The Truth, is Bald, and Cold —
But that will hold —
If any are not sure —
We show them — prayer —
But we, who know,
Stop hoping, now —
The recent gay marriage flap in Rowan County, Kentucky, has proven itself to be the generator of incoherent rant after incoherent rant after incoherent rant, each and all of which spout completely nonsensical premises — aka LIES — concerning imaginary (dire) consequences of the recent Supreme Court decision in the case of Obergefell v. Hodges. The fourteenth amendment’s guarantee of “equal protection of the laws” applies to gay marriage, the Court ruled on June 26. Enter RAGE! along with the obvious question: what the hell are *they* so so mad about, so frightened of? Why the irrational anger? Why do so many “believers” have (and ably demonstrate) the ability to fear, to hate people simply because their lifestyle differs from what some consider “normal”? Whatever happened to the concept of Tolerance?
I first became genuinely aware of the gay marriage “controversy” and the boiling pot that has come to define those opposed back in 2004 — mid-May. I think it was — when Massachusetts became the first state to allow/sanction same sex marriages. I remember the uproar, the outcry, the religious rage, and was puzzled as to why anyone should care about how others choose to live their non-intrusive lives. The enabling statute didn’t mandate same-sex marriage, after all. But still, an unbridled rage persists, firmly embedded in just the concept alone. And too, the fact remains that early in 2004 and several months prior to Massachusetts, President George W. Bush did nothing to civilize the debate when he called for a Constitutional amendment to *define* marriage as the union of one man and one woman. Hard to figure the essence of such motivation. Sometimes, at least.
It was a bit more than eleven years ago when, in response to a comment on an internet discussion group, I wrote and posted the following mini-essay on the topic of “Marriage.” I can honestly say that today, even though my baseline views on the matter have not changed, I now find — more than ever before — the antics of fundamentalist “Christians” (so called) to be totally and completely disgusting and without so much as a thread of merit. And though their anti-gay marriage fixation is shameful, their irrational fear-based hatred of their fellow human citizens has at least one valid consequence — it exposes the vapid hollowness of themselves, of their “cause,” and particularly of their “religion.”
So. This. From late June, 2004:
Near as I can fathom, “marriage” is more a semantics issue than anything else — save for those who find gay unions as some sort of heavenly abomination. My advice to the latter group is simple: if it bothers you, then don’t partake. There are those who find some or all religious dogma to be smothering, an “abomination”, if you will, and choose to not partake. But very few such non-partakers ever demand that those who do choose to practice religious dogma be ruled legal outcasts, nor should they.
The issue, really, is in the legal, not religious, sanctioning of a union, in the sense that to withhold equality before the law for a legally bound (by mutual consent, of course) couple based on gender, or skin color, or eye color/shape, or first language, or religious belief/practice is just plain wrong. Absolute equality of legal rights should be the rule, period. I suppose some might find it more palatable to reserve the word “marriage” for either religious or civil *hetero* union, although I have to wonder — what’s in a word?
The essence of equality before the law IS equality and all that equality entails. I suppose that if a particular church or religious group prefers to believe that marriage is, in their eyes, a hetero union, that’s fine. Let all believe as they wish, but please allow others that same privilege. And, of course, the same applies to the ‘other’ side(s) as well, always. There must be behavioral standards in virtually any society no matter how simple or complex it is or becomes, but I’ve yet to sense that there is, in this world, a dangerously heightened level of human love and devotion to either others or another; tyrants may see things differently I suppose, but they ARE wrong.
I hardly think the human race’s success or failure depends upon the denial, to some, of what are, to others, guaranteed legal rights and privilege. I seriously doubt the species’ numbers will decline because of homosexual union (although if that would happen it’s a pretty good argument in favor of gay union! Six billions of ‘us’ should be enough to maintain an adequate gene pool to ensure a diverse future).
I couldn’t help but notice, on newscasts which detailed Massachusetts’ first day of officially sanctioned gay marriage, the joy on the faces and in the voices of a pair of older women who had been together for 33 years and finally were allowed to officially confirm their union. There is no sane or solid argument that I’ve heard or can imagine which stands tall enough to disallow their moment, their happiness. The day a society officially proclaims there is something awry in a loving relationship between consenting adults is a dark day for ALL concerned.
I am patently against Bush’s proposed amendment to the US Constitution which would disallow gay marriage. IMO, his proposal is nothing but a political appeal to a major segment of his voter base, and that’s a fleeting reason, at best, to permanently and officially codify a level of discrimination which effects far more people than are parcel to a particular voting/support base. Thomas Jefferson once said that “If my neighbor believes in twenty gods or no gods, it does not pick my pocket or break my leg and therefore it’s no harm to me.” I submit that his idea can easily be rearranged to accommodate any number of behavioral concepts and still reach the same enlightened conclusion. “If my neighbors believe in or practice homosexual marriage, it does not pick my pocket or break my leg and therefore it’s no harm to me.” And that’s simply the practicality of the matter; it does not insist anyone celebrate, only that ‘we’ tolerate.
Tolerance. Love. There’s not enough of either and far too much of their opposites. Enough of that.
And here we are today, more than eleven years down the road . . . and though I wouldn’t change a change a single word, I do wonder exactly how a hate/fear-advocate such as Huckabee, Cruz, (et al.), might react, how he/they would likely dismiss each and every non-hate concept, how he/they would dismiss the concept of “Tolerance” as being (at least) anti-God. Their only ‘perception tools’ are, of course, Lies, Innuendo, and the “God Said” opinionated nonsense they regularly spout. But Truth? NEVER!
Truth v. Opinion — a thesis Emily Dickinson recognized long long ago, when she wrote:
Opinion is a flitting thing,
But Truth, outlasts the Sun —
If then we cannot own them both —
Possess the oldest one –