would violently oppose, and that’s not hyperbole, any attempt by the government to force citizens not to display the battle flag or any other symbol, however controversial. This is America and if we give up on something as basic as freedom of speech we will have lost too much, no matter how offensive the voices we silence.
But when Top tells me that he sees the battle flag as hateful and that it offends him, it damn well gives me pause. Andrew Walton is not part of the screeching horde of the perpetually offended. The great American people have basically destroyed the meaning of the word hero by hanging it on every swinging Richard in a uniform, not to mention anyone who has ever been trolled on the internet for an unpopular life style choice, but Top is actually a certified freaking hero. He was decorated for valor for saving another man’s life in Iraq (while being wounded himself in the process) and, furthermore, is one of the most capable, self-motivated people I know- this is not one of the world’s professional victims.
That doesn’t mean I defer to his opinion because badass. I didn’t even do that when I was his commander, although I damned well listened carefully to everything he ever had to say to me… except maybe a few entreaties to be more politic when dealing with my superiors... oops.
But if he thinks the flag is offensive, then that’s at least one honest man who thinks so; not a race baiter, not a bigot- a damned good man. The least I, and you, should do is not dismiss that opinion out of hand.
I’ve rambled a bit more than usual, but I’ll try to tie it up neatly as possible.
1. No, the South should not remove all confederate symbols from everything ever and wear hair shirts for being descended from a slave-holding society.
2. It would probably be a nice and considerate thing to question when, where and in what manner it is appropriate to display those symbols not as a matter of law but as one of courtesy. No, that won’t be enough to appease the shrill cries of the professional race baiters, but to hell with them anyway, I’m worried about what’s actually right, not what demagogues think.
3. When you see some dude with a battle flag on his truck, there’s a good chance it’s got nothing to do with racism in his mind. Likewise, when someone objects to the battle flag, you should consider the possibility that it’s not about white guilt, but upon his honest evaluation of the flag’s symbolism in history. We have to go back to assuming good faith until conclusively proven otherwise in this country. It's difficult, I know, but that leads me to-
4. Ad hominem may be a fallacy, but considering the source is still a valid practice. If a whiny college kid is bitching about your privilege and the evils of white patriarchy, I'm probably going to ignore it. We're all entitled to our opinions, but some have backed those opinions with more than hot air.
Thursday, January 3, 2013
The Trouble with Art and Entertainment 2:44 PM
I enjoy and value the arts. Particularly books, but I also enjoy music of various genres, movies, musical theater and, as a result of my wife's steady and patient efforts, dance and even fine art (to a degree). For the purposes of this piece I'll focus on the cinema. While we are burdened with drek like the Fantastic Four movies, the Star Wars prequels, and pretty much everything Tim Burton made after The Nightmare Before Christmas, we've also created the LotR trilogy, the original Star Wars trilogy, the Godfather trilogy, the Avengers and its component movies, etc. They may be the minority, but there are still a ton of entertaining, inspiring and edifying movies out there.
But watching a making-of feature on the Avengers the other day, and again marveling at the talent and effort it takes to make really good movies, I had a disturbing thought.
As great as these movies are, as much as we love them, are they, perhaps, a symptom of a declining culture?
I'm not even getting into the divide between Left and Right, and the entertainment industry's strong lean towards the Left. That's a different rant. LotR and Star Wars have no overt political messages other than, “be courageous, resist evil, it's better to be the scruffy, gritty secondary (Strider, Han Solo), than the neophyte hero (Frodo, Luke Skywalker).” If you can't agree with that sentiment then why are you reading me?
No, I'm talking about the movies themselves, independent of any political content they may or may not contain.
Stop and think about it, we spend billions of dollars a year on entertainment. It's one thing that we have the disposable income to buy some DVDs, it's another that we, as a culture, have become so committed to our own entertainment that we've set the market value for entertainment in the millions and billions. I'm picking on A-list actors and film makers, but they're hardly the only paychecks I question, professional athletes and “musicians” I'm looking at you.
