Son of Letter to a Friend

Hi [Friend],

I read your blog entry from earlier today, and I feel that I need to say a few things. You wrote that if we allow same sex marriage, we should also allow marriage between multiple spouses because of their religious beliefs.

1. Although I understand your broader point concerning religious freedom and that those religions that condone and promote polygamy should be accommodated, as well as anyone who advocates multiple spouses, this is yet another "slippery slope" argument against marriage equality, akin to the "what is to stop someone from marrying their dog?" argument.

You are comparing the committed relationship between two consenting adults to all forms of relationships; these are not equivalent. You are once again bringing religion into the argument, stating that all religions have equal say, no matter the harm done to its members. I am of the opinion that religious freedom stops when others are harmed, and that is why I think that no parent should be let off the hook for allowing harm to come to their children based on their own beliefs concerning medical treatment. The children are not old enough to make an informed decision, and when they are sick, they have no say in the matter if their parents choose to withhold medical care from them for religious reasons.

2. There are a few arguments against polygamy and polyandry.

First, there is a financial and societal aspect against it. If the government were to allow full benefits to all spouses and children, the cost would be astronomical. Religious freedom is one thing; the full acceptance and financial support of such decisions is another. I am also not a fan of people having dozens of children, because this places an undue burden upon our society, but I understand that we will never legislate any sort of restrictions on that.

Some would argue that marriage equality for same sex couples also erodes society and places an undue burden upon our government. There have been no studies that have shown that committed couples, regardless of gender, are an erosion upon our societal mores.

Second, although I mentioned both polygamy and polyandry, the fact is that the vast majority of polygamous relationships are those that consist of a man having multiple wives, rather than the other way around. In most of these arrangements, the wives are expected to be submissive and subjugated to their husbands. Marriages are often arranged without consent of the woman, and often at a young age, when they are not capable of informed consent. Again, religious freedom stops when rights are violated, and this is a women's rights and a HUMAN rights issue.

If people want to conduct such relationships within their religion, I do not think that it is appropriate to restrict them...UNLESS they are harming others. Women and children are harmed in polygamous relationships. The marriage of a same sex couple harms no one. Again, if people want to have multiple partners, that is their choice...but that does not mean that the government needs to recognize and finance such relationships. A committed relationship and marriage between two people is a social and governmental contract, and same sex couples should have that right.

3. Finally, you wrote in your entry that someone "sent" you an article with the title "Explaining Gay Marriage to an Idiot." Although someone may have indeed sent you that link, it was the title of something I posted on Facebook. If someone sent this to you, I want to make it very clear that it was not me. I would never do that to you. I did not sent that to you in any way, shape, or form, either via email or Facebook message. I posted it on my own Wall, not on yours. I did not tag you in my post. I do not think you're an idiot, and I have made it clear from the very beginning that I was not dismissing your religious beliefs or ridiculing you for them. However, I do think that the "man marrying dog" argument is idiotic. I totally respect your right to say whatever you want on your blog, I never suggested that you did not have such a right, and I never denigrated your religious beliefs. But if we have public blogs, it is to be expected that others might disagree with the opinions we put up there.

I am a strong and vocal advocate of marriage equality for same sex couples in a committed relationship. I often post articles about it, and I have made no secret of my support. If you think that every article I post is directed towards you, you might want to reevaluate whether you want to continue to see my posts. My posts are about topics, not people, and unless I tag you on something, I am not targeting you with any of my posts.

Beth

Letter to a friend

I recently read a blog entry that disturbed me, and after a brief flameout on Facebook in which I urged anyone who opposed marriage equality to defriend me, this was my more reasoned response. I thought about this all afternoon, and I think it states my feelings fairly well (and without anger). A friend reminded me that we need to keep discussing these things with those who disagree, and he was right. That is how hearts and minds are changed, not by dismissal and angry rhetoric.

Dear [Friend],

I'm sorry it took me a while to get back to you. It's a beautiful day here, so I spent most of the afternoon outside and offline.

I had a very visceral reaction to reading your blog entry about same sex marriage last night. Maybe I was just tired, because it was getting close to my bedtime, but it made me think of the people I love who happen to be gay, and how they so desperately want the same rights afforded to every American citizen.

I am not going to insult your religious beliefs or try to dissuade you from feeling the way you do, but in friendship, I hope you will think about a few things.

