So, gay marriage. There's two separate issues in regard to this issue in the legality of gay marriage that I can see, and one opinion of my own. One is the definition of marriage. Two is the separation/joining of civil benefits with a traditionally religious institution. My opinion is that we [the gay community] shouldn't want anything to do with such a hetero tradition anyway.
So the definition issue. Marriage has two definitions. One of them is (as much as gay activists dislike it) a traditional, historical, and biblical definition that defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman. The other definition, as I see it, is that of a contract between two individuals in regards to how their government views them. Like it or not, marriage has ceased to be strictly a religious institution because of the number of civil benefits associated with it.
This brings me to the second issue of marriage. That of the number of civil benefits it gives, contrasted by the religious benefits. Of the latter there are none, aside from the intangible. The idea that God now sees you as one person. Of the former there are numerous (too numerous to name) but a few of them pertain to hospital visitation rights, joint property, inheritance, medical power of attorney, etc. In my opinion marriage stopped being a religious institution the minute the benefits of the government outweighed the benefits the church gives you. Also, when that happened, the definition changed to be that of a contract, and the rights of the people afforded them under the Constitution of the US became applicable.
My personal issue: since the inception of the "gay community" we have had our own, pretty much everything. Our own neighborhoods, bars, businesses, etc. And we have fought for equal treatment in nearly everything, despite the only difference we collectively share that separates us is a preference to engage in sex acts with a member of the same sex. But we still want a part of that hetero idea of marriage, for some reason. I guess it is so we can be considered truly equal to the average hetero. But why can't we be content with something that has a different name, and gives the same benefits according to the government? If you think about it that way (I do at least) the whole argument is over a name.
The entire article that spawned the above, would be found here, because President Obama has finally decided that the contract definition of marriage should be paramount and therefore all US citizens rights should be protected and not discriminated against.
On to other things. I was very happy to read that another 'Mo finally had the guts to publicly say something that I have thought and said since I came out. You can find out what was said here. And I for one am very glad that they haven't found any way to determine why a person is homosexual. Because if they did determine it to be biological, they'd figure out a way to screen for it, and that would open up a whole different can of worms.
Going in a completely different direction, I was watching the Glee that we recorded last night, and saw a preview/commercial for this movie and I was pretty irked. I mean the story is basically a modern retelling of Beauty and the Beast, as far as I can see. And those retellings aren't getting any better. I mean they turn a pretty boy ugly and tell him he'll stay that way unless he finds someone to love him. That's not really making it easier for those of us who don't have "movie star looks", you know?
What I would like to see is a take on Beauty and the Beast where the beast is turned into a horrible monstrous and animalistic thing, a la the Disney version, with the same sort of curse, be this way until you find someone to love you as you are. Then enter the prince(ess), a young man wandering in the middle of nowhere, who finds himself in the company of said beast. They fall in love, and the curse is lifted, but when the beast's true form is revealed, its really a prince/guy, thus proving that love really is blind. Although I'm not sure if my version has a happy ending or not yet. I'd like it to, but there's no telling.
Now some sad news, at least to me, is that one of the co-producers of the visually stunning, if a bit plot lack-luster, Chronicles of Narnia movies passed away. He was also the author of a book about a gay teen with superpowers, which makes his works on the christian-ish narnia movies very interesting. The article that I found reporting on his death can be found here.
In regards to the dissent in my state, I have only to say that I'm not going to write about it here, save this paragraph and anything already written. I'm in support of the protesters because I disagree with Gov. Walker's method, which is (as far as I can see it) going outside of the democratic process. This clip, from MSNBC by State Rep. Gordon Hintz, exemplifies my feelings, if not my vehemence.
And someone in this country ought to have a job that is protected, since all private sector workers are basically at will employees and can be fired at any time for any reason. But I agree with the opposite, in that unions can get too big for their britches and overstep their bounds. But the fact is that we live in a country that has a fundamentally broken system on all levels, and until we rectify that, nothing constructive and productive can come from this nation.
