Marriage.... what's the big deal?

The Supreme Court of the United States is hearing testimony today on two cases that ban same-sex marriage. One is Proposition 8 from California that makes same-sex marriage illegal. The second is the Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA, which claims that marriage is supposed to be nothing but one man and one woman.

The problem with these two items is that they are highly discriminatory. In this era of supposed equal rights for all, we are still a long way from actually having equal rights. There are far too many people still judging, still discriminating, still hating others based on the most trivial of reasons. By trivial, I mean they have no good reason for their bias.

I have asked many times for any non-Biblical reason why same-sex marriage should not be allowed. I have to date heard one. That argument is that the dictionary states marriage is one man and one woman. Unfortunately, the dictionary was written initially in a time when marriage was just that: one man and one woman. Of course, arranged marriages were common, as were forced marriages, but that’s irrelevant. Definitions for many things have changed over years of usage. The definition of marriage should be updated to be more inclusive rather than staying in the Middle Ages.

Many people are against same-sex marriage because they believe it is wrong, according to the Bible. Let me say, before I counter this argument, that what you believe is up to you, no matter how hateful it is. You’re entitled to believe it to be true, just as I am entitled to believe it to be false. That being said, the argument using the Bible is extremely biased.

Yes, there are passages in the Bible which can be used to make the argument that homosexuality is wrong. There are also passages in the Bible that say women are supposed to be subservient to men, that Saturday is the correct day for worship, and that eating pigs is wrong. I don’t see these passages being touted. Sadly, many who use the Bible as their sole basis for being discriminatory are unfamiliar with the entire Bible. They pick and choose what they want to follow, discarding the rest. They then wear their beliefs as a badge of honor, thrusting it in the face of any who dare disagree with them.

I know many churches will not permit a wedding to be held in that location if one or both of the people getting married is not of that religion or even a member of that particular church. This is fine. Discriminatory, yes, but it is up to those in charge of that particular church to make such decisions. This does not make marriage the sole institution of that church, however, or any church. Marriage is not a religious institution, no matter how badly some want it to be.

As I said, you have the right to believe what you want. I support that fully, no matter how wrong your beliefs may be. That does not give you the right, however, to force others to follow your beliefs. There is no justifiable reason for any law in the United States to be made forbidding same-sex marriage. Religion has been used as a battering ram for racial segregation, for sexual orientation segregation, for any type of discrimination that those wielding it wanted. That doesn’t make it right.

Imagine, for a moment, if someone decided that pork should be banned, because the Bible says we should not eat pork. There goes the Easter ham, there goes the bacon, there goes pork chops. Would you follow that law? What if a law were created based on a religion other than yours, forcing women to wear their hair a certain way, or certain clothing? Would you follow that law? Probably not, because it would be against your beliefs. Yet you expect others to follow your laws because you believe them to be right? How arrogant are you?

You have the right to not agree with same-sex marriage, or same-sex couples. Absolutely. You do not have the right to tell them they are wrong, or cannot marry. You don’t have to like it. You don’t have to participate in it. You don’t have to agree with it. But you do not have the right or the authority to ban others from liking, participating, or agreeing with it. To believe you do have that right, that power, is arrogant, ignorant, and certainly not based on anything a loving God would do, no matter what religion has been attached to Him.

Weapon of choice....

There is something raging in Washington currently, and I’m not referring to Chris Matthews’ feelings for President Obama. I’m referring to the battle on gun control. Following the recent wave of gun-related violence, particularly the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, most Liberals and even some Moderates are calling for stricter gun control laws, up to and including the banning of all private gun ownership. There are a couple problems with this, though.

First, we have the Constitution, specifically the Second Amendment. According to Archives.gov, this amendment reads thus:  A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. This means the government cannot by law take away private gun ownership. It can be restricted, certainly, and monitored, but not taken away.

Just for clarification, since this seems to be something many people are fuzzy on, Dictionary.com defines a militia as “a body of citizen soldiers as distinguished from professional soldiers” as well as “a body of citizens enrolled for military service, and called out periodically for drill but serving full time only in emergencies.” This means the National Guard is a militia, as are the Reserves. Are these men and women required to provide their own weapons? No. Still, many do own weapons privately. And yes, those people we read about in the news who call themselves militia are in fact militia by definition.

“But,” I hear you cry, “that was back before we had a national military. We don’t need private militia now, so we don’t need private gun ownership!” True, we don’t NEED private gun ownership, and true, it was ratified in 1791 before the US had an official military service. The fact remains that many people still hunt for food to supplement what they buy, or in place of buying meat. It’s not much different from those who go fishing and eat what they catch, just on a bigger scale.