1. This is probably the most unkind thing I will say in response to your entry. Your "slippery slope" argument, in which marriage equality could lead to people marrying their dogs (in your example) or their toasters (in other people's examples I have read) is a talking point widely circulated by those who are opposed to equality, and it is simply absurd. For one thing, you (and others) are comparing human beings to animals and inanimate objects. That is cruel and wrong. No one is proposing that anyone be allowed to do any such thing, and no court in the land would uphold such an absurd request...just as they would never uphold the marriage of an adult to a child.

2. As I mentioned in my comment, although many see marriage as a religious concept, that is in addition to the civic aspect; a marriage in a church without a state license is not valid. A marriage in any setting, with a license from the state, IS valid. No one is proposing that churches will be forced to marry same sex couples; in each of the states that have allowed same sex marriage, there are specifications that exempt churches from such an occurrence.

3. You mentioned in your entry that just a few short years ago, you and [your husband] would not have been able to legally marry as a mixed race couple. North Carolina didn't lift their ban on mixed race marriages until 1971. You and [your husband] wouldn't have just been unwelcome in certain states; you would have been in danger of your very lives, and would probably have found a burning cross on your lawn. That may sound harsh, but it is the truth. And why were there laws against mixed race marriages? Because certain lawmakers believed that is what the Bible dictates. This is why we don't make our federal and state laws based on biblical laws. If we did, there would be laws against eating shellfish, wearing clothes of mixed fibers, and planting different crops in the same field. I know I don't need to provide these verses to you.

I recall discussions with a family member who felt that mixed race marriages were wrong. Their initial concern was how it would affect any children resulting from such a union. I know quite a few children from mixed race marriages who are extremely happy, incredibly smart, and very well-adjusted. I know of one who has made it into what is probably the most powerful office in the world. This family member based their opinions on the Bible. I asked if they felt it was wrong for a Caucasian to marry an Asian. They were okay with that. I said, "Really? Because those are two different races. Apparently, the Bible says that is wrong."

It bothers me greatly that you would deny the happiness to your fellow citizens that you would have been denied not so very long ago, for the same reasons that it would have been denied to you.

4. Finally, it's hard to sit there and hear someone you love and respect more than just about anyone on the planet say, "I'm tired of my country telling me that I'm not good enough to have the same rights as other citizens." This person is kind, loving, decent, a productive member of society, and a responsible citizen. You spoke of your work with those afflicted with AIDS, so you know that members of the GLBT community are people, not just a demographic. They bleed, they struggle, they live their lives, just like any of the rest of us...and they LOVE just like the rest of us.

I respect your right to oppose marriage equality based on your religious views. But I hope that you will continue to consider that our laws are not based on the Bible or on any other religious text. That is contrary to our Constitution. You can have a moral objection based on what the Bible says, but when it comes to our laws, your biblically based moral objection, frankly, doesn't matter. I want every person in this country to have the same right to marry that you and [your husband] had, even though there are still some that would object to your union—based on their own interpretation of the Bible.

My initial angry response was wrong, and I'm sorry for that. I consider you a thinking woman who is willing to explore her feelings on such matters. I hope you will continue to do so (even I didn't get to this point overnight!) and I hope we can keep the dialogue open.

All my best, 
Beth

Liberal amounts of food

It’s a foodie entry! I haven’t done one of these in ages. Before I get to that, some news of note.

Yesterday started out pretty sad. I cried over the story about the young Emperor Penguin who lost his way from Antarctica and ended up on a New Zealand beach. The hope was that he’d head home as soon as possible, but instead he (the gender is arbitrary, as they haven’t determined that yet) stuck around. He began eating sand, apparently thinking it was snow, and became lethargic. Finally, the authorities intervened and popped him into an ice-filled cooler and carted him off to the zoo in Wellington. They’ve been trying to flush the sand out of his system, and have him hooked up to an IV to rehydrate. A friend of mine from New Zealand sent me a link to a story that said the young penguin (They’re calling him Happy Feet. Awww!) was doing better. He’s not out of the woods yet, but I remain hopeful that he will be okay. The attention this story is getting shows that people love penguins. How can you not? They’re adorable! I’m wishing for your speedy recovery, little friend!

