God Bless the Queen
We have a president in this country who wishes us to believe he cares, that he is a Uniter-nary a Divider. I beg to differ, sir. I will always expect there to be a fringe on either side of any political spectrum intent on bringing radical measures to vote (or, even, committee) that haven’t the slightest ability to make it into law. But when the leader of the country and of a party (perceivably) hell-bent on depriving the rights of many factions of this society demands that an amendment be placed onto our most precious of documents that not only condones, but heralds bigotry, I am left disgusted and confused.
You may not agree with gay marriage. I don’t really care. No, in fact, I couldn’t give a flying fuck. What I do care about, however, is that people understand the horrific implications so many loving, law-abiding, patriotic, family-upholding, tax-paying, GNP-contributing, war-fighting, and other hyphen-esque people will have to endure as a result. Even if this disgusting legislation doesn’t make it out of Congress (and it doesn’t look like it will), the results are going create the most divisive issue this country as seen in quite some time.
Is it any surprise that the majority thinks the minority is wrong? No, of course not. Especially if said majority hasn’t any inkling as to the realities of homosexuality. They are fed the same tired rhetoric time and again about the deviance and sub-culture that is apparently synonymous with being gay-yet they fail to realize their social-conditioning and -sanctioning are exactly what creates what is left of such behavior. When a person is downgraded, taught to believe that they are so different from what is normal and therefore bad, is it any surprise their actions reflect that? I don’t know what diluted mind actually believes there to be an inherent inability to function as a normal human being while simultaneously being gay. Hell, I don’t really want to know such a brain.
What’s pissed me off so much tonight? Well, I’ll tell you. While reading some news, I stumbled on what’s happening on Capitol Hill. The proposed Amendment isn’t going to have much success in even going to the states. Getting beyond the disturbing fact that such discrimination might fall within the greedy clutches of the law, I got to thinking about what might happen if it passed in the Senate. Two-thirds of states would have to radify…ok, you took a Government class, I’m sure, and I’ll stop there. What would this mean? The result would be a surge in large-scale gay bashing. Can you imagine how many “fags” or “queers” would be beaten for the sole reason that some religious-toting hypocrites find it in their interest to defy the maxim: Judge not, lest ye be judged. What arrogance allows them the ability to even believe they have the best interests of a God who sent a vessel to Earth to teach the power of love, the supreme fallacy and unholiness of greed, and the importance of community. You, my bible-thumping hypocrites, are the antithesis of your savior. You are the embodiment of all that is evil, spiritually tepid, and tactless.
And why in the hell has no one stood up and called bullshit on these speeches sighting marriage as the “most enduring system of our civilization.” Really? How nice. I love the fact that you’ve boiled down the whole of our not-to-be-so-bloody-proud-of history in one stroke of your Rolex-wearing wrist. Marriage is supposed to be about love, non? Oh wait, that hasn’t been the case at all. Marriage hasn’t always been about love, nor does it continue to be for many around the world. The marriage of a man and women was the binding agreement of property. Jump for joy, Johnny (or perhaps, Isaac), it looks like you get yourself some land. But wait again, that’s not the main function of such an arrangement. No, the basis for the contract was the signing off of the daughter from father to another male, the husband. For the last 5,000 years, all of the androcractic religions have used the arranged marriage as a powerful tool in suppressing women-treating them as property to be bartered with at any given moment. In the Abrahamic dogma, what happens to a woman who is found to be impure (read: not a virgin) before her wedding night? The groom is allowed to forgo the wedding and the woman is shamed. Shamed! For having the audacity to encounter love on its own accord, and not upon the whim of capitalistic endeavors. But that’s all for another rant.
So what is marriage, and why do I need to be so damn pissed-off that 1 in 10 are being denied the ability to partake? Modern marriage is certainly different from its lineage, that’s to be certain. However, when politicians and preachers site its holistic history, and how it has been the major cause for all that is right with life as a human, I get a bit disgusted. There is nothing better than love, and as Damien Rice puts it, “The one who’s in love is closer to God.” The fact that I’m not religious holds no bearing on my deep belief that there is something spiritual and even mystical about love. Perhaps I’m being childish-again, I don’t give a rat’s ass. I can’t fathom that a ritual in which the father gives his daughter away is the only way in which one can be whole, but then again, I don’t understand a whole lot of things.
Marriage isn’t about going into a church and being granted the sanction of God for such a union; it’s about making a commitment to someone with whom you share such a strong connection that even the possibility of being without them puts levers to work in the pits of your stomach. I don’t even know if I want to believe that such an archaic tradition is even applicable to me, but I do know that when it is denied, even just in wording, there is a systemic discrimination afoot. Many within the queer community regard the notions of traditional relationships with suspicion, and to that there is much merit. However, acceptance (not tolerance!) can only be accomplished in this society-such that runs from shock and would rather drink spools of wool than face the pleasurable experiences of diversity-by at least adhering for some time. Marriage within the straight world isn’t much to be desired, and so I think it funny when our representatives in Washington think that by allowing some to marry, and not others, their woe will be resolved.
If this is to happen, I want an audience with the President. I’ll sit down in a room with him, fold my hands and look across the open expanse of space that he will most certainly feel necessary to divert any resemblance of intimacy. After a pause, I’ll ask him how he can sleep at night. I’ll ask him how he thinks that he has strengthened the relationship a man and a woman can have together by denying that such love can exist between people of the same sex. I’ll want to know how he has justified the almost certain bigot-induced violence that will occur at the hands of those who fear what they know nothing about. Where does it stop? Are we so afraid of progress that the status quo becomes more important than life?
