Awash in the unity mantra of my candidate, happy with an election that actually went for my party, feeling for the first time in eight years like we started digging up instead of deeper to get out of the shithole that over 50% of the country seemed to want us in, last night I offered up a fairly congenial "we're all in this together" post with only the slightest bit of anger in the form of the late, great Bill Hicks.
This is not that post. Chris Hunter, you can probably stop reading now.
We've won a great victory. Those of us who voted for Obama realize it now. Many of you who didn't will hopefully realize that in the next year or two. But as I said on Twitter last night, we've won a battle, not the larger war for our country.
Michelle Bachmann, she of the "let's root out the un-Americans in Congress" McCarthyite opinion, was re-elected.
Ted Stevens, convicted felon, author of the Bridge to Nowhere who famously refused to relocate funds for New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina, is looking like he's getting re-elected. (Between that and Palin, is Alaska this year's Florida?)
George W Bush, Dick Cheney and their many cronies both corporate and government, are going to walk away from their thorough, unrepentant fucking of our government, its economy and its military without so much as a slap on the wrist.
Bill O'Reilly is still being paid $10 million to be a douchebag spreading a mixture of hatred and bullshit on the air.
Despite my fervent wishing and hoping, Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter continue to draw upon our nation's precious oxygen reserves.
And most noxiously, the Mormon Church funneled obscene amounts of money from their tax-free churches into passing Proposition 8, which *took away* the right of marriage from gays in California. Anti-gay measures passed elsewhere (including Arizona), but in the blue state of California, it stings even more that it passed with such a near margin.
There's still plenty to be pissed about. Do not think we will forget. We may forgive, in order to move towards a unity this country desperately needs, but we will not forget. Unfortunately, while everyone was busy talking about how great this country is for getting past its racist roots and electing a black President, many of the same people who voted for a black President also voted to strip the rights from homosexuals. The hypocrisy of this position seems lost on many. But while yesterday was a huge step in the right direction in terms of living up to our promise of "all men being created equal" we've still got a lot of steps left.
Btw, "men" in the "human" sense, not "male" sense. But clearly the country still has some equality issues with women to deal with as well.
For those who hoped that the election ending would put an end to my political posts, sorry... I've still got plenty to say. More than ever, in fact. We're taking baby steps in the right direction. It's up to us to make sure that in all ways, large and small, we continue on that path.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
Oh, Randy, I have to read. You know I just have to! ;)
I admit that I'm very interested in what Obama will do as president, especially given the horrible situation that he will be stepping into. I don't envy him at all.
I'm just so glad to know that Bush will be leaving, never to darken those halls again as president, and hopefully, as any person of power, ever again.
Also, I'm not against homosexuals getting married, but I'll never be for the definition of marriage being changed to anything other than a man and a woman engaged in holy matrimony.
Still, interesting times are ahead. I'll be praying for President Obama. May God keep him and protect him for what lies ahead.
Also, I'm not against homosexuals getting married, but I'll never be for the definition of marriage being changed to anything other than a man and a woman engaged in holy matrimony.
Uh... isn't that a completely contradictory statement?
"I don't mind them getting married, as long as their marriages don't count like heterosexual marriages."
Sorry, that's bullshit. Either you've got a problem with gay marriage or you don't.
I confess, I don't understand this need to define marriage as "a man and a woman engaged in holy matrimony." How does someone else being married differently from you have *any* effect on your marriage?
I don't think anybody is suggesting that churches be legally required to marry homosexuals. If your church doesn't want to, that's fine. But don't make it legally impossible for *all* churches to marry homosexuals because you don't want it in your church.
Civil Unions seems to be the middle ground here, but we can't even get to that point, it seems.
Randy,
It's not a contradictory statement at all and it's not something that has to be as clear cut as you'd like for it to be..
I do have a problem with the definition of marriage being changed to anything other than what it has been for centuries.
I have no problems at all with civil unions. I do feel that homosexual couples need some type of governmental shelter/umbrella/whatever that allows them to have benefits, leave possessions, etc. to their loved one.