Then came the news of the death of Peter Falk. I had heard that he was in poor health (it turns out that he had Alzheimer’s), but it was still sad news. Everyone loved his Columbo character, but one of my favorite comedy movies is “The In-Laws.” I started watching it again last night (I’ll finish it when I eat dinner tonight). He was a wonderful actor, and he left a legacy of many great performances. He will be missed.

I needed some good news after such sadness. The first of it came in the form of a federal judge saying that Indiana’s defunding of Planned Parenthood is illegal. YES! The state says they will challenge the ruling, but Governor Daniels has said that he will abide by the court ruling. So what are you going to do, Mitch? I’m sure this isn’t the end of it. But today Planned Parenthood began treating Medicaid patients again. This is a temporary victory that I hope will be made permanent.

Next was New York’s historic vote to allow same sex marriage! And there was much celebrating! The vote passed with several Republican votes, so maybe, just maybe, we’re finally on the right track in allowing equal rights for all of our citizens. We’ve got a long ways to go, but New York is a biggie. Congratulations, New York! Let’s keep it going!

Then in today’s paper, I saw that Indiana’s immigrant bill was also blocked as illegal (so to speak). I’m happy to see some pushback against these laws, and I think there are several states (including my own) that need to go back and read the Constitution again. I suggest paying special attention to Article VI, also known as the Supremacy Clause. It’s kind of a big deal.

Okay, on to the food part! Ken was on a business trip this week, and not only did I get busy and get a lot of cleaning and projects done, I got to cook some eggplant! Many of you know that when Ken goes on a trip, it’s my chance to cook myself some eggplant. I love the stuff, but Ken...not so much. (That’s putting it mildly!)

I had found a new recipe on the Hunts website: Eggplant Parm Rolls, and I was looking forward to trying it. (In the interest of not making this too long, I’ll just provide the link to the recipe. There seem to be a lot of other good ones there.) Here are some pictures and commentary, followed by a few things I did differently.

You have to slice the eggplant lengthwise into quarter-inch slices. It went pretty well until the last couple of slices…that was hard!

This is the start of the sauce. Onions (Vidalias…yay!), garlic, and sliced zucchini. I also tossed in a few scraps of eggplant that were left over from slicing them (sans skin).

Tomatoes added, along with salt, pepper, and a little sugar.

Grilling the eggplant. You could probably broil or fry the slices, too, but I recommend grilling for that sort of charred taste.

My wine choice. I usually prefer Cabernets, but I decided to go with this Merlot because…yes, the bottle was pretty. Not an expensive wine, but reds can be stashed away for a few years, and they just get better with time!

The cheese filling: ricotta, Parmesan, eggs, and fresh basil.

The assembled eggplant rolls. I had a little extra cheese mixture, so I just put it in the middle of them.

Then you spoon the sauce over the rolls, and put mini-marshmallows on it! No, that’s actually perline fresh mozzarella, and that was my mistake. I was thinking that the mozzarella went in the filling, so I thought the tiny balls would be better. I should have gotten the big ball and sliced it for the topping. It was still tasty, though.

Out of the oven and melty. Sitting for a few minutes to get a little more “solid.” This was initially a little juicy. I don’t know if it was because of the zucchini, or what. It specifically says to not drain the tomatoes, but I might drain at least one of the cans in the future.

Chow time! (Pardon the cord at the top of the picture. That’s my Rock Band microphone.)

Okay, here is where I strayed from the recipe. It calls for two large eggplants. I decided to cut the recipe in half, so only got one. It still made eight rolls, and I realized early on that I was still going to need the full amount of cheese filling and sauce. It calls for a can of stewed tomatoes, and I only got one of those, so I used an additional can of diced tomatoes. I didn’t use a full cup of fresh basil, maybe only a half a cup. I think a full cup would have made it even more flavorful. I used a slightly smaller dish than called for in the recipe, and it was pretty full. I really think two large eggplants is too much for the sauce and filling amounts provided in the recipe.

My assessment: very good, but not quite as good as Eggplant Parmigiana (still my favorite). Next time, I think I will peel the eggplant. The skin adds a nice color, but it was a little on the tough side, and I think I would prefer to not have that toughness. I peel it when I make Eggplant Parmigiana, and I think this dish would be a little better with the eggplant peeled (although perhaps less visually appealing). Also, I sprayed the eggplant slices all at once with cooking spray, before I heated up the grill pan. I should have known better, because I know how eggplant soaks up oil. By the time I got ready to put the slices on the pan, the spray had completely absorbed! I had to spray them all again before I put them on the grill pan.

