Man Up?

What's the not my first thought way to get to the topic of gay marriage you ask? Write an article about your 3-year-old son wanting to dress up as a princess for Halloween and watch the gender-identity-must-be-maintained-at-all-costs comments roll in.

A female sports writer for the Chicago Tribune wrote the article of which I speak. I've captured some of the choice comments posted herein. The one below is by a commenter named "VOICE OF REASON" who has not only used a photo of a chimpanzee scratching his chin in contemplation to identify himself but he has also used the number one catch phrase on the list of the Top 10 political catch phrases according to Fox News: "man up." Now, immediately after stating that the author's husband should "man up" he continues that he should "be his own person, with his own ideas, instead of a mindless drone." I can't tell you how much I enjoy the use of the term "mindless drone" when used by someone doing exactly what they are accusing someone else of doing. Especially when the accused is doing the opposite of what the accuser is himself actually doing. Which is to say that "VOICE OF REASON" is being a mindless drone in his adherence to rigidly guarded gender roles.


I mean, Republican candidate for Governor of California Meg Whitman obviously has no issue with men in dresses. In fact, just last week she linked to the following video in her Twitter feed.


This next commenter "Chicagobrother" "doesn't have the time", and he also "doesn't have the patience to REALLY break this down," and yet the bulk of his comment comes after this statement, therefore some "time" must have been freed up and his "patience" must have been restored. I don't know, that whole saying a lot of words after saying that you were planning on not using a lot of words sounds sort of girlie to me. But when he's done breaking down his offense at the idea "that boys are 'naturally' drawn to pink" and that "it seems to me you wished you had a daughter instead of a boy", he does finally definitively tell us that he in fact has "got nothing left to say."


And so with that finished, "SwingingChad" decided to pick up the torch of the comment section... AND the contested 2000 Presidential election AND very likely a dick reference, all in one screen name AND then go on to make the first gay marriage comment of the section. "SwingingChad" posits that "by the time the tike is an adult, gay marriage will be legal", he even goes so far as to plan the wedding outfits with "the only question is, who is the wife and who is the bride. I think you know the answer." And so the only question is, "SwingingChad", where in this sentence does the question mark go. I'm not sure if you know the answer, tyke?


In conclusion, which is more shocking? This?























Or this?

Inclusion!

A PRIVATE MORAL VIEW THAT SAME-SEX COUPLES ARE INFERIOR TO OPPOSITE-SEX COUPLES IS NOT A PROPER BASIS FOR LEGISLATION is my favorite chapter heading in the 136 page finding that was passed today in California declaring Prop 8 unconstitutional.

I decided to read the whole thing. Well, skim for great quotes and there were some but the most interesting thing that I found was the use of a 1973 ruling concerning the interpretation of the 14th Amendment:

"'It is difficult to conceive of a rational basis for penalizing [undocumented children] for their presence within the United States,' despite the state’s interest in preserving resources." This is a very interesting use of this ruling as part of the anti-Prop 8 argument that "A law must do more than disadvantage or otherwise harm a particular group." Take a moment and read that again. "A law must do more than disadvantage or otherwise harm a particular group." That's a good one. And that's really the crux of the argument, that one group declared that if another group had the same rights as them that they would be harmed when it's really the opposite of that. That exclusion is what causes harm not inclusion. This country was formed by those who were motivated by exclusion.

And so here is what I mean by that, the 14th Amendment is a hot topic in Arizona right now where they are looking for any way to reduce the numbers of illegal immigrants which currently is manifesting as a movement towards reinterpreting the 14th Amendment. You know, the one that overturned Dred Scott, the Supreme Court decision which held that "a negro of African descent, whose ancestors were of pure African blood and were brought into this country and sold as slaves" could never become a citizen. Yeah, that one. So there are those who want to amend that amendment in order to deny children born in the United States automatic citizenship depending on the status of their parents. You know, exclusion.

Political arguments and society in general is based on exclusion. Every one wants to feel special and if you exclude, then you'll be part of a minority. Yet, you only want to be part of a certain type of minority. Majority, minority, inclusion, exclusion, who's who, it's all getting pretty confusing. What I do know is that the children are our future because they're apparently the only ones with rights (except for undocumented children, but otherwise this argument stands).

So much of our nation's political arguments concentrate on the safety of children these days: marriage (in that if children learn about gay marriage they will become gay and also that children must be raised by a man AND a woman or they won't be well adjusted. Speaking from experience, I think we all know how that well adjusted thing turned out), immigration (in that adults get citizenship on the backs of the very children whose lives they're attempting to improve by moving here), abortion (all right, this one is a little more linear in that, it effects the safety of children, I mean, depending upon your definition of when a child begins cause lord knows they never stop. Can I get an amen?), stem cell research (see abortion), pedophilia (bull shit stereotype placed on gays when those who associate them with this should be looking at their most trusted "celibate" "moral" leaders).

Yes, kids should have a safe childhood but you spend more of your time as a maladjusted adult so there should be some rights for us adults. We want to be special and exclusionary. I guess that's where the voting age, the drinking age, the becoming President age comes into play. All right, so we get those three things and you babies get everything else. That seems fair.

I'd be interested to see if anyone else concentrates on the 14th Amendment being included in the finding as illegal immigrants are trending high in the political zeitgeist. And we all know that the top three threats to our way of life are foreigners, gays, and Sharks. Happy Shark Week, everybody.

Anyway, here are some of the quotes that stood out for me from the earlier portions of the Prop 8 ruling:

"Marrying a person of the opposite sex is an unrealistic option for gay and lesbian individuals." Sounds like a judgmental mother: Marrying a person of the opposite sex is an unrealistic option for you, honey.

"Discrimination against gays and lesbians occurs in California and in the United States." Part of the obvious section of the ruling.

"Proponents failed to put forth any credible evidence that married opposite-sex households are made more stable through Proposition 8." Find me a stable household and I'll find you a barn with some horses who live in the plural of that word that appears before household.