Saturday, January 26, 2013

The Flaming Cats of Inequality

Most people do not understand much about how equal rights work in the American system, but I do. It is kind of easy, really.

Here, I will explain it to you.
If you look closely, you will see that I’ve got nothing in my hands except a flag and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Nothing up my sleeves, no hidden assistant in the wings, no strings. 

If you can pay me some attention for just the next couple of minutes, I can show how YOU might have the right to receive a FLAMING CAT free of charge from your government. I can show how, if you do NOT receive a flaming cat free of charge from your government, you might be able to sue for discrimination against left-handed people.

This would probably be a good time for me to mention that I am not a licensed attorney.

Now, back to the flaming cats!
Sure, we all want one, or two, or maybe even three, but how can any of us be guaranteed even a single flaming cat in this cold, cruel world of ours?

After all, flaming cats are nowhere mentioned in the United States Constitution. I checked three times.
What this means is that (as unbelievable as it sounds!) our government can choose to give a flaming cat to absolutely NOBODY.
On the other hand, it also means our government can choose to give a flaming cat to absolutely EVERYBODY .**
But what about this? What if the government decides to do something in between those two extremes? What if the government decides to give flaming cats to SOME people, but decides NOT to give flaming cats to OTHER people?

Get ready, because this is the part where equal rights come in. This is the part where we start asking, “Why? Why these people but not those?”

Let’s say that on the day they start handing out flaming cats, I am the first one in line. I get my flaming cat and I go home. I mean, I got mine, right? As you would expect, I name my flaming cat “Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan”  and she is wonderful and makes me very happy. 
But as soon as I leave the Department of Flaming Cats, the unthinkable happens. Bob – who is my gay, black, transgender, Jewish disabled Vet friend – goes up to get his flaming cat, and the bastards tell him no!

Why?!
Bob sues the bastards. Bob loses his suit. They say the reason Bob loses his suit is because the bastards had acceptable REASONS for treating him different than they treated me.

Next, it is time for my friend, Billy, to go up and get his flaming cat. Now, Billy is a great guy: No criminal record. Not made out of hydrogen. We all figure he’s good to go.

But the bastards tell him no, too!

Why?!
Billy sues the bastards. Billy loses his suit. They tell Billy the reason he loses his suit is because, sure enough, he is pure goat. Goats do not have equal rights. The bastards can treat goats different than they treat me.

This surprises us a lot, because our conservative friends have been saying that if all PEOPLE get equal rights, then GOATS will have to get equal rights, too. 

Next, my friend, Belloq, goes up to the counter at the Department of Flaming Cats to get her flaming cat. Belloq is not a criminal. Belloq is not made out of hydrogen. Belloq is not pure goat. 

Of course, the bastards tell Belloq no.

Why?!
Belloq sues the bastards, claiming discrimination based on her being left-handed.

Belloq wins!

When Belloq wins, half of the country freaks out. The State of Alabama secedes from the Union. Rush Limbaugh says this: “Activist judges just gave left-handed people special rights!”

Governor Rick Perry says this: “The Court just made up a constitutional right to a free flaming cat!”

I love Rick Perry like a father, but in this case, he is wrong. So is Rush Limbaugh. (Alabama, on the other hand, is probably right to secede...)

It’s as simple as this. Repeat after me: If the government treats two people differently, it needs an acceptable reason for doing so.

If the government treats two people differently, it needs an acceptable reason for doing so. 

If the government treats two people differently, it needs an acceptable reason for doing so. That is just the way it works. 

I hope this clears a few things up.

If you need me, I will be with Belloq, playing with our flaming cats.
----------------------------------------
**As we all know, flaming cats were responsible for 37.61% of GDP in 2009, meaning that they affect interstate commerce a great deal. Therefore, Congress has the power to enact the Flaming Cats Act of 2013 under the Commerce Clause (Article I, Section 8, Clause 3) of the United States Constitution. 

79 comments:

  1. This is fricken brilliant!! Seriously, (and I have read a lot of stuff about flaming cats and equal rights), I have never read such an insightful and to-the-point treatise on equal rights.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks, benni! It took too long to do and didn't turn out as well as I would have liked.

      But I spend a lot of time arguing politics online, and I get tired of having to explain this particular point. From now on, all I have to do is link it!

      Delete
  2. Love it! Can I get my flaming cat when I get my free Obama phone too?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Are you kidding? Best I can tell from the emails I get, only black folks can get Obamaphones.