“Okay,” I hear you now saying, “but you don’t need automatic weapons to go hunting!” Again, true. And I’m opposed to using automatic guns for hunting. I find it unsporting. Also, you run the risk of doing more damage to the animal and having less usable meat. Still, who am I to force others to live by my choices? For that matter, who are you to force others to live by your choices?

“But,”  you now declare, “what about all those people, especially children, who are killed by guns? We must do something about it!” Must we? Timothy McVeigh killed 19 children under the age of 6, and didn’t use a gun. He used fertilizer and a rented truck. Those are still legal, just restricted. Anything can be used as a weapon. How many children are killed by drunk drivers each year? Yet driving isn’t illegal, only doing so while drunk or otherwise influenced.

The guns are not the problem. How they are used is the problem. Once upon a time you could walk into any gun store or pawn shop and walk out with a gun and ammunition. Then restrictions were put in place requiring a 3 day wait before one could purchase a gun. I have no problem with this. Odds are if you think you need a gun immediately, you’re probably better off without it. Yes, I know, there are cases where immediate self-defense is needed. I’m not arguing that. If you’re being abused, you should be able to defend yourself. I’m merely saying that in most cases a gun is not needed immediately.

I also have more respect for the US military than to think they would blindly follow orders to turn on the very citizens they are sworn to defend. I know it has happened in other countries, and it is not outside the realm of possibility. However, I believe it is highly unlikely that the GI’s and other regular military personnel will follow those orders. I don’t believe we will need to defend ourselves from the grunts as much as we need to defend ourselves from the politicians and those in power who never see the front lines. Most of us are familiar with the concept of management making decisions based on what looks good on paper regardless of how practical it is in application. The same principle would apply here.

When all is said and done, however, I still believe we as United States citizens have the right given to us by our founding fathers to own guns privately. I do agree there are some who should not have them, but who gets to decide? Do we say you can’t have one if you’ve been diagnosed with a mental illness? What about those who are never diagnosed, or misdiagnosed? Taking away the right to bear arms opens the door for the removal of other rights, such as the right to not suffer unreasonable search and seizure, or the right to freedom of speech. Rather than blithely take away this right, perhaps a bit more restraint should be used by those in charge, and a bit more logic and common sense. We have laws in place. Making new ones won’t force those who break laws to suddenly follow the new ones. It only affects those of us who try to follow the existing laws. So before overreacting, stop and think. If you don’t agree with gun ownership, fine. Don’t own one. But who are you to take away my right to own one?

Equal Rights? How gay....

Okay, most people know I'm not a big fan of President Obama. However, one move he made recently actually surprised and impressed me. President Obama actually ordered the Justice Department to stop defending the "Defense of Marriage Act". This so-called Act defines marriage, for federal purposes, as one man and one woman. As such, I say this Act has no place in the Justice system.

Now, before everyone gets their knickers in a knot over what the Bible says, let me remind you: This country was founded on Freedom of Religion. This means, just because your religion doesn't agree with same-sex marriage doesn't mean everyone has to feel the same way. This is not now, nor has it ever been, a 'Christian Nation'. Yes, most of the founding fathers were Christian. They were also able to include, as the very first amendment to the new Constitution, these words: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. There is no legal reason why two men or two women can not be wed. It's a moral issue that was brought forth by certain religious elements, who lobbied for a bill specifying the definition of 'marriage' and 'spouse' to meet their own private agenda. This forces everyone in the country to follow the beliefs of certain religions, whether a member of that religion or not.

What I find interesting is that not too long ago, most religious people preferred homosexuals to stay with "their own kind" rather than mingle with the "straight crowd", particularly in the US but in other parts of the world as well. If two people of the same gender were living together, as long as they weren't open about their relationship, everyone could pretend they were just roommates and all was right with their view of the world. Nobody saw this as discrimination, except for those who were on the receiving end of it. These people were forced to hide their true feelings for no reason other than the narrow minded beliefs of their neighbors.

Granted, just because something is a moral issue doesn't necessarily exclude it from being a legal issue as well. Murder is a fine example. Most religions believe that you should not kill another human. I'm going to focus on Christianity because it's the religion I'm most familiar with, but don't assume this means I'm picking on Christians.... One of the Ten Commandments is "Thou shalt not kill." Simple, straight forward and completely religion based. However, killing someone also infringes on their right to live, which takes this from a religious based moral issue to a legal issue.