Hyperbole aside, I'm not begrudging these folks their wealth. Even the ones I don't think produce a damn thing worth buying still earned it by selling it honestly on the market. Hate Justin Beiber all you like, if we raised our daughters to deride his crap instead of swoon over it, he wouldn't be a phenomenon. The fault lies not in our stars, metaphorical or literal, but in ourselves.
If we're dumb enough to pay a twenty-two year old linebacker three million a year to smash running backs and quarterbacks, then why shouldn't that young man take the money? In my not-so-copious free time I'm still trying to write. Realistically I hope that after retirement I can become a solid mid-list author, but if for some reason one of my novels starts pulling numbers like Rowling I'm not going to give the money back on the principle that folks should've been spending their money on more important things.
So I'm not trying to spew hatred at art or artists.
All I'm saying is, we have a culture where people will go into debt to make sure they have direct TV and a 72 inch, high def, plasma screen TV to watch it on. We have a culture where our A-list entertainers make exponentially more money than any one of a dozen vital professions. We have a culture where the majority of voters feel they have to subsidize charity into a government function while we the gainfully employed (and many who are not) spend billions on things we could easily live without and give a pittance, or nothing at all, to charity.
I'm not innocent in this either. Oh, we tithe our ten percent, plus a little extra now and then, like good little Christians, and I give to various charities on the Combined Federal Campaign. But I have a great big TV, a bunch of movies and books, and not a few video games. It's not like I'm against entertainment or having nice things. I just worry that we're trying to fill a deeper void with our materialism. We buy the movies and video games and books not just to enjoy them and perhaps be inspired by them, but to live the lives of heroes vicariously because we've given up on trying to be heroes ourselves.
So I'm not suggesting some socialist redistribution of wealth. Like I said, we gave them the money, they didn't steal it. It's a viable economic transaction, and it's not the problem, really.
I'm just saying that maybe we need to reconsider art's purpose in our lives- instead of throwing money into it in return for an escape from lives we lost interest in long ago, perhaps we need to let our Jedi, and superheroes, and Dunedain, and teenaged wizards inspire us to actually do something about all the darkness in the world. I'm not saying throw on a pair of tights and go vigilante (although if that's your thing I recommend some kevlar under those tights and strongly encourage a Punisher model, rather than a Batman model, in the real world, Bruce Wayne would've had a .357 lobotomy around his fifth issue, I don't care how strong his ninjitsu is).
I'm saying give more to charity (also check the efficiency of the charity, not every donation has equal effect), go on a mission, join the peace corps, become a teacher, become a doctor, become a soldier, sailor, airman, marine or coastguardsman, be the next Elon Musk or Stephen Hawking- for God's sake DO SOMETHING- and then raise your kids to do something too, maybe not what you did, but something. Don't sit on your ass watching movies and forgetting that there's a real world out there that desperately needs good people to be active in it.
But watching a making-of feature on the Avengers the other day, and again marveling at the talent and effort it takes to make really good movies, I had a disturbing thought.
As great as these movies are, as much as we love them, are they, perhaps, a symptom of a declining culture?
I'm not even getting into the divide between Left and Right, and the entertainment industry's strong lean towards the Left. That's a different rant. LotR and Star Wars have no overt political messages other than, “be courageous, resist evil, it's better to be the scruffy, gritty secondary (Strider, Han Solo), than the neophyte hero (Frodo, Luke Skywalker).” If you can't agree with that sentiment then why are you reading me?
No, I'm talking about the movies themselves, independent of any political content they may or may not contain.
Stop and think about it, we spend billions of dollars a year on entertainment. It's one thing that we have the disposable income to buy some DVDs, it's another that we, as a culture, have become so committed to our own entertainment that we've set the market value for entertainment in the millions and billions. I'm picking on A-list actors and film makers, but they're hardly the only paychecks I question, professional athletes and “musicians” I'm looking at you.