I had it again last night, and I think it was better than the night I first made it. Sometimes it seems like flavors blend better together after sitting for a bit. I’ll be eating it again tonight, so maybe it will be even better!

There is nothing complicated about this recipe (I don’t think so, anyway), but it does take a little time. Probably the most strenuous thing was hand-grating the Parmesan cheese. But DO use real Parmesan, not the Kraft grated stuff, as well as fresh mozzarella as opposed to the block stuff. The flavors are completely different and so much better.

Will I make this again? Yes! Highly recommended if you like eggplant and zucchini. It’s a meatless dish, but I kind of like that once in a while, and the cheese should give you plenty of protein. If you make it, let me know how yours turned out, and what you think. Or what your family thinks, if you dare to make it for them!

Love, friendship, and civil rights

Last evening, I had a fun dinner with a handful of gay friends celebrating one of their birthdays. We talked, we laughed, we ate, we had...well, we had ourselves a gay old time, in the Flintstones vernacular.

I actually hesitate to classify them as my "gay friends." That's kind of like talking about your "black friends," or your "Satan-worshiping friends," or your "Republican friends." (Heehee...couldn't resist throwing that one in there!) Why categorize? They're all just friends. However, they often refer to themselves as "the homos," and for the purposes of this entry, I will categorize a little bit.

I first started making gay friends when I lived in Indianapolis; Indy has a fairly large population of gays, I guess because quite a few come from the Midwest to live there. It's much more open and gay-friendly than rural towns, but not as expensive as Chicago. There were a couple of guys I worked with at the hospital, and I found them a lot of fun and very funny, and I can't begin to tell you what a relief it was to not get hit on, or not have them staring at my ass. Don't get me wrong...I generally found that flattering, but sometimes it was just a relief to be myself and realize that they had no hidden agenda. They just liked me for ME, and had no designs on how to get me in the sack. I really felt at ease with them, and I suppose they sensed that, as well as my complete acceptance of them, so they were equally at ease with me. I love my online buddies, too, and hope I get to meet them one day!

Last night, it was a few of us at dinner. One I've known for a long time, others are fairly new friends. I had a great time, and as I reflected later, thinking about all of us just talking and laughing, I wondered at how anyone could deny any of them the right to marriage. It seems that too many think of them as "other," or even as "lesser," and it appalls me to know that some even think they are an "abomination," according to what their religious text tells them to think.

Let's see if I can make this very, very clear: I don't give a flying fuck what your god thinks about my gay friends. I love them and value them for who they are, and that is people who work, play, and love just like anyone else does. They pay their taxes, they volunteer, they are no different than anyone else, and they also have the same rights as every other person in this country. That includes the right to marry the one they love.

Mexico, possibly one of the most Catholic countries in the world, recently passed a law allowing gay marriage. Some in the United States continue to try to make this a cultural and religious war, rather than comprehending that it is a legal matter, a constitutional matter, a human rights and civil rights matter. I've written about these subjects before. We do not base our laws on any religion, and marriage is a civic institution, not a religious one. A marriage does not have to take place in a church or be officiated by a pastor in order to be a legal marriage; it is the state who says that a marriage is legal. For those who would say that it should then be left up to the states, you're not getting it. It's a civil rights issue. Our country has a constitutional obligation to ensure that this can happen for all people in our country. Desegregation was not left up to the states. The federal government said that equal rights were the domain of every person in this country, and same-sex marriage issued in one state should be legal in the entire country.

Instead of taking the lead in this human rights issue, the United States is choosing—CHOOSING—to sit in the back of the bus, letting country after country (Canada, the Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, South Africa, Norway, Sweden, Portugal, Iceland, Argentina, Mexico) pass same-sex marriage laws while we sit idly by. It's embarrassing. South Africa (and such)! Remember apartheid? They finally got rid of that, and they passed same-sex marriage laws before we did!

President Obama has said that he favors marriage being between a man and a woman. You all know I love and support our President, but I do not agree with him on this. He is a constitutional lawyer, and he should know better.

I look forward to the day when same-sex marriage is allowed in our entire country, and I believe it will happen in my lifetime. I wonder if the rabid anti-gay church people will spontaneously combust, or just quietly implode? I shall watch closely and with great interest.

