...beneath these tragic waves
: musings : past : etch : others : speak : h#umor :
against all odds, a political update
Feb 24, 2004

Today I've been hearing, as you might imagine, a nonstop flood of conversation about the gay marriage issue. Some from real people, but most from those pompous, overly cocky individuals that can be found on conservative talk radio, which is, much to my dismay, ALWAYS on at the place I work. Pretty much the whole day of the various (yet basically the same) programs were spent talking about this issue. Points that went along with the hosts ideals were always praised. And the points callers would make, if they were against the views of the hosts, were always fought against by the method that seems to be favored among EVERY host on that station: disconnect the caller and rant your point and then have no one to bring in a counterpoint, therefore making you the victor (if only in your narrow mind).

Around the unbearable hour five mark of this torment, someone called in with the same opinion as the host, and as common when this happens, said host and said caller just talked about how right they were and gave themselves big heads. During this period of self gratification, the woman brought up the fact that in places such as Norway, gay marriage has been lawful for over a decade now. She lays the blame of the declining marriage rates over there at the feet of this truth.

At this point, I should mention, if you hadn't already guessed, these people being hardcore conservatives, that they are very anti-homosexual marriage.

At any rate, the reason she says she was against it was that, by looking at Norway, it is "destroying the sanctity of marriage". The says the REASON people aren't getting married anymore, however, is because "the financial benefits of doing so are getting worse". I can't recall how she connected gay marriage to that, exactly, but I recall thinking it was rather trivial.

My thinking is; if you're only getting married for financial benefit, you're getting married for completely the wrong reason. If their idea of "the sanctity of marriage" is that you can get some extra pocket change by being wed, they are, to quote a certain pilot, "crazy". I wanted to call in and ask if they'd prefer men and women to marry only to fatten their pocket book, or man and man or woman and woman to marry out of love. But I didn't want to get hung up on halfway through my sentence.

While I'm certain that if gay marriage was made a legally binding event, there would, of course, be some who, like many heterosexuals, only get married for the wrong reasons. But I have a hunch that those people out there right now fighting tooth and nail to get such marriage legalized aren't doing it for tax purposes. They just want to be able to say to the world "I love this [same sex partner]!" like the rest of America. What's so wrong with that? Love is love.

And call me crazy, but isn't prohibiting this sort of union not a rather direct slap in the face of what America is supposed to represent? It just doesn't seem to fit. Well, it doesn't fit in the theoretical, idealist America that patriotic folks SAY we have, but it fits VERY well in the ACTUAL America that we live in. You are free to practice what religion you wish, pursue the manner of job you wish, love whom you wish to love...as long as others think it's alright. Ah, freedom.

On the opposite side of the coin, I don't think those California judges should be able to go against the constitutional laws on a whim, even if I do support the end result.. If we are going to have to amend the constitution for anything, it shouldn't be to say "hey, you know that thing that was already originally stated in the document? Well, it's still right". It should be to say "hey, we've evolved over the last three centuries, let them marry". Maybe that's just me.

On yet ANOTHER side of the coin (yes, a three-sided coin), men are disgusting, hairy, slowwitted things "like a creature out of Greek mythology" and I can't imagine how other men (nor women!) would want to marry one, but I'm all for supporting the right that they be able to do so if they so desire.

Rather off topic, but on the same radio station, which has THE worst commercials ever (Bellawood..that's right...B-B-BELLAWOOD), there was this very southern voiced guy advertising rugs and he was explaining, basically, how you can tell the difference between his fine, high quality rugs and all other [lesser] rugs. His comment was "think about comparing Picasso to a foreign painter." I guess I need to bone up on my art history because I thought Picasso WAS a foreign painter and was unaware that he was in actuality born in Arkansas where he practiced painting cubist versions of people sleeping with sheep.

devolve | evolve

.