      Which means the President gets half a phone and his kids get three-quarters of a phone each.

      Delete
    2. Crap. I was afraid of that. I wanted an iPhone 5. I am not happy with my Droid. If the prez only gets half a phone that explains the Blackberry.

      Delete
    3. ON the upside, he will only get half a tumor in 20 years from using it...

      Delete
    4. In a very ironic twist, the company phone administrator called and said I was overdue to get a new iPhone. So no Obamaphone for me.

      Now about my cat...

      Delete
  3. can i get a flaming cat if i'm a canadian jewish lesbian with disabilities who lives in the dominican republic? i'm right handed.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'd always assumed that socialist Canada had a better program than the U.S. in this regard.

      Is the Ministry of Flaming Moose not active anymore?

      Delete
  4. Well said, Katy! But where can I go to get my flaming cat? Yesterday I didn't know I needed one, but now I'm not sure I can live without one (especially since the government gave you one)!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'd say, "You flaming cat is in the mail," but I'm not sure how that wuld turn out.

      It takes a lot for me to do a blog that touches on politics, law, or rights.

      But this week, I found myself trying to explain to someone what it means when we say the government has to "treat similarly situated persons similarly," and decided I needed a more vivid portrayal of the idea.

      Sort of a C+ job of it. But there's always next week.

      Delete
  5. What beautifully twisted genius. <3 <3 <3

    Rarely is such lucidity & elegance applied to constitutional issues in public discourse. Why, if only you had been my Civics teacher in high school, I would have a goddam flaming cat!

    Hey, Belloq looks cute! Therefore, she should definitely have a flaming cat!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you, DanP!

      Belloq should definitely have a flaming cat. In the best possible way.

      Delete
  6. Bravo post! I think I will have to use it as my default link for this particular argument too.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks! People seem to generally understand about how black people, Jewish people, women, etc., can't be discriminated against.

      But I tell someone like:
      a) After the passage of the 14th amendment, it was mostly corporations claiming discrimination for the first couple decades; or
      b) George W. Bush WON Bush v. Gore in 2000 on Equal Protection grounds
      ...and people get confused.

      Delete
  7. Fourteenth Amendment vs Second Amendment and Flaming Cats

    "It is the usual last resort of constitutional arguments to point out shortcomings of this sort. But the answer is that the law does all that is needed when it does all that it can, indicates a policy, applies it to all within the lines, and seeks to bring within the lines all similarly situated so far and so fast as its means allow." -- Mr. Justice Holmes (Buck v. Bell)

    "When I was young and naive, I used to pay some attention. I listened to WORDS spoken authoritatively into microphones. To my still-dewy ears and my still-dewy brain, they seemed like the WORD Terrorists. Terrorists of the WORD, twisting meanings to fit agenda or whim." -- Seeker of truth

    ----------
    Some Thing Like This

    Dissident Aggressor -- Sin After Sin -- Judas Priest

    Grand canyons of space and time universal
    My mind is subjected to all

    Stab! Bawl! Punch! Crawl!
    Hooks to my brain are well in
    Stab! Bawl! Punch! Crawl!
    I know what I am, I'm Berlin

    Through cracked, blackened memories of unit dispersal
    I face the impregnable wall

    Stab! Bawl! Punch! Crawl!
    Hooks to my brain are well in
    Stab! Bawl! Punch! Crawl!
    I know what I am, I'm Berlin

    Exploding, reloading, this quest never ending
    Until I give out my last breath

    I'm stabbing and bawling, I'm punching and crawling
    Hooks to my brain are well in
    I'm stabbing and bawling, I'm punching and crawling
    I know what I am, I'm Berlin

    Which leads me to the root cause

    At its heart freedom is anarchy. It is the state of being completely and utterly free to do as you please. In a society such absolute freedom does not work as some would take actions that harm others. Absolute freedom and anarchy was certainly not what the framers of nations had in mind when they created the different constitutions that set limits both on the people and on the governments

    In Buddhism it is taught that the idea of absolute freedom of choice (i.e. that any human being could be completely free to make any choice) is foolish, because it denies the reality of one's physical needs and circumstances

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Justice Holmes'opinion in Buck v. Bell also has one of my favorite quotes of all jurisprudence: "Three generations of imbeciles is enough."