Speaking of marriages, have you seen this? http://www.news.com.au/technology/story/0,25642,24576437-5014239,00.html
It's not a contradictory statement at all and it's not something that has to be as clear cut as you'd like for it to be..
Sorry, but it is. Either you think that people deserve the same rights, or you don't. If you don't, you're not on my team.
Arguing about the moral implications of homosexuality, bringing in "the children" or trying to argue that religious tradition is more important than the very real situation of two consenting adults being *unable* to marry, despite being in love with one another, honestly, all that stuff just pisses me off.
I'm more willing to accept it if the alternative of civil unions is *always* offered, but the majority of folks against gay marriage seem to be coming at it from a "and maybe the gays could just go away or be quiet about being gay or something?"
I do have a problem with the definition of marriage being changed to anything other than what it has been for centuries.
Does this mean you have a problem with divorce? Like, you think it should be made illegal? Or you think it should only be allowed by dispensation from the feudal lord? Or that it should be used to cement political alliances? Or that it should be arranged by parents?
Marriage is an evolving thing. It hasn't been the same for centuries. Not ever. And again, even if that weren't true, even if for argument's sake, allowing gays to marry was the first-ever change *ever* for marriage...
So what? I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me how my marriage or their marriage is at all affected by allowing a couple chicks in San Francisco to marry and move into a loft. Or a couple guys in New York to get married and get a place in Greenwich Village. How is it any of our business, let alone something to be legislated against?
Randy, Randy, Randy...
"Sorry, but it is. Either you think that people deserve the same rights, or you don't. If you don't, you're not on my team."
LOL! Ok, ok, ok! If I can't be on your political team, can I still be on your comics team? Didn't know we were picking teams... ;)
Arguing about the moral implications of homosexuality, bringing in "the children" or trying to argue that religious tradition is more important than the very real situation of two consenting adults being *unable* to marry, despite being in love with one another, honestly, all that stuff just pisses me off.
Thought we were just talking, Randy. Didn't mean to "piss you off".
"I'm more willing to accept it if the alternative of civil unions is *always* offered, but the majority of folks against gay marriage seem to be coming at it from a "and maybe the gays could just go away or be quiet about being gay or something?""
I've told you I'm for civil unions. If homosexuals want to call that marriage, let them. Just don't expect me to accept that definition of marriage. Homosexuals are a part of this country just like heterosexuals, and, as I said, I feel that they should be allowed benefits of a relationship. Let it rest with a civil union.
"Does this mean you have a problem with divorce? Like, you think it should be made illegal? Or you think it should only be allowed by dispensation from the feudal lord? Or that it should be used to cement political alliances? Or that it should be arranged by parents?"
I don't see what divorce has to do with this, but to answer your question, I'm not against divorce. I hope that it can be avoided if possible and not looked upon as the only solution for a problematic marriage. Seek counseling, help, whatever.
Why would I think that it should be made illegal?
"Marriage is an evolving thing. It hasn't been the same for centuries. Not ever. And again, even if that weren't true, even if for argument's sake, allowing gays to marry was the first-ever change *ever* for marriage..."
Yes, it has been the same, Randy, especially here in America. It's been between a man and a woman, regardless of how the marriages were arranged, which I see you trying to use to defend your idea of what a marriage is. Arrangement of a marriage is not the same as a marriage itself.
"So what? I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me how my marriage or their marriage is at all affected by allowing a couple chicks in San Francisco to marry and move into a loft. Or a couple guys in New York to get married and get a place in Greenwich Village. How is it any of our business, let alone something to be legislated against?"
Because of what it can lead to, Randy. Did you not read the link that I showed you in my last post?
Are you against polygamy, Randy? Because if you're going to allow marriage to "evolve" to being defined as "any two adults who wish to marry", once you make that change to the definition, you'll have to allow other changes to the definition as well by default. If you don't allow that, then you'll be just as bigoted as you claim others are. No offense.
I'd rather not have that.
I say allow civil unions that give homosexuals the rights they should have if they were in a heterosexual marriage, but we don't need to change America's definition of marriage to do that.
But that's just me.
LOL! Ok, ok, ok! If I can't be on your political team, can I still be on your comics team? Didn't know we were picking teams... ;)
We're always picking teams. ;) Isn't that what political parties are all about?