I'll just add this. If I ever see anyone, whether a stranger, a supposed friend, or even a family member, disrespecting any of my gay friends or giving them the evil eye, or in any way, shape, or form saying or doing anything hateful or mean, I will not be responsible for my actions. I will not tolerate such intolerance, and it is not your place to judge them. I will get seriously medieval on your ass.

I believe that constitutes fair warning.

Work it on out, baby!

I thought I was pretty clear in my entry yesterday, but I think I need to clarify a little bit.

I don't hate Christmas. I celebrate Christmas. I have fun at Christmas with my family. I often say, "Merry Christmas." I'm not trying to force anyone to celebrate Christmas in any way other than which they already do. My issue is with the constant idiocy about the "war on Christmas," and about how it's all about religious persecution against Christians. That is simply not taking place, and my point is that Christmas did not begin as a Christian holiday, so don't try to create the fallacy of some "war on Christmas" as a persecution against Christians. If you look at the history of the holiday, it's a ludicrous argument. People were celebrating this holiday for thousands of years before Christianity existed. Christians really don't have exclusive rights on it. :)

As my friend Paul and others have pointed out, you don't have to be a Christian to celebrate Christmas. See previous entry for the full explanation.

Oh, and that reminds me of something I read on Facebook about gay marriage. If marriage is a religious institution, why is it perfectly okay and legal for atheists to get married? Hmm? Riddle me that, Batman! You can keep talking till you're blue in the face about it being a religious institution...although I try to see most things from both sides, try to understand the opposition, I have no problem in this case saying that you are wrong. It is a civil institution. Gay marriage is a civil rights issue, not a religious issue. It's past time for people to wrap their little brains around that and give every citizen the rights to which they are entitled. I find it shameful that we are still debating this. I am also confident that it will soon be the law of the land.

But I digress. Change of subject.

Remember me writing about my recent health screening, and how I was going to start working out again? Yeah...I kinda procrastinated about that. Well, you know, going on vacation, the holidays coming up...ummm...okay, I was just lazy. No excuses. I called on Monday and got registered with the program and set my two goals.

First is strength training. I want to get more toned, I want to get stronger, and with some loss in bone density, I need to work on improving that little problem. I want to do some treadmill work and really focus on weights...but I just generally need to get off my lazy ass and DO something! I got busy today--if not quite jiggy wit' it--and did a little on the treadmill, did some weights, and did some crunches on the Ab thing. Man, I have really lost strength and tone and I'm looking forward to getting some of that back!

My second goal concerns skipping meals. I can easily go all day long without eating anything until dinner, which is usually late, around 9 PM. That's a long time without eating, but I've always been that way and it doesn't really bother me. However, I know that's not a good thing. I know that it fucks with your metabolism, and your body goes into a sort of "survivor" mode. I don't overeat at dinner to compensate, but that's still a long time without eating and can do more harm than good. So I'm starting to eat a little something in the morning, whether it's a yogurt, some cottage cheese, or a grapefruit like I had this morning. I have a feeling that the combination of kick-starting my metabolism by actually eating more and starting to work out might make me lose a pound or two.

Anyhoo, I can tell you that it felt really good to get out there and get started. I put on the Ting Tings and that was fun and upbeat and got me moving! ♪♫ That's not my name! That's not my name! ♪♫

I also want to thank Kyle over at Out Left for giving me a blog award, the Circle of Friends. I met Kyle through some other blogging friends, and we think alike on so many things! We really do have a little "circle" (I could easily make a naughty joke right here, but I won't be a jerk) going on, and it's a pleasure to know not just Kyle and the gang, but all of my fellow bloggers and readers. As I always do with these awards, if you're reading, you're in the circle, so feel free to snag the award for yourself.

This argument grows tiresome

I have a video for you of that old relic Pat Robertson.

I first saw this on Betty Bowers' (America's Best Christian) Facebook feed, and the amazing Mrs. Bowers astutely pointed out that Pat seems to think that Civil Rights issues are voted on by the populace. If that were the case, what do you want to bet we'd still have segregated schools? And sadly, "sista girl" (as my friend Mark called her) in the video seems to not realize that there is anything wrong with this. Some fun comments over on Facebook (more in a moment), but I wanted to expand a little more on this topic.

