Two subjects today that make my head hurt a little bit.
First, the good news: Admiral Poindexter is on his way out. Known in the 80s for his law-bending activities supplying arms to the Contras, he has recently been renowned for his creation of the “Total Information Awareness” project, which basically was the proverbial Big Brother database. Then last week it was disclosed that his department had come up with an inconceivable “online betting pool” on future terrorist attacks. I cannot, for the life of me, imagine what in the hell that project was aiming to do, unless they figured that it would help rat out terrorism planners, perhaps?
DARPA and two private partners would have set up an Internet futures trading market on events in the Middle East. Traders could have bought and sold futures contracts based on their predictions about what would happen in the region. Examples given on the market’s Web site included the assassination of Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat and a biological weapons attack on Israel.
Now, on to issue 2: same-sex marriage. I simply don’t understand the arguments against it.
“Marriage is only between a man and woman.” That’s discriminatory.
“It’s a sacred thing.” Sounds religious to me, and the government can’t endorse or promote such a thing.
“It’s for procreation.” An awful lot of people marry and have no children. Should they be allowed to marry?
“It will destroy the family.” Well, the family is falling apart now, and gays can’t marry. How in the hell can the union of two people in love destroy the family? It seems to me that we need more people who love each other.
Can I just say, how DARE the Pope presume to dictate what government policies should be, especially in this country where we (theoretically) have a separation of church and state. The Vatican released a document which calls for laws against same-sex marriage.
The document calls on Catholic politicians to vote against laws granting legal recognition to homosexual unions and to work to repeal those already on the books.
Aha! This adds fuel to the fire over nominee judge Pryor, who is being defended by conservatives with ads claiming religious persecution due to his Catholic beliefs. Well, he insists on forcing his Catholic beliefs on other people, which is not what this country (in theory) is about. No government official in this country should ever be allowed to make law or decisions based on his religious beliefs or what the Pope directs him to do.
[My cousin Kirk, who’s somewhat right-of-center comments on this blog sometimes exasperate me, makes a good point about the seemingly endless hypocrisy of the Catholic church, to which my family belongs (at least, the Mexican parts of us): “The next thing you know those gays will be covering for pedophiles, hiding Nazis and promoting slavery…. And mom wonders why I rarely go to church.”]
Republicans say Democrats’ opposition to Pryor demonstrates an anti-Catholic bias because of his anti-abortion stance. “This litmus test that is being applied is ultimately, is ultimately a religious one,” said Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.)
Here’s the old right-wing hypocrisy again: on gay marriage, the litmus test that is being applied is ultimately a religious one.
All the talk about writing legislation or a constitutional amendment to “define” marriage is about religion, pure and simple. How can this government legislate a religious belief? Hell, let’em have their marriage – but don’t recognize it legally, because it’s a religious concept.
Meanwhile, I find it tough to believe that God would have made me gay, then made rules saying that I couldn’t be happy. Frankly, I don’t believe that God made the rules, at all. Get the freaking religion out of our government. Religion is never rational, never fair, and never balanced. Government must be, to protect everyone – not just those who are believers.
Strip away the religious portions and what you have is a contract between two people who love each other. What else about it makes it necessary for the government to be involved? What’s wrong with two people loving each other and committing to each other? It’s folly to ask if the conservatives would rather that gay people never be happy, always be single, and seek out affection in any dark corner they can find; because in fact, the conservatives – regardless of the “compassionate” rhetoric – want gay people to disappear.
It’s astounding to me how in this day and age, the right wing can get away with treating an entire class of people the same way that another class of people were treated in the not-too-distant past. ____ people can’t marry. ____ people have no protections in housing or employment. ____ people are subject to being beaten and killed, but it’s OK because they don’t know their place.
Unbelievable.