Hyperbole aside, I'm not begrudging these folks their wealth. Even the ones I don't think produce a damn thing worth buying still earned it by selling it honestly on the market. Hate Justin Beiber all you like, if we raised our daughters to deride his crap instead of swoon over it, he wouldn't be a phenomenon. The fault lies not in our stars, metaphorical or literal, but in ourselves.
If we're dumb enough to pay a twenty-two year old linebacker three million a year to smash running backs and quarterbacks, then why shouldn't that young man take the money? In my not-so-copious free time I'm still trying to write. Realistically I hope that after retirement I can become a solid mid-list author, but if for some reason one of my novels starts pulling numbers like Rowling I'm not going to give the money back on the principle that folks should've been spending their money on more important things.
So I'm not trying to spew hatred at art or artists.
All I'm saying is, we have a culture where people will go into debt to make sure they have direct TV and a 72 inch, high def, plasma screen TV to watch it on. We have a culture where our A-list entertainers make exponentially more money than any one of a dozen vital professions. We have a culture where the majority of voters feel they have to subsidize charity into a government function while we the gainfully employed (and many who are not) spend billions on things we could easily live without and give a pittance, or nothing at all, to charity.
I'm not innocent in this either. Oh, we tithe our ten percent, plus a little extra now and then, like good little Christians, and I give to various charities on the Combined Federal Campaign. But I have a great big TV, a bunch of movies and books, and not a few video games. It's not like I'm against entertainment or having nice things. I just worry that we're trying to fill a deeper void with our materialism. We buy the movies and video games and books not just to enjoy them and perhaps be inspired by them, but to live the lives of heroes vicariously because we've given up on trying to be heroes ourselves.
So I'm not suggesting some socialist redistribution of wealth. Like I said, we gave them the money, they didn't steal it. It's a viable economic transaction, and it's not the problem, really.
I'm just saying that maybe we need to reconsider art's purpose in our lives- instead of throwing money into it in return for an escape from lives we lost interest in long ago, perhaps we need to let our Jedi, and superheroes, and Dunedain, and teenaged wizards inspire us to actually do something about all the darkness in the world. I'm not saying throw on a pair of tights and go vigilante (although if that's your thing I recommend some kevlar under those tights and strongly encourage a Punisher model, rather than a Batman model, in the real world, Bruce Wayne would've had a .357 lobotomy around his fifth issue, I don't care how strong his ninjitsu is).
I'm saying give more to charity (also check the efficiency of the charity, not every donation has equal effect), go on a mission, join the peace corps, become a teacher, become a doctor, become a soldier, sailor, airman, marine or coastguardsman, be the next Elon Musk or Stephen Hawking- for God's sake DO SOMETHING- and then raise your kids to do something too, maybe not what you did, but something. Don't sit on your ass watching movies and forgetting that there's a real world out there that desperately needs good people to be active in it.
Labels:
Movies,
politics,
Social Theory
Monday, December 17, 2012
Why I Support Legalizing Homosexual Marriage and Why You Should Too, Pretty Much Regardless of Your Religious Beliefs 5:24 PM
I pissed off my liberal friends last week with my brief rant against gun control, so I figured I’d go ahead and piss of my friends on the other side of the aisle this week with this much longer rant in support of gay marriage!
I thought of this a while ago when DOMA was not yet even under judicial review. I was still digesting the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell (which will be the subject of its own rant, shortly), and I realized that if homosexuals were going to serve openly, it would be fair and necessary to recognize their spouses for both moral and administrative purposes. I did my whole walk around in circles and talk to myself for a bit, and today I’ve written the results of my internal dialogue.
So, issues with homosexual marriage.
I’m going to ignore bigotry and any variation of, “it’s icky!” Really, if you’re still arguing from there then no one on either side of the issue should care what you think. Don’t get me wrong, I still have my own visceral reactions at open physical displays of homosexuality. That’s not a moral compass, though, folks, that’s just biology and cultural conditioning talking. My glands tell me that two guys doing sexy things are kinda gross and that two girls doing sexy things are kinda hot (sorry, honey!). I am not displaying sound moral or intellectual judgment by appreciating one over the other; I’m experiencing a primitive hormonal reaction. So let’s just ignore “it feels wrong” arguments.
