Sunday, July 29, 2012


What sort of person votes to deny basic rights to other people? Whom does it harm when same-sex couples marry? Even if your religion says homosexuality is a sin (to believe that you have to believe it's a choice, which, like evolution and climate-change denial is to ignore all the scientific evidence), why choose to harm those who believe differently? I'd never vote to ban shrimp cocktails or sacred underpants.

Actually to cast a vote, purposefully, to discriminate against people who pose no threat and who are just as human as you are -- such a thing requires a particular sort of self-righteous ignorance, and the ability to pretend that it's neither hateful nor damaging to innocent people. Whatever casting such a vote is, it is most certainly not Christ-like. It is neither loving of your fellow man, charitable, nor treating others as you'd be treated yourself. What it is is some kind of smug self-satisfaction, a kind of "take that, you people whom I neither know or understand, nor care to look in the eye while I'm doing this. I need to believe I'm better than you, and since I have no real evidence, at least I can do this, and pretend."

There's an initiative on the ballot in my state to overturn our recent law allowing same-sex marriage. Signatures to validate it were higher in number than on any previous initiative, which bodes ill. That I live in a state, a country, where so many people can vote to hurt fellow citizens who represent no threat to them is more than depressing. It's shameful. How can any decent person do it? How can they sleep at night? How can they muster the will to make their mark in such a heartless and harmful way? In the name of a religion so many of whose other teachings they choose to ignore. It's horrifying, it really is.


  1. The unique and special animal that's the American Christian, that's who. Stupid, angry, ignorant, too dumb or lazy to even read their own holy book. This is the modern American Christian:

    The religious right might be the most depressing thing about this nation to me. It's become a joke, a perversion of Christanity. Take the healthcare debate - when the leprous woman came to Jesus, did he tell her to piss off and get a job? When Jesus came upon the moneylenders in the temple did he praise them and call them job creators? and of course that bit about homosexuality is flanked by other prohibitions, on shellfish, on mixed fibers, on other things... Those parts are obsolete, the Bible is an ancient book and oh so open to interpretation - except THAT part! that part is just spot on.

    Do you know about Conservapedia? The admins have a little project going: the Bible is too liberal and must be rewritten with conservative principles in mind.

    the occasional Mike

  2. I know of it, but haven't the strength to read it. I'm certain, though, that if Jesus were to appear in disguise (well, since he was, no doubt a swarthy Semite, it really wouldn't be necessary) in this country at this time and preach, he'd be rejected by today's Christian right faster than a mismatched kidney.

  3. See, Sid,
    if you lived in MY progressive State, you wouldn't have this problem, namely, cause we don't have no stinkin ballot "Initiative".
    No regular Initiative either, but thats the results of generations of...never mind.
    You can't let the common people vote on issues of importance, I mean, they'll vote for the death penalty, low property taxes, free ice cream, and the position that EICOTUS held until his polling showed, I mean,
    he "Evolved"...
    I mean even Cal-e-forn-i-a voted like they were Al-a-bammy...
    Some of us just take longer to evolve than others...


  4. Sometimes I wonder if the "problem" many (people) have with same-sex-marriage is calling it "marriage", which traditionally is a word used to describe a man and a woman legally,consensually entering into a contract. Maybe a different name for the legal union of two same-sex individuals would make a difference. The terms "husband" or "wife" are also not especially helpful when applied to same-sex couples. Could more specific language capture these relationship nuances? Would a new set of descriptive terms (instead of "gay marriage") assist our collective sociocultural consciousness into acceptance?

  5. The same sex married couples I know refer to their others as "wife" or "husband," and seem to like it.

    I agree that the word "marriage" is a hangup for some; even Obama, before his "evolution" has been for civil union but not marriage.

    But to me, the word has more than religious significance: it's a spiritual thing, I'd say. And same sex couples shouldn't be denied it.

    On the other hand, every gay marriage advocate I know of agrees that no church should be compelled to perform them; no has any legislation ever appeared to demand it. If you don't accept the idea, don't do it.

    I suppose small steps are better than no steps; and it's amazing how fast things are changing. But I'll never understand how a decent human being could cast a vote against others in this situation. It harms no one. And if god cares, one must wonder why he keeps creating homosexuals; me, I think he appreciates them more than those who claim his religion demands we persecute them.

    Almost makes me wish there's a heaven: because if there is, a lot of homosexuals will be looking down from there at those who've hated on them -- the ones looking up.

  6. Terrific post, Sid. As usual, you sum up my own thoughts/feelings in this topic eloquently. I agree with a previous commentator -- the religious right is indeed a depressing element in our country right now, because meaningful discussion is impossible.

  7. Oh yeah Sid,
    could you help a Brutha out with some subtitles??
    Seriously, what language ARE they speaking???



Comments back, moderated. Preference given for those who stay on topic.

Popular posts