      Delete
    2. had to share
      http://media-cache-ec2.pinterest.com/upload/169729479676062914_z6T2wkjg_c.jpg

      Delete
  8. You`ve got such an incredibly beautiful and sexy smile Katy, it drives me absolutely wild with lust and desire. By the way, whats a "flaming cat" ?.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I guess I should have started with some more explanations and definitions. I thought everybody knew what a flaming at was - IF you know what I mean.

      Delete
  9. Katy, i was just thinking, because of his murderous homo-phobia Jervaise Brooke Hamster would have to write "the first amendment" as "the first a-girl-d-girl-t" ! ! !.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, it's sort of like speaking Smurf.

      Delete
  10. Wait a second, I'm beginning to suspect this whole flaming cat thing is a thinly veiled metaphor. Me am smart.
    You forgot where instead of giving them a flaming cat, once the people sue, the government gives them something similar to a flaming cat, but not exactly a flaming cat. The government gives them an ice dog. It's close to a flaming cat, meant to placate the uppity "different thus scary" people. This method of separate but equal fools no one but the argument is made that they should be happy with what they get. More litigation follows.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I have a picture I found somewhere of a cat with a top hat and monocle who is smoking a cigarette. I had that ready to go, but didn't end up doing it.

      "It's the same thing, really! Why can't y'all be satisfied with this smoking cat? Giving you the same kind of incendiary cat as I get offends me!"

      Delete
  11. Flaming Cats be damned, i just visit this site to enjoy the stunning beauty of a certain little Miss Katy Anders.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Flaming Cats of Inequality don't like you, either!

      Delete
  12. your obedient internet rodentJanuary 27, 2013 at 11:47 AM

    Katy, i read this post and i still haven`t got a clue what its about. Er...i was just thinking Katy, next Friday is the 1st of February and its the 25th anniversary of the day we lost the angel (Heather O`Rourke), last year you did promise to do a tribute of some kind to Heather, next friday would be the perfect time to do it, re-vagina Katy you DID promise me didn`t you ! ! !.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Katy: "If the government treats two people differently, it needs an acceptable reason for doing so."

    Astra: "Don't count on it. They're coming for all of us eventually, starting with Vengeful Cocksuckers like me."

    End.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well, the way the system is supposed to work and the way it actually works are often two different things. For a bunch of idealists, your generation broke things pretty good...

      Delete
  14. What? Belloq didn't get the left handedness beat out of her while being told that being left handed is of the devil like I did? That's how my dad showed me Christ's love.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Jesus is a handy thing to have around. Almost everything - good, bad, or indifferent - can be attributed to him if you try hard enough!

      He built my hot rod and he was way cool.

      Delete
    2. I thought Jesus was being held hostage in Adri's attic.

      Delete
    3. I'll have to ask her about it.

      Seems like he could get out of there pretty easily. Unless the walls are lined with kryptonite.

      Delete
    4. That kryptonite is some nasty stuff!

      Delete
    5. Wait, was Jesus the one whose weakness was kryptonite?

      I always forget...

      Delete
    6. I'm not sure. Jesus' weakness may have been nails... or thorns.

      Delete
  15. Katy, Cal, do you know the two main problems with the lies and hypocrisy that still poisons and plagues vast areas of American society ! ?: (a), 97% of that lies and hypocrisy is derived directly from religious bull-shit (astonishing as that may seem in 2013 in THE most technologically advanced country in the world, a ludicrous and quite unfathomable contradiction in terms), and, (b), Americans actually enjoy being liars and hypocites, they revell and wallow in their own lies and hypocrisy and they much prefer it over the truth. Its vitally important that those two problems be completely eradicated from American society over the next 20 or 30 years if America is to retain its place as the "number 1 nation on earth" throughout the rest of the 21st century ! ! !.

    ReplyDelete
  16. "For a bunch of idealists, your generation broke things pretty good..."

    Yeah; we did. Horribly. We didn't see it coming - we really didn't.

    Now, as Hunter Thompson put it so well, as we live in a closed society where everybody's guilty, the only crime is getting caught. In a world of thieves, the only final sin is stupidity.

    He passed no judgment on this, and didn't need to - he also didn't need to point out that this is the nest we chose to shit in; the bed we made - and while none of us 'intended' to live here, we created it anyway.

    We voted for Reagan, for chrissakes.

    Most of the lies, corruption and other bullshit truly is from religion - and we continue not only to tolerate it, but to promote it.