“Homosexuality is deviant sexual behavior and shouldn’t be encouraged because it’s akin to pedophilia.” Oh, brother. You know what? Forget this one as too close to bigotry. Fellow Christians, the minute you compare consensual homosexuality to child-rape, you just lost the argument in the eyes of any civilized person. Don’t do it. Just. Don’t.
“Allowing homosexual marriage will damage the American ideal of the traditional family unit.” Really? How? “Hey, Michele, I noticed Jim and Steve moved in together and it made me think, ‘why don’t I go try sex with men?’ I’m leaving you and the kids to discover myself! Bye!”
Seriously, I don’t know about you, but no matter how many gay dudes I see in committed relationships, I’m not going to be tempted to abandon my smoking hot wife and wonderful kids for a life of knitting sweaters with Larry in Vermont, even if he looks like Daniel Craig (yes… considerably). Besides, gay people aren’t ruining the family unit- we’re doing that all by ourselves. After all, they can’t reproduce kids by accident and then treat them like inconveniences or a means to get a bigger welfare check. Only we can do that. Well, they could, but not with their preferred… oh, you get what I mean.
That’s two common arguments down. So, how about an argument that can hold water? Is there an argument that speaks to my own beliefs and which I cannot dismiss with pithy sarcasm?
“The Bible (and therefore God) condemns homosexuality.” You see what I did there? I ignored the one-man, one-woman variations and everything because they are too easy to shred given the old notables of Judah and Israel were known to have harems that would make Hugh Hefner jealous (you know, accounting for historical differences in hygiene standards that is).
So, the bible condemns homosexuality.
Yes. It does. Unquestionably, in multiple verses of multiple books of the Torah and in Paul’s Letter to the Romans (maybe a couple other places, others with more experience as biblical scholars can probably find a few more citations), there are clear proscriptions against homosexual conduct, no matter how I try to spin it. You got me.
But, and I say this without sarcasm, Brothers and Sisters in Christ, does that make any damn sense?
I mean, really. This is the scenario you’re purporting: God creates one of his children hormonally swayed so that he will be attracted to the same gender, and then tells him that his (or her, whatever) sexual and romantic feelings for another consenting adult are inherently sinful while ours are one of the foundational elements of His plan for us.
“Oh, no,” you say, “It’s not natural, it’s a choice. They could choose not to be gay.”
Deep breath.
Okay, since we’re on this uncomfortable topic, I’m going to make it even more uncomfortable by using first person while talking about sexuality. You brought this on yourself, invisible straw man who lives inside my computer (and sometimes my head).
I don’t know about you, but when I turned the corner from childhood into adolescence I noticed that the girl sitting across from me in home room was filling out and that it made me into a stammering idiot because the birds and the bees were screwing up my whole universe with all kinds of inappropriate thoughts and daydreams. Oddly, my friends, Joey, Jake and Anthony inspired no such fantasies. No, my pimply faced young companions inspired only camaraderie and competition. It wasn’t as if I looked at them, looked at the girls and DECIDED I was heterosexual. So, you see, I NEVER GOT A VOTE ON WHO I WANTED TO HAVE SEX WITH. I’m just guessing that you didn’t either. And if you didn’t, and I didn’t, what are the odds Liberace or Elton John did, just because they like dudes?
So, I reiterate, some poor schmuck who is born gay but wants to obey God is left either trying to pretend he’s straight when the idea is as physically repulsive to him as his idea of a good time is to me, or simply alone.
HOW FUCKED UP IS THAT!? DOES THAT SOUND LIKE THE GOD WE WORSHIP?!?!
Does that sound like the God who takes any paper thin excuse he can to forgive us and accept us into his Kingdom? Does that sound like the God who sent his only Begotten Son, who became mortal and, took on the guilt of all our sins, who humbled himself to Death when he didn’t have to, all to save us? Does that sound like the God who commanded us to love our neighbor as ourselves and pray for our enemies and, and, I mean REALLY? Does it?