And yes, as long as you buy Criminal and dislike Spawn (and there are many titles you can sub in for either one), you can still be on my comics team. ;)
Thought we were just talking, Randy. Didn't mean to "piss you off".
Sorry, meant that in more general terms. You didn't piss me off, but the general arguments against gay marriage, which usually boil down to religious differences, do.
I've told you I'm for civil unions. If homosexuals want to call that marriage, let them. Just don't expect me to accept that definition of marriage.
See, now this seems like a reasonable compromise to me. I know that there are some on the left, and on some days, I'm one of them, who think that either everyone has civil unions and nobody has marriage, or everybody has marriage and nobody has civil unions. Otherwise, it's not equal. And I do think that's generally a fair statement.
But I also think that granting civil unions to homosexual couples in all 50 states would be a step in the right direction, even if the gay marriage battle has to continue for another century.
I don't see what divorce has to do with this, but to answer your question, I'm not against divorce.
But isn't divorce changing the definition of marriage? I mean, isn't the prevalence of divorce (are we still at a 50% rate) much more damaging than allowing homosexuals to get married? Shouldn't there be a crusade equally as vehement or maybe even more vehement to legislate against divorce, if the concern is "protecting marriage?"
Yes, it has been the same, Randy, especially here in America. It's been between a man and a woman, regardless of how the marriages were arranged, which I see you trying to use to defend your idea of what a marriage is. Arrangement of a marriage is not the same as a marriage itself.
I guess that with all the other things that have changed about marriage (it's as much about taxes and legal rights as a binding commitment between a man and woman, and those legal elements have shifted over the years), I don't see how the "man/woman" definition is so much more integral. Isn't the "binding commitment" really the key element of a marriage, rather than the gender of those involved?
Because of what it can lead to, Randy. Did you not read the link that I showed you in my last post?
Well, OK, no. Hang on...
Ah, that. Well, yeah, I find that kind of hilarious. And honestly, it's goofy as hell, but who is it hurting? I could argue that it doesn't fit the definition laid out above, as a comic book character is by definition not a "consenting adult," but even leaving that aside, if some weird Japanese dude wants to marry a cartoon character, who cares? How does it make my marriage any less valid?
Are you against polygamy, Randy? Because if you're going to allow marriage to "evolve" to being defined as "any two adults who wish to marry", once you make that change to the definition, you'll have to allow other changes to the definition as well by default. If you don't allow that, then you'll be just as bigoted as you claim others are. No offense.
Polygamy makes me nervous because of the various power structure imbalances and abuses that can occur, where you get situations like an old man marrying every 12-year-old girl in his compound, but again, that gets away from the key "consenting adults" in my definition of marriage.
But I'm not necessarily against anyone having an open relationship where they've got a husband and boyfriend, or wife and girlfriend, etc. I'm not against polygamy except how it affects children having a support system that functions. I'll agree that I wouldn't argue as hard for the right of polygamy as I would for homosexual marriage, because again, there's a lot more potential for abuse and lack of consent, but I also wouldn't necessarily outlaw it.
Ironic, though, that you'd compare polygamy to gay marriage, given how much the Mormon Church (with its history of polygamy) was responsible for the passage of Prop 8. I'd never made any connection before.
I also disagree that allowing homosexual marriage is somehow opening the floodgates to allow people to marry cartoon characters, multiple partners or pets. A marriage between two consenting adults is a much smaller, almost insignificant change, than "marriage is between any number of people, animals or inanimate objects based on one person's particular kinks."
I say allow civil unions that give homosexuals the rights they should have if they were in a heterosexual marriage, but we don't need to change America's definition of marriage to do that.
See, we're pretty close to common ground here. I guess you can be a relief pitcher on my team. ;) My only problem with this is that it de facto makes homosexuals second class citizens when it comes to relationships. They can get married, but not real married, not straight married, because that's reserved for the straight people.
Isn't that kind of fucked up?
"Isn't that kind of fucked up?"
I guess it kinda is. ;)
Hey, thanks for being a good sport about this, Randy.
And, for the record? I despise Spawn. ;)
Post a Comment