    While it is true - that when the government treats two people differently, it needs an acceptable reason for doing so - we still shouldn't count on it, any more than we should count on 'closure' from some Imaginary Friend.

    They're still coming for us....

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You know, if we could set up a good system and enforce that system, we could continue to be the biggest bastards we can be.

      If we could ensure equality under the laws and if we could make sure laws could not be twisted to some megalomaniac or lobbyist's agenda, then the rest of us could pursue self-interest knowing that there is this mechanism built into the system that ensures we can't get too far off-track.

      The problem is that the mechanism to keep things on track can be bent.

      Oh, and the people who think they want theocracy under the rules of Leviticus and Deuteronomy are delusional and can't be reasoned with.

      Delete
  17. Hey Astra, answer me a question, over 200 years ago Thomas Paine said "THE greatest threat to freedom is government", why then do we still insist on having that abomination with-in our society ?, a society that is 'supposedly' obsessed with freedom, democracy, and liberty, and yet it still allows this murderous and loathsome ogre called government to exist in its midst, a murderous and loathsome ogre that is in direct contradiction and opposition to literally everything that America 'supposedly' stands for. like i said maybe you could explain that.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There's a quote which has been variously attributed, and I'll use it here.

      "Mankind will never be truly free until the last king has been strangled with the entrails of the last priest."

      Thus endeth the lesson....

      Delete
    2. I love that quote.

      I don't now that I believe it anymore, but DAMN I want to feel hard core enough to say I do!

      Delete
  18. Strickly speaking, that true, how can there ever be real and true freedom in any country that has a government that governs, having any kind of government makes a total nonsense of the idea of freedom.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Technically, government is supposed to be citizens creating rules for their community. If me and my neighbors have a governing body that creates a rule that you can't knife our pets or throw rocks at us, you might see that as limiting your freedom. It is, in a way.

      The problem isn't the existence of government. The problem is one of degree.

      Pure anarchy seems fantastic in theory. It's a favorite on the internet - usually of people whose life experience involves very little life and a lot of Dungeons and Dragons.

      Delete
  19. Thanks Katy, thats quite a good answer. One other thing i`d like your opinion on though is: why does government still use words like, "government", "govern", "power", "control", and "authority" to describe themselves and what they do ?, when they know how offensive and objectionable those words (and their meanings of course) are becoming to people ! ! !. Its like no matter how supposedly democratically a government is elected with-in a country or community, they`re still determined to use these ludicrously out-moded words, terms, and phrases, when they know full well that the use of them is becoming more irritating, demeaning, and belittling to people all the time.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm not offended by those words, so I don't know.

      In fact, if we are handing an institution power to enforce rules against us, I'd prefer they DID call it power instead of pretending it is something else!

      Delete
  20. You bloody dirty filthy disgusting pedo animal, you should be bloody-well burned at the stake.

    ReplyDelete
  21. jervaise brooke hamsterJanuary 29, 2013 at 12:15 PM

    Katy, the pictures you created for this post remind me of Terry Gilliams animations (circa 1970), very clever little darlin`.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you. I think they turned out just awful, but I am flattered by a Gilliam comparison. That guy is fantastic!

      Delete
  22. But Katy, isn`t the process of "handing an institution power to enforce rules against us" the biggest and most murderously unacceptable abomination of all ! ? ! ?.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It depends, I think.

      I mean, if the people in my neighborhood get together and say, "We're going to set a speed limit. Who wants to be on the committee that researches the issue and decides?"

      We have handed that committee the power to set the rules that will be used against everyone.

      Like I said, I think it's a matter of degree. There's a line - somewhere between what I just described and what Stalin did.

      Delete
  23. So given the ludicrous complexity of the issue wouldn`t it be better for literally ALL 7 billion people in the world to go and live by themselves without ever having any contact with any of the others, i think we would all be much better off because it seems that as soon as people start interacting with one-another they also start conspiring against each other in a myriad of different ways as well, its there-fore obvious that if everybody in the world was in total isolation for the entirety of their lives all the trouble and nonsense would then be completely extinguished literally overnight.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't think it's that complex.

      I don't have to treat all people the same. I can act in self-interest and even conspire against my neighbor.

      But government can't. The system should not be set up that way.