Robertson uses that hack line about how gay marriage will destroy traditional Judeo-Christian marriage. I've gone over this before and even had to do a troll smackdown because of it, but I guess Pat's a little slow. Marriage is not a religious institution, it is a civil one. One does not have to be married in a church or by a pastor in order to be legally married, and in fact, unless the marriage license is not filed with the state government, it is not a legal marriage. If you want to be married in a church, have at it. But it isn't official until the government says so. Ken and I were married in a restaurant by the Democratic Party chair of Mishawaka, and guess what? We're legally married. As citizens of this country, gays have every right to be legally married just like we were. I'm amazed that this is still an issue. The argument does not stand.

I also still don't get how gay marriage is going to destroy heterosexual marriages. They've never really been able to answer that, and you know why? Because it's bullshit. As if the day after all these fabulous gay weddings, heteros are going to wake up and say, "You know what? This just isn't working." It's the kind of nonsense argument that people like Robertson just throw out there, with a complete lack of logic and rationality or reason behind it. Give it a rest, already.

Yesterday, I mentioned that I was feeling sassy (and thanks to those who remembered the Phil Hartman skit about it!), and apparently there are some residual effects, kind of like still being a little drunk at work after a late party the night before. (Not that I've ever done that or anything. Bwah ha ha haaa!) One of the things that Robertson mentioned about gay marriage was "their way of having sex." Now, not to get overly graphic or personal here or anything, but I can think of a couple of ways. (No need for a discussion of variations on the theme, okay?) The thing is, these "ways" happen among lots of heterosexual couples, too. And some of them *gasp* were probably married in a religious ceremony! Shocking, I know. You ought to get out more, Pat. My question to him would be does that also destroy traditional Judeo-Christian marriage?

Here's where the sassy part came in, but it was a classic joke that had to be made, and who am I to buck tradition? (Buck. I said BUCK.) I'd like to ask Pat, "Hey Pat, do blowjobs destroy marriages?" And his answer would be, "Of course not. Marriage destroys blowjobs!" (I found a great graphic for this, but chose not to put it up here. You can see it here.)

Feel free to leave a comment if you are so inclined, but I will not be taking any questions from the press corps. Thank you. ;)

I jinxed myself

Some of you may have seen that Notre Dame won the game against Michigan State yesterday, 33-30. Whew, it was a heart-stopper! I even called my Dad afterwards to ask if he was doing okay, because I sure wasn't! Their offense looked good, especially Jimmy Clausen who really seems to be coming into his own this year. He's stronger and tougher, and seems to be reading the defense much better. He's also getting better protection than he has in the past couple of years, so it's giving him time to find a receiver. I'm afraid we've lost our best receiver, Michael Floyd, though, possibly for the year--broken clavicle. Their penalties almost did them in, and I hope they work on that this week. I thought they used the clock better, although MSU was threatening right at the end and could have won it, if not for a very timely interception by Kyle McCarthy. I believe that saved them the game, and was THE play of the game. (The NBC analysts agreed with me.)

I was very encouraged by yesterday's game. No, I still don't think they're contenders for a national championship. I'm a realist, remember? But they looked better than they have for a while, and they had a toughness that has also been missing.

Next week it's Purdue, and the week after that, Washington. We have tickets for the latter game, and I hope for more nice weather for tailgating and the game!

That's enough football for the day--at least here on the blog! I have games on now, we'll be watching the Bears later this afternoon, and the Colts play tomorrow night. Ooooo, football! It makes me as happy as a little girl!

On Friday, our friend Rebecca had had it with a couple of trolls, and brought down some righteous smackdown. In my comment, I mentioned that I hadn't had any anonymous trolls for a while, and damn if I didn't jinx myself! One of the bottom-feeding lurkers felt the need to weigh in with their oh-so-wise thoughts concerning my opinion on gay marriage. A little problem with their insistence that marriage is traditionally a religious institution, though, since marriage is a government entity. You can get married in any church that you want, but if it's not filed with your local government and with your state, you aren't legally married. Silly Anon. Nothing from them so far today. I'm guessing they're at church, scrambling frantically to find a way to foil the dirty homersexticals' (thanks David!) plot to take over the country with their gay marriages and gay agenda.

