So Sue Me

Most of the time I take the side of the LGBT community but not this time, not in the Arizona case where they want to be protected against those who don't want to do business with them.  I also have a problem with those who hide behind their religion as an excuse.

 First of all, as a society we sue too much over too little.  So perhaps someone can enlighten me.  For something as important and as memory making as a wedding, why would anyone want someone who doesn't like them for whatever reason, want to force them into doing business.

If a group of, say, Hells Angels came into my place of business with their tattoos and piercings and leathers, I'd not be interested in doing business with them either.  No matter what my business may be. I would also not expect to be sued. Neither would have a thing to do with my religion either since I basically don't have one.  It would be personal preference and I should be allowed that choice. Otherwise I'm the one being discriminated against. Bullied, actually.

Bakers, florists.  It's not like there is a shortage of them.  Find someone else who would be happy to work with you.  You'll get a better end result or will you also sue if the job isn't up to your expectations?

The current administration is slowly but surely bringing gay marriage around to the point of nationalizing the legality of it under the faulty guise of Constitutionality no matter what individual states and the people within want. If you want acceptance, which with these actions makes it hard to swallow as is, stop with the frivolous suits.

I'd like to see the day everyone feels free to be themselves no matter what orientation that might be, orientation including race, religion and politics too. I'd like to see the day your community blends in so well no one would think of asking, "Are you?" Is it really necessary to shout out "I'm gay! Accept me or else!"

Do you really think your orientation has more to do with your acceptance than how you handle it? If so, how sad. And if so, it's time to understand its a large part of why others want to steer clear.  

The Tasteless Side Of Politics

What do you do when you're considered royalty within your party due to your parentage, are running for office the very first time (the Senate no less) and haven't been able to get beyond a shaky 50% in the polls against your opponent from the same party?

Do you bow out gracefully and admit maybe a lesser office might be a more appropriate goal or do you pick one of the most controversial items on the social conservative agenda, gay marriage, on which to take a very vocal stand?

If you're Liz Cheney you choose the latter.  Never mind that your sister is gay and married.  Now Mary, the sister, and her wife aren't exactly free from criticism here.  They both took to Facebook to criticize Liz about the stand she took during an interview on FOX, saying it was offensive.  Nothing like keeping a family matter private!

I haven't visited the Facebook spat.  I have no desire to watch a cat fight between three women in one family in a public venue. Especially when there seems to be political motivation behind it.

I could be mistaken, but this doesn't seem to me the way to woo Wyoming voters to the Cheney side.  From my perspective, I'm not really sure if what Liz says is true even though her Dad confirms her stance.  He had to dance that tightrope when he was still Vice President and found himself with a gay daughter and therefore at odds with his boss.

Even as more and more states are legalizing gay marriage, it's still a touchy issue. All indications, however, point to it becoming universal in the not too distant future. It is also a states issue so I wonder why it's necessary for Ms. Cheney to be taking a stand at all.  Especially because of the family situation.  Then I guess that's the very reason though since she never seemed to mount much of a challenge to her primary opponent before this spilled over into social media, I don't see it being used against her either.

Wyoming is itself a state in flux.  While it doesn't allow gay marriage it does recognize those married elsewhere.

If I were the candidate I'd make a non-issue of it.  Yes, my sister is gay and married and happy. I'm happy for her and have nothing more to say on the subject.

I think far more voters would accept that stand more than a dust up on Facebook which makes all sides look petty and yes, certainly lacking in good taste.

Maybe We Ought To Do Away With Marriage!

Okay, the Republicans have closed the door on a voting block that is growing by the day.  Should Gays (all inclusive) be allowed to marry, number one, and should they be allowed to share benefits that heterosexual couples do.

Between this and the abortion debate, I wonder if we mere mortals should be deciding these things, what's more the government.  On abortion the argument has centered on when actual life begins.  I can accept it's when a heart beat is discernible.  Yet I am pro choice when it comes to egregious causes of pregnancy.  Mainly because if a woman is raped I would assume she has time to know whether or not she conceived.  The same with victims of incest.  Long before the pieces come together to form a human life. But it's not that simple is it?  What about at the moment of conception when all the living parts come together to make a whole?  Who should decide this? Should it be left to government officials?  I have my doubts.  Look at the politicians.  Do you want a Todd Akin making those decisions for you?

Similarly,  for the gay marriage issue, why is it a governmental issue?  It's a social and religious issue.  Who is wise enough to decide how marriage should be defined?  Perhaps it would be better if in the eyes of the government those who wish to join together form civil unions with the understanding that all that goes with it applies, from benefit distribution to dissolution of the union and the penalties that may apply.

If people want to go beyond a mere civil union and have the blessing of their church and their God, then that's between the two entities. A church wedding with all the frills. Let's face it, how can two atheists marry if they believe in no God?  If, however, they are a man and a woman they are considered married even with only a civil ceremony.

It is such a complex issue where one side is considered sick, demented and a whole lot of other names, while the other that can be just as vile yet be okay as long as it's the two sexes represented. It's not something the government should be trying to sort out because they can't leave their religious beliefs out of it.  They weren't elected to office to oversee and dictate my personal beliefs.

Time for the old cliche about the reasons for separation of church and state.  No religion should have the right to force it's beliefs on those who believe differently, yet here they are trying to define how a country should live and marry.  It's no different than the government trying to force it's beliefs on religious entities such is happening with parts of Obamacare.

The government is to provide guidelines, laws, under which we choose to live - or leave. Religions provide guidance for the soul determined by whatever set of teachings they choose to subscribe to.  They may parallel one another but they should never become one and the same to the exclusion of separation. Then we have Islam.  We can see how well that's working for it's people.

Ben Carson - Some Thoughts

It would seem the medical students at Johns Hopkins, where Dr. Carson is a professor of neurosurgery among other subjects, no longer want him to be their commencement speaker.

He is being accused of tying the LGBT community to the likes of those who believe in bestiality and  NAMBLA.  What the heck is NAMBLA?  North American Man/Boy Love Association. I didn't even know there was such a thing but it certainly goes to show that deviations from the 'norm' cover a lot of variables!

I've been watching just about every show I can where he is a guest in an attempt to find out just who he is and what he represents and I watched him on Hannity when he made