      Delete
  24. jervaise brooke hamsterJanuary 30, 2013 at 5:32 PM

    Katy, isn`t it obvious to you that future societys will allow that which we do not ! ?.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Hi! Just letting you know I loved this post, so I entered it as my selection for the yeah write weekly writing challenge. If you come visit, you'll see your post up top on the invitational grid. Hope you'll join us!

    http://yeahwrite.me/invitational-challenge-voting-94/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Wow, thanks, Erica!

      That's pretty cool. You have a great site over there. Lots of good writing passes through your gates...

      Delete
  26. Love this so much... Just the best thing ever!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks, Anonymous.

      It did not turn out as well as I would have liked, but the response has been good anyway.

      I'll keep trying to fine tune my ideas...

      Delete
  27. Katy, i simply meant that all conspiring and plotting by people against other people (whether governmental or personal) would be stopped forever if we were all in isolation permanently, it would just be better for the human race in general, i suppose basically because the human race itself is an intrinsic abomination on the planet, an abomination that must ultimately be completely eradicated if the planet is to survive.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. We could each be assigned our own cave. 7 billion caves, 1 person per cave.

      The murder rate would plummet.

      Of course, the suicide rate would probably skyrocket.

      Delete
  28. Which would be ideal, for the sake of the planet, as i said.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Katy, i have to grudgingly agree, its not just "The Hamster" whos vermin, but all of us, we simply shouldn`t be here cluttering up this beautiful blue globe with our absurd and hideous nonsense, the entire human race is a ludicrous evolutionary mistake that must be destroyed with malice-a-fore-thought and extreme prejudice.

    ReplyDelete
  30. I wandered over from Yeah Write, and I'm SO glad I did! Your blog is hilarious, and this post is both true and, um, hilarious. Well done! In other news, I'm going to go look in a thesaurus for synonyms for "hilarious." :)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for coming by! If nothing else, I can now consider myself to be an expert in cutting and pasting Oprah-heads.

      Delete
  31. Someone's been taking art lessons from us.

    Also, I'm ambidextrous, so am I half evil or half good? Is the glass half full or half empty?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The hands have been a revelation. Hands are nightmares to draw in a hurry. A Beer for the Shower has taught me: Screw the hands! Draw circles at the end of people's arms!

      Delete
  32. Hi, Katy, I'm another Yeah Write-r.

    Loved this! I have to admit that I have a flaming cat and am glad to live in a place where any adult can get a flaming cat, at least for now. But there are some big ol' meanies with fire extinguishers trying to take back some if the flaming cats, so those of us who think every adult has the right to a flaming cat are getting ready to go to war for that belief.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hello, IASoupMama (and great name)!

      To me, the argument that "it's not special rights if everybody else can do it" makes sense.

      But apparently our civics classes aren't always very good...

      Delete
  33. Just hopped over from Yeah Write. This is unbelievably brilliant. I, too, live in a place where any adult can get a flaming cat. But, if you move one state over, you end up in a place where, not only will they not recognize the fact that you have a flaming cat, they will make it impossible for you to rid yourself of said flaming cat if that is what you choose. As a trusts & estates attorney I find this legally untenable, and as a person who believes that every adult has the right to a flaming cat no matter where he or she decides to live, I find this downright infuriating.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi, Samantha. Thanks for stopping by!

      I am in exactly that situation right now. Because of residency requirement quirks, I'm stuck with a flaming cat that doesn't want me.

      Delete
  34. jervaise brooke hamsterFebruary 1, 2013 at 4:10 PM

    I want to bugger IASoupMama.

    I want to bugger Sa-girl-tha Brinn Morel.

    I want to bugger Katy Anders.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. OK, I have been VERY tolerant of your bullshit recently. On one day, earlier this week, you tried to post THIRTY comments on the same day - only one of which was relevant to the blog post. I even let several of them through!

      However, now that you have done this, you will not be getting further comments published. I'm sorry - you need to learn basic internet etiquette.

      Please do not return to my page. Thank you in advance for your cooperation.

      Delete
  35. But, but, but Katy, the Bible and the Pope said that Flaming Cats are holy.

    And then they said that left-handed people are committing sins whenever they use their left hand.

    Then they get a lot of stupid, hallucinating, death-fearing, selfish and greedy Americans to raise hell with their politicians, saying that, "hell no, the left-handed evil people are not created equal, they have no equal rights, because they are sinners, and sinners are not allowed by the Bible and the Pope to get Flaming Cats.