Some other examples of moral issues that became laws are child-related. Just 100 years ago, children as young as 5 were out on the street corners selling newspapers and anything else they could, or working in factories, or delivering telegrams, or doing any other manner of work they could to help the household. Then some people decided that children shouldn't be working and called for laws making it illegal for children under a certain age to hold a job. More recently in many parts of the US, children as young as 10 were getting married, and not always to other children their own age. Nobody really had an issue with it, except for some of the kids themselves who were married off to someone they didn't like. Sure, life expectancy was much shorter then, so 'middle age' was much younger. Still, it wasn't until certain people thought perhaps they should wait a bit longer, and called for laws making it illegal for children under a certain age to marry or even be deemed able to give consent. Moral issues, both, but thanks to special interests, they became law. **Disclaimer** I'm not calling for a repeal of these laws, nor do I condone sexual acts with minors. I'm merely giving examples. Granted, the way many kids act and dress these days, it appears they ARE looking for sex and/or marriage, but still please understand I'm not condoning it.

In sum, good people, there is no Constitutional reason why two people of the same gender can not be married. It's nothing more than certain religious beliefs and has no call being made law. Anyone that claims to believe in Equality for all must remember, Equality is not just for racial issues, but gender issues, religious issues, any issue where there is more than one point of view. Equality for all means everyone, not just the people you like.

Men and Women are both from Earth... Deal with it.

Today I'm going to venture away from politics and talk about something that's a little closer to home. Recently, primarily on Facebook but in other places as well, the concept of all males being complete jerks, while all females are hardworking, loyal, perfect angels. Commercials on television showing how hard Today's Mom works to maintain the house, her job, the family, while nothing is shown of any man in her life. Postings on Facebook complain about boys (and men) being abusive or just acting like little children. While I can't and won't deny there is SOME truth to this, the concept is far from complete fact.

I know many women who sit around and yell at the man in their lives, ordering him around and degrading him while he works, does handyman jobs around the house, deals with the children, etc. I hear stories of girls in school who will walk up to a boy and hit him, and then say "You can't hit me back. I'm a girl." I've even known adult women who do this. I don't know how many status updates on Facebook I've seen from women complaining of being treated like eye candy and how men are only interested in their appearance, and then post a photo of some hunky beefcake with comments of lust accompanying them. I'm sure most of you have seen the jokes passed around about how men are only interested in two things: Sex and Beer. The Rules of Women, basically telling men to simply bow down and do whatever the woman says no matter what he wants, thinks or feels. I know most of this is at least partially intended as humor, but there's far too much "Uh huh" and "You know it!" heard in the background.

I lost track of how many women I've heard complaining that they want a man who is caring and loving, supportive, romantic, all those things they read about in books and see in movies. Unfortunately, when a man just like that shows up, he's treated as a friend while the woman is off with the beefy bohunk who looks good but doesn't care about her. In fact, I know one woman who claims to love a certain man, but ignores him for months, runs off to marry or live with other men, and only comes running back to this one man when some other woman shows any interest in him at all. She comments frequently about how much she loves whomever she's living with at the time, and about flirting with this guy and that guy, yet maintains that it's really this one particular man that she otherwise ignores that she loves. Yes, I also know men who do this same thing. However, that's according to the stereotype that men are cast in, while we are told women wouldn't do such a thing.

Let me make this perfectly clear: I do not believe one gender as a whole is superior to the other. Men have their good points and bad points, as do women. As individuals, though, there are plenty of sub-par persons and above-par persons to make any point you want. There are men who do almost all of the housework, home repair, child care, and work outside the home. There are also men who do nothing around the house except make it dirtier, leaving all the work to the woman. There are also women who act in both of those manners.

Now, women are complaining they want to be treated equally. I'm fine with that. I have no trouble with that at all. However, if you want to be treated as an equal, you have to act as an equal. You don't want a man hitting you, don't hit a man. You want a man to hold a door open for you, try holding a door for a man. You want him to put the toilet seat down, put the lid down too so you're both inconvenienced. You want equal pay, do equal work. It's really just that simple. If you want to be equal, BE EQUAL. I'm more than happy to treat you as an equal, but if I put my arm around your shoulder just like I would anyone else, don't go crying harassment. If I'm your boss and tell you to do a job you don't want to do, that's fine. I can get another employee. I'm not going to let you not do your work simply because you're a woman. I don't even care if you don't wear make-up or fix your hair or shave your legs or wear the lacy thongs. It doesn't matter to me. However, if I have to shave my beard, you have to shave yours. Equal treatment means doing the same thing. You can fix yourself up any way you want to, but don't expect me to let you off easy because you did it. You're doing it for your own benefit, not mine.