As always, if they have such a strong opinion, perhaps they should get their own blog and write about it there, rather then inject their ridiculous argument into mine. I won't bother you, I promise. You have the right to be as narrow-minded and judgmental as you want to be; if you choose to do it here, I have the right to call you out on it. As always, it's amusing to see an Anonymous commenter try to stand up for their convictions...but I guess those convictions aren't quite strong enough to attach their name to them. Go figure!

Over on my sidebar, you'll see the "tag" I made for I Stand Corrected (the tag is also linked). It is a blog created by Lori of Dusty Pages, and Guido of Atlantic Lines is also a contributor. So am I, and you all know how much I love words and word origins; I also love good grammar, and appropriate usage. I'm far from perfect when it comes to writing, but I always like to learn, and I Stand Corrected is a fun way to do that. I hope to contribute a little more often to it, because I do enjoy writing on it, and Lori tells me that she is working on an entry for it herself. Stop by if you get a chance. If you want to out yourself as a word geek, you'll be welcome there!

A not-so-triumphant return

It's interesting. When you speak of allowing gay marriage, and have supposidly dug into this issue, that you have neglected to learn that when our fat government legislates what has traditionally been a religious issue, the government inserts it self into religion...hmm. Oh, and when they start doing that, they will then have the right to tell churches and clergy who they can and can't marry based on the law and not on the religious beliefs of the particular church or clergy; once again inserting itself into traditionally religious issues. hmm. me thinks you have a little more lernin to do, ya think?

I can't tell you how happy I am to see our dear Anonymous pay us another visit here at Nutwood. Things have been so peaceful and quiet here, and we've been feeling a distinct lack of rancor, judgment, and general sanctimonious priggishness! Welcome back, Anon!

You say that marriage is traditionally a religious issue. I hate to spring this on you, but legal marriage has nothing to do with religion. Ken and I were married by the city clerk of Mishawaka, not a member of the clergy. We were married at Tippecanoe Place, a restaurant located in a Studebaker mansion, not a place of worship. Our ceremony was a civil one, with no religious element at all.

We are every bit as legally married as anyone who might have their ceremony performed by the Pope at the Sistine Chapel. You obviously don’t get it. It’s not about people wanting to get married in a church, or married in the eyes of whatever god. It’s about being granted the rights that every other person in this country has to marry the person they love and to have the rights of insurance, a say in medical treatments, the right to adopt children and raise them together, and to be a partner in every sense of the word. Marriage is not sanctioned by religion; it is defined by the government.

Thanks for proving my point, Anon. Legal marriage has nothing to do with the church. It has everything to do with equality of rights to everyone, regardless of their religion or lack thereof, or of their race, or of their orientation. Ergo, gays should be allowed to legally marry. Q.E. freakin' D.

It’s only love

Before I get to today's topic, a few programming notes.

1. Sheeba asked me to tell you all that he appreciates the worship and well-deserved appreciation, but would like me to remind everyone that "I am not a GIRL!" Long story short, the person Ken got him from thought Sheeba was a girl (no comment), and Ken named her Sheeba, after his very first cat, Shee. (I think that's right--he'll correct me if I'm wrong.) We saw pretty quickly that Sheeba the girl kitty had a couple of extra body parts that she shouldn't have had, and we realized that Sheeba was a Heeba. And yes, he's very lucky (and very spoiled) to have a personal masseur.

2. Notre Dame-Michigan State coming up in about an hour. I'm already feeling agitated and nervous, so I'm working some of that out by writing. [Update as I get ready to post this: ND 7-MSU 0...now it's 7-3. Now 13-3. 13-10! Guess I'd better post this soon! Stop with the penalties already, Irish—they’re killing you!]

3. Scott the Botanist has posted his entry about Swamp Angel Nature Preserve. It's an excellent write-up, and I especially enjoyed the part about the parasitic plants, including the pitcher plant I mentioned here. I hope you'll stop by and see the viewpoint of a professional, rather than that of just a casual observer like me.

Now, to the topic at hand!

A Facebook friend posted this picture today, and I loved it. I've been pondering an entry about this for a while, and decided it was high time I did so.

I grow increasingly impatient with those who would legislate their own version of morality based on their religious views. Morality is a vague and subjective term based upon many criteria, including societal and philosophical. There can also be a religious element in there, but when it comes to legislation, it must also be vague and not predicated on any one religion or faith. People can quote the Bible or any other sacred text they want to, but in looking at this collection of Deuteronomy verses, I think most of us would agree that we cannot take much of this literally. If we stoned every woman who isn't a virgin when she gets married, we could very well be looking at the end of our species!

One of the great things about where we live is that we have the freedom to believe whatever we want to believe. Even if we don't want to believe anything at all. Whatever we believe, it doesn't mean that religion can be forced onto anyone else, or that it should shape our laws. Societal morality is one thing; religious morality is quite another. In other words, it is against the law to steal from someone because you are taking what is rightfully theirs—not because the Bible says it's wrong.

So when it comes to gay marriage, I look at it as a civil rights issue, not a religious one. Our country prides itself on equality for all, although we often fall miserably short of that worthy goal. Let me put it to you straight (so to speak): I don't care if you quote scripture at me until you're blue in the face. Your religion has no place in this debate. You are trying to force your religious beliefs on what is an equality and civil rights issue, and that is wrong. God doesn't approve of gay marriage, you say? So what? Apparently he doesn't approve of women who aren't virgins entering into marriage, either, and I don't see us trying to legislate that. I'm exaggerating to make a point, but I believe it's a valid one. It's time to get beyond this argument, because we don't legislate based on any religion or any religious tenets.

In the past, I was one of those who felt, okay, let marriage be between a man and a woman, but let civil unions—with all the benefits conferred to hetero couples—be okay for whoever wants them. I explored my thinking on this a little further, and realized that I had no good reason why that should be the rule. I believe completely that people are born the way they are, and love who they are wired to love. It's based on genetics, nothing more. (I still laugh at the Homosexual Agenda that so many people talk about. I'd be interested in getting a copy of that, if anyone has one.) If that's the case, that it's genetic, why should marriage be denied to anyone? Simple answer: it shouldn't. Don't even get me started on that "pray away the gay" bullshit.

I worked with a guy in Indianapolis who spent many years with his "husband" (not legally married here in Indiana, obviously, but that's the way they thought of each other). He stuck with his husband through years of severe illness; stuck with him as he suffered amputations, became confined to a wheelchair, and went blind due to diabetes. His husband was an artist, and his blindness made him angry and hard to deal with, but my friend stuck by him all the way to the very end. His sense of loss was as profound as anyone I've encountered who has lost a spouse, and their commitment to each other was every bit as real. They should have been allowed to marry...for real.

It's time to set aside objections based on religious grounds—they have no place in this debate. As far as I'm concerned, there is no debate. Gay marriage will soon be the law of the land. It will happen. It is inevitable, because it is the right—and only—thing to do.

Calling all queers! And those who love them!

Sorry about another post today, but I'm not sitting idly by on this one.

A religious website has posted a story about the President declaring that June is LGBT month. They include such lovely comments as this one, from some "pro-family" activist:

This proclamation talks about the entire radical homosexual agenda that Obama supports -- including homosexualizing the U.S. military [and] federal so-called 'rights' based on homosexuality, which will impinge on the religious freedoms and freedom of conscience of other Americans.

Ahh yes...the "radical homosexual agenda." Then there's "homosexualizing the U.S. military." (Since when was "homosexualizing" a word?) I'm sorry, but....

Hahahaha! Yes, the President's goal is to make sure that every person who enters the U.S. military is either gay, or will soon be recruited to being gay. (What is the incentive again? Isn't it a toaster oven?) Do such websites have any idea of how idiotic they sound? Maybe that can be a new threat: I'm a-gonna homosexualize you! Look out, here it comes...shazam!

Oh, and riddle me this, Batman: how does the right of gays to marry and the right to be free of persecution and discrimination infringe upon my rights, or anyone's rights, to religious freedom and "freedom of conscience?" It doesn't! That's right, you can believe whatever you want to believe! You can hate on whoever you want to hate on...but you have no right to harm them or discriminate against them because of their sexual orientation. Period. What part of that don't they get?

I have just about had it with this hateful rhetoric and ridiculous drivel that is being spouted about those who are guilty of...what? Loving someone?

I have a modest proposal. If you feel the same way I do, visit the website, and read the article if you want, but definitely vote on their poll. Tell everyone you know, and let's all do our best to make sure that we make our voices heard! C'mon everybody, let's go skew us a poll! Who's with me?! [running out of the room, screaming]