    What? You say "separation of church and state"? They say that they will redistrict your spaghetti congressional district some more, so that you won't be re-elected, so that you won't be allowed to go to Congress and bitch about your equal rights.

    In the old days, the Queen would just say "off with her head". So, you should be happy that the Republicans only want you to pay more taxes while getting no representation nor rights. Flaming Cats are not for you, because your lifestyle of using your left hand is going to destroy my rights and ability to use my right hand.

    Shame on you, Katy. Now get your left-hand out of your pockets.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm not sure what any of that means. But it sure sounds like you meant it!

      People who want the government to separate some other people out for different treatment rarely need a good reason to justify it. Any reason will do and, as you point out, religion is an excuse for bad treatment that is tough to argue against.

      Delete
  36. Hello there Katy,

    Best wishes to you as always, and I do say that in preparation for a dissenting comment. But I mean it just the same, I have much respect for you in spite of any disagreement we might have.

    It's not easy to make a good analogy for the issue of marriage, as marriage is quite unique to all other things. And I think it's for this reason that many see gay marriage as something that is real, marriage is uniquely a giving of two people one to each other from themselves, so why can't two people of the same sex do so?

    One can try to compare marriage to something as simple as a plug that matches an outlet, or to other things as spectacular as two halves of the brain being in utter concert as to the actions of the body, but I haven't personally found any analogy that captures the fact that two people of their own will give themselves to each other--a giving that can't be compensated for, that isn't the giving of one's own produced value but a more complete giving of one's own self to be appreciated fully by the other, not as a tool as some Narcissistically believe, but to be appreciated and cared for as one does with one's own body.

    So, how can gay marriage not be equal? If it cannot be, it can only be because it is not equal. My introduction being at an end, I will dare to use analogy. If the government says it will allow any motor engine mated to a drivetrain with wheels to be registered as a motor vehicle, then who is to say that two engines or two drivetrains cannot also be registered as a vehicle? Of course I am trying to say that when two people engage in marriage it is only right for them to be giving to the other what completes a marriage, and what does not complete a marriage is not marriage. It can be difficult to accept when marriage is seen only from the perspective of the soul, as in the soul there is no gender, and indeed from the perspective of only the soul there is no difference between traditional marriage and gay marriage, as in the soul alone there is only love. But the soul is not without a body, and both the soul and body are given in marriage.

    Anyway, I had to do my best to make this case. God bless you as always, have a good one!

    -JT

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi, JT.

      The gay marriage issue is always fun for me on a sort of theoretical level. This is because the arguments about it tend to involve religion and homosexuality, which is this really fun nexus of seemingly mutually exclusive concepts.

      A Catholic Bishop last week made a comment that was to the effect of "you can call a dog a banana but that doesn't make it one." And that's a decent argument and similar to what you said here.

      For me, the legal side of things do NOT rest on what a religion or you or this guy over here might think about the sanctity of the marriage bond. We don't deny a couple a marriage license if they are unbelievers, if they choose NEVER to have sex, or if they flat-out loathe each other.

      The definition of marriage DOES change with time and the society - especially in the civil realm. Obviously, in biblical times, we're dealing with a world where the civil authorities and religious authorities are often the same thing. But even then, you have situation like Abraham and Sarah (then still Abram and Sarai) choosing to have a kid through a slave girl - who the original Greek refers to as Abraham's other wife. The resulting offspring was considered Abraham and Sarah's!

      So the definition changes, and fairly regularly, in fact. And so long as it is not impinging on individual religions' rights to define their own theology, then fine.

      In the end, the only solution I can think of for ending the inability of so many to understand the difference between civil marriage and religious marriage is to get the government out of the business of marriage altogether - which would, of course, basically end tax, property, and inheritance benefits for married couples and tick off a whole lot of non-religious folks.

      That might not be necessary, though. The momentum of the gay rights lobby's successes is stunning. They might have this pretty well wrapped up. An I say that as... someone who is not a big fan of the obnoxious "leaders" of the gay community in my city. (Someday, I'll write about THEM!)

      Delete
  37. If you weren't a gutless coward you would choose to limit your government's power in the first place, except you need your government powerful because when you feel like being the facist you are, it suits you.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Wow! I'm a fascist?

      Is that the one with all the uniforms?

      Delete

Go ahead and comment, even if it is just to tell me that you think this post sucked. What have you got to lose?