Isn’t it, JUST possible that when Jesus fulfilled the Law, freeing us from Kosher restrictions, the absolute necessity of circumcision, etc, that was one more cultural meme that just didn’t apply anymore? And isn’t at least possible that Paul, who is kind of a misogynist amongst other things, let’s face it, inserted some of his own ideas on morality when he was writing down the inspiration God had given him? I mean, this is the dude who said it is better not to marry, but better to marry than burn. Not exactly a ringing endorsement for what most other parts of the bible portray as the fundamental human relationship. Paul was a great man of faith, but he was not Jesus. And Jesus has not a damn thing to say about homosexuality in any of the gospels.
But Paul, you say, did take pains to separate his opinion from divine guidance in many places, so, no. Paul’s strictures against homosexuality are divinely inspired.
And maybe you’re right. I am a Christian, and I don’t get to shake scripture like a magic eight ball to make it give the answer I want, so maybe you’re right and same-sex romance is a sin in the truly eternal and cosmic sense of the word. I don’t like it, I hope it’s not, but I have to admit that is a valid and more legalistically correct interpretation of the scripture than I can offer.
So what?
You heard me, so what? What does our shared religious trepidation with regard to homosexuality have to do with US law? Oh, I’m not questioning your right to believe that two men or two women do not constitute a marriage in the eyes of God, I’m questioning your right to say it doesn’t constitute a marriage in the eyes of the United States. We are a Christian nation only in the sense that Christianity is the predominant religion of the population, not that we are allowed to use our own religious beliefs as basis for legislation, you know who does that? Places like Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran, basically all those Islamic radicals whom I’ve made it a career and an obsession to resist. Yeah, I’ve no interest in being like them.
Yes, most of the Founding Fathers were either Christians or deists with Christian traditions, and they referenced God frequently in their work. They did not, however, use scripture to justify law- the declaration and the constitution, in their mechanics, were inspired by enlightenment thinkers like Locke, Voltaire, Hobbes and Montesquieu, not by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John (none of which say anything about being gay, anyway). I’m not saying the faith of the founders didn’t play an important role in their motivations for creating a liberal (classical liberal, not left/right liberal) republic. I’m saying that even those, often very religious, men did not see fit to impose law from scripture on those who might not believe, or even on those who did believe. So why are you trying?
Because you don’t want people to think it’s okay. If gay marriage is legalized, it will be society signaling its acceptance of homosexuality. And if it is a sin, then people shouldn’t think it’s perfectly acceptable.
Ever downloaded something from pirate bay? Ever watched porn, used profanity, overeaten, drank too much, smoked a cigar or cigarette, been angry at God, or put your own desire for financial comfort over his command to be generous with the poor? Yeah? Me too. Guess what, brother? We’re all freaking serial sinners. You can recognize it and reproof it, but if you don’t legislate against me for my frequent use of the F word and tendency to overindulge in both chocolate and scotch (keeping in mind that I am a follower of Jesus Christ and I AM supposed to know better), why in God’s name would you allow yourselves to oppress some poor sap because he likes dudes?
Seriously, if we’re going to get all self-righteous, let’s go after human traffickers, or the terrorists, or, for Christ’s sake, somebody who is actually hurting another human being. Because THAT we have authority over here on Earth. This kind of sin? That’s between a person and God.
If you liked this piece, please tune in next week so I can piss you off by telling you how gender integration in the military is a big failure (and it’s all the Left’s fault) and the unilateral unphased repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell was a giant, criminal blunder (and it’s all the Left’s fault).
I thought of this a while ago when DOMA was not yet even under judicial review. I was still digesting the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell (which will be the subject of its own rant, shortly), and I realized that if homosexuals were going to serve openly, it would be fair and necessary to recognize their spouses for both moral and administrative purposes. I did my whole walk around in circles and talk to myself for a bit, and today I’ve written the results of my internal dialogue.
So, issues with homosexual marriage.
I’m going to ignore bigotry and any variation of, “it’s icky!” Really, if you’re still arguing from there then no one on either side of the issue should care what you think. Don’t get me wrong, I still have my own visceral reactions at open physical displays of homosexuality. That’s not a moral compass, though, folks, that’s just biology and cultural conditioning talking. My glands tell me that two guys doing sexy things are kinda gross and that two girls doing sexy things are kinda hot (sorry, honey!). I am not displaying sound moral or intellectual judgment by appreciating one over the other; I’m experiencing a primitive hormonal reaction. So let’s just ignore “it feels wrong” arguments.
“Homosexuality is deviant sexual behavior and shouldn’t be encouraged because it’s akin to pedophilia.” Oh, brother. You know what? Forget this one as too close to bigotry. Fellow Christians, the minute you compare consensual homosexuality to child-rape, you just lost the argument in the eyes of any civilized person. Don’t do it. Just. Don’t.
“Allowing homosexual marriage will damage the American ideal of the traditional family unit.” Really? How? “Hey, Michele, I noticed Jim and Steve moved in together and it made me think, ‘why don’t I go try sex with men?’ I’m leaving you and the kids to discover myself! Bye!”
Seriously, I don’t know about you, but no matter how many gay dudes I see in committed relationships, I’m not going to be tempted to abandon my smoking hot wife and wonderful kids for a life of knitting sweaters with Larry in Vermont, even if he looks like Daniel Craig (yes… considerably). Besides, gay people aren’t ruining the family unit- we’re doing that all by ourselves. After all, they can’t reproduce kids by accident and then treat them like inconveniences or a means to get a bigger welfare check. Only we can do that. Well, they could, but not with their preferred… oh, you get what I mean.
That’s two common arguments down. So, how about an argument that can hold water? Is there an argument that speaks to my own beliefs and which I cannot dismiss with pithy sarcasm?
“The Bible (and therefore God) condemns homosexuality.” You see what I did there? I ignored the one-man, one-woman variations and everything because they are too easy to shred given the old notables of Judah and Israel were known to have harems that would make Hugh Hefner jealous (you know, accounting for historical differences in hygiene standards that is).
So, the bible condemns homosexuality.
Yes. It does. Unquestionably, in multiple verses of multiple books of the Torah and in Paul’s Letter to the Romans (maybe a couple other places, others with more experience as biblical scholars can probably find a few more citations), there are clear proscriptions against homosexual conduct, no matter how I try to spin it. You got me.
But, and I say this without sarcasm, Brothers and Sisters in Christ, does that make any damn sense?
I mean, really. This is the scenario you’re purporting: God creates one of his children hormonally swayed so that he will be attracted to the same gender, and then tells him that his (or her, whatever) sexual and romantic feelings for another consenting adult are inherently sinful while ours are one of the foundational elements of His plan for us.
“Oh, no,” you say, “It’s not natural, it’s a choice. They could choose not to be gay.”
Deep breath.
Okay, since we’re on this uncomfortable topic, I’m going to make it even more uncomfortable by using first person while talking about sexuality. You brought this on yourself, invisible straw man who lives inside my computer (and sometimes my head).
I don’t know about you, but when I turned the corner from childhood into adolescence I noticed that the girl sitting across from me in home room was filling out and that it made me into a stammering idiot because the birds and the bees were screwing up my whole universe with all kinds of inappropriate thoughts and daydreams. Oddly, my friends, Joey, Jake and Anthony inspired no such fantasies. No, my pimply faced young companions inspired only camaraderie and competition. It wasn’t as if I looked at them, looked at the girls and DECIDED I was heterosexual. So, you see, I NEVER GOT A VOTE ON WHO I WANTED TO HAVE SEX WITH. I’m just guessing that you didn’t either. And if you didn’t, and I didn’t, what are the odds Liberace or Elton John did, just because they like dudes?
So, I reiterate, some poor schmuck who is born gay but wants to obey God is left either trying to pretend he’s straight when the idea is as physically repulsive to him as his idea of a good time is to me, or simply alone.
HOW FUCKED UP IS THAT!? DOES THAT SOUND LIKE THE GOD WE WORSHIP?!?!
Does that sound like the God who takes any paper thin excuse he can to forgive us and accept us into his Kingdom? Does that sound like the God who sent his only Begotten Son, who became mortal and, took on the guilt of all our sins, who humbled himself to Death when he didn’t have to, all to save us? Does that sound like the God who commanded us to love our neighbor as ourselves and pray for our enemies and, and, I mean REALLY? Does it?
Isn’t it, JUST possible that when Jesus fulfilled the Law, freeing us from Kosher restrictions, the absolute necessity of circumcision, etc, that was one more cultural meme that just didn’t apply anymore? And isn’t at least possible that Paul, who is kind of a misogynist amongst other things, let’s face it, inserted some of his own ideas on morality when he was writing down the inspiration God had given him? I mean, this is the dude who said it is better not to marry, but better to marry than burn. Not exactly a ringing endorsement for what most other parts of the bible portray as the fundamental human relationship. Paul was a great man of faith, but he was not Jesus. And Jesus has not a damn thing to say about homosexuality in any of the gospels.
But Paul, you say, did take pains to separate his opinion from divine guidance in many places, so, no. Paul’s strictures against homosexuality are divinely inspired.
And maybe you’re right. I am a Christian, and I don’t get to shake scripture like a magic eight ball to make it give the answer I want, so maybe you’re right and same-sex romance is a sin in the truly eternal and cosmic sense of the word. I don’t like it, I hope it’s not, but I have to admit that is a valid and more legalistically correct interpretation of the scripture than I can offer.
So what?
You heard me, so what? What does our shared religious trepidation with regard to homosexuality have to do with US law? Oh, I’m not questioning your right to believe that two men or two women do not constitute a marriage in the eyes of God, I’m questioning your right to say it doesn’t constitute a marriage in the eyes of the United States. We are a Christian nation only in the sense that Christianity is the predominant religion of the population, not that we are allowed to use our own religious beliefs as basis for legislation, you know who does that? Places like Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran, basically all those Islamic radicals whom I’ve made it a career and an obsession to resist. Yeah, I’ve no interest in being like them.
Yes, most of the Founding Fathers were either Christians or deists with Christian traditions, and they referenced God frequently in their work. They did not, however, use scripture to justify law- the declaration and the constitution, in their mechanics, were inspired by enlightenment thinkers like Locke, Voltaire, Hobbes and Montesquieu, not by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John (none of which say anything about being gay, anyway). I’m not saying the faith of the founders didn’t play an important role in their motivations for creating a liberal (classical liberal, not left/right liberal) republic. I’m saying that even those, often very religious, men did not see fit to impose law from scripture on those who might not believe, or even on those who did believe. So why are you trying?
Because you don’t want people to think it’s okay. If gay marriage is legalized, it will be society signaling its acceptance of homosexuality. And if it is a sin, then people shouldn’t think it’s perfectly acceptable.
Ever downloaded something from pirate bay? Ever watched porn, used profanity, overeaten, drank too much, smoked a cigar or cigarette, been angry at God, or put your own desire for financial comfort over his command to be generous with the poor? Yeah? Me too. Guess what, brother? We’re all freaking serial sinners. You can recognize it and reproof it, but if you don’t legislate against me for my frequent use of the F word and tendency to overindulge in both chocolate and scotch (keeping in mind that I am a follower of Jesus Christ and I AM supposed to know better), why in God’s name would you allow yourselves to oppress some poor sap because he likes dudes?
Seriously, if we’re going to get all self-righteous, let’s go after human traffickers, or the terrorists, or, for Christ’s sake, somebody who is actually hurting another human being. Because THAT we have authority over here on Earth. This kind of sin? That’s between a person and God.
If you liked this piece, please tune in next week so I can piss you off by telling you how gender integration in the military is a big failure (and it’s all the Left’s fault) and the unilateral unphased repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell was a giant, criminal blunder (and it’s all the Left’s fault).
Labels:
politics