<-------->
I refuse to edit this. My heart just kind of exploded in words, and so I’m not going extract or correct any grammatical, spelling, contradictory, or erratum passages that may have occurred. I’m frustrated, and I needed to say so. I’m tired, and so I probably just shit out a bunch unintelligible dribble. Deal with it. I am.
You may not agree with gay marriage. I don’t really care. No, in fact, I couldn’t give a flying fuck. What I do care about, however, is that people understand the horrific implications so many loving, law-abiding, patriotic, family-upholding, tax-paying, GNP-contributing, war-fighting, and other hyphen-esque people will have to endure as a result. Even if this disgusting legislation doesn’t make it out of Congress (and it doesn’t look like it will), the results are going create the most divisive issue this country as seen in quite some time.
Is it any surprise that the majority thinks the minority is wrong? No, of course not. Especially if said majority hasn’t any inkling as to the realities of homosexuality. They are fed the same tired rhetoric time and again about the deviance and sub-culture that is apparently synonymous with being gay-yet they fail to realize their social-conditioning and -sanctioning are exactly what creates what is left of such behavior. When a person is downgraded, taught to believe that they are so different from what is normal and therefore bad, is it any surprise their actions reflect that? I don’t know what diluted mind actually believes there to be an inherent inability to function as a normal human being while simultaneously being gay. Hell, I don’t really want to know such a brain.
What’s pissed me off so much tonight? Well, I’ll tell you. While reading some news, I stumbled on what’s happening on Capitol Hill. The proposed Amendment isn’t going to have much success in even going to the states. Getting beyond the disturbing fact that such discrimination might fall within the greedy clutches of the law, I got to thinking about what might happen if it passed in the Senate. Two-thirds of states would have to radify…ok, you took a Government class, I’m sure, and I’ll stop there. What would this mean? The result would be a surge in large-scale gay bashing. Can you imagine how many “fags” or “queers” would be beaten for the sole reason that some religious-toting hypocrites find it in their interest to defy the maxim: Judge not, lest ye be judged. What arrogance allows them the ability to even believe they have the best interests of a God who sent a vessel to Earth to teach the power of love, the supreme fallacy and unholiness of greed, and the importance of community. You, my bible-thumping hypocrites, are the antithesis of your savior. You are the embodiment of all that is evil, spiritually tepid, and tactless.
And why in the hell has no one stood up and called bullshit on these speeches sighting marriage as the “most enduring system of our civilization.” Really? How nice. I love the fact that you’ve boiled down the whole of our not-to-be-so-bloody-proud-of history in one stroke of your Rolex-wearing wrist. Marriage is supposed to be about love, non? Oh wait, that hasn’t been the case at all. Marriage hasn’t always been about love, nor does it continue to be for many around the world. The marriage of a man and women was the binding agreement of property. Jump for joy, Johnny (or perhaps, Isaac), it looks like you get yourself some land. But wait again, that’s not the main function of such an arrangement. No, the basis for the contract was the signing off of the daughter from father to another male, the husband. For the last 5,000 years, all of the androcractic religions have used the arranged marriage as a powerful tool in suppressing women-treating them as property to be bartered with at any given moment. In the Abrahamic dogma, what happens to a woman who is found to be impure (read: not a virgin) before her wedding night? The groom is allowed to forgo the wedding and the woman is shamed. Shamed! For having the audacity to encounter love on its own accord, and not upon the whim of capitalistic endeavors. But that’s all for another rant.
So what is marriage, and why do I need to be so damn pissed-off that 1 in 10 are being denied the ability to partake? Modern marriage is certainly different from its lineage, that’s to be certain. However, when politicians and preachers site its holistic history, and how it has been the major cause for all that is right with life as a human, I get a bit disgusted. There is nothing better than love, and as Damien Rice puts it, “The one who’s in love is closer to God.” The fact that I’m not religious holds no bearing on my deep belief that there is something spiritual and even mystical about love. Perhaps I’m being childish-again, I don’t give a rat’s ass. I can’t fathom that a ritual in which the father gives his daughter away is the only way in which one can be whole, but then again, I don’t understand a whole lot of things.
Marriage isn’t about going into a church and being granted the sanction of God for such a union; it’s about making a commitment to someone with whom you share such a strong connection that even the possibility of being without them puts levers to work in the pits of your stomach. I don’t even know if I want to believe that such an archaic tradition is even applicable to me, but I do know that when it is denied, even just in wording, there is a systemic discrimination afoot. Many within the queer community regard the notions of traditional relationships with suspicion, and to that there is much merit. However, acceptance (not tolerance!) can only be accomplished in this society-such that runs from shock and would rather drink spools of wool than face the pleasurable experiences of diversity-by at least adhering for some time. Marriage within the straight world isn’t much to be desired, and so I think it funny when our representatives in Washington think that by allowing some to marry, and not others, their woe will be resolved.
If this is to happen, I want an audience with the President. I’ll sit down in a room with him, fold my hands and look across the open expanse of space that he will most certainly feel necessary to divert any resemblance of intimacy. After a pause, I’ll ask him how he can sleep at night. I’ll ask him how he thinks that he has strengthened the relationship a man and a woman can have together by denying that such love can exist between people of the same sex. I’ll want to know how he has justified the almost certain bigot-induced violence that will occur at the hands of those who fear what they know nothing about. Where does it stop? Are we so afraid of progress that the status quo becomes more important than life?
<-------->
I refuse to edit this. My heart just kind of exploded in words, and so I’m not going extract or correct any grammatical, spelling, contradictory, or erratum passages that may have occurred. I’m frustrated, and I needed to say so. I’m tired, and so I probably just shit out a bunch unintelligible dribble. Deal with it. I am.