Wednesday, February 25, 2004

The Spoilers

This week’s Spoiler of the Year must be split between Ralph Nader and George W. Bush.


Despite his protestations to the contrary, I’m having a hard time seeing that Nader’s run for the Presidency will result in anything but a win for Bush. We all know, as Nader must, too, that he has a snowball’s chance in hell of winning the election. All he can possibly do is steal votes from the Democrats. He certainly won’t steal any votes from anyone in the Bush camp, though it is possible he may get a few from independents who might otherwise vote for no one. That said, Nader’s run seems more an act of grandiosity than any real provision for an alternative.


Likewise, I must also give President Bush the award for his stance on a Constitutional amendment banning same sex marriage. If we’re amending the Constitution to ban same sex marriages, then that must mean that the current Constitution permits it. If that’s true, wouldn’t the Bush stance be the first time in U.S. history that the Constitution has been amended to take away someone’s rights rather than ensure they are expanded or protected? If it’s not true, then would a Constitutional amendment even be legal? Mr. Bush and the conservative right see it as protecting marriage. But the reality is that what they’re really worried about has to be corporate pocketbooks. I frankly find the idea that homosexual marriage would threaten heterosexual marriage somewhat laughable. I guess same sex marriage must in reality be so appealing that once everyone realizes they can they’ll flock to it. Sure won’t be true for me. Women are much too beautiful for me to give them up!

Tuesday, February 17, 2004

Playing God

I’ve been watching all the hub-bub over same-sex marriages for the past few weeks now. There are two things about the issue I can’t get past. They are: (1) if two people love each other and want to commit to each other, what difference does it make what sex they are? Why isn’t their love more important? ; (2) It’s not my business who anyone else wants to fall in love with or go to bed with or marry, unless it happens to be a child of mine below the age of legal consent. So, someone tell me, who gave others the right to play God instead of learning to Love like Him?

Marriage is a human institution, no more or less divine than everything else in life. Why is it that some people cannot understand that God’s hand is in everything? We call marriage divine, break it out separately, because it serves the interests of our institutions. Yes, it does also serve the family; but the fact that the religious right and prominent so-called Christian churches are fighting this issue so mightily has more to do with their losing control, with their not being able to dictate the morals of the country, something they have no business doing anyway. And can’t handle. (Seen the news lately?) The business of the church, as I see it, needs to be helping people integrate God into their lives, helping them discover who He is, and not trying to teach them the God that only they understand. From what I’ve seen, their understanding is narrow and dim.

Sex and sexuality are gifts from God. I’m definitely heterosexual and like it that way. I’m not, though, going to condemn anyone else because they are not. If I did, who knows when the day might come when being heterosexual is viewed with shame. It is, now, of course; and that’s part of our problem. Maybe that’s what the gay fighters are so illogically and terribly afraid of everyone finding out.

There are a lot of people who will try to push an agenda…who will insist that its’ more important to be married than in a healthy relationship (it’s not)…who will insist that staying in a bad marriage for the kids is the right thing to do (it’s not)…who will insist in some way or another into trapping others into the same trap they’ve chosen for themselves. My reality is that the most important thing in life is to learn about Love, not any particular form it takes. That’s something I forget all too often; and, so, apparently, do most others.

Monday, February 09, 2004

A Sense of Outrage

I’ve seen the so-called "outrage" from various public figures and even heard it from a co-worker over the Janet Jackson breast baring during the SuperBowl. What a wacked out sense of priorities, among other things, we have in this country. Why is it we're so outraged by the sight, accidental or not, of a bare female breast on television but don't express any outrage at the transmission of a bloody war into our living rooms? Why have we not expressed any outrage at the fact that the country may have been led into war on half-truth?

The argument, or so it goes, is that the SuperBowl half-time show became nothing proper for our children to watch. Frankly, if I had had a child in the house and he or she had said something like: "Look, Daddy, her breast popped out!" I would have answered; "So, it did!" and let it go at that. If we had needed to explore it further, I would have told the child there is no shame in the human body but that’s it just not considered proper to wander around naked most of the time. Instead, the “outrage” furnished by many public figures, including some of those involved in the whole thing, taught our children nothing but shame, overblew the whole thing way out of proportion, and focused the media’s and the country’s attention on something that , in light of everything happening in the world, was a blip on the radar screen.

America seems to be on a kick of conservative morality, which for the most part is just another term for shame-based intolerance. We’ll know we’ve grown up when a naked breast on TV doesn’t bother us but the sight of dead and dying Americans, whether killed in a war or on our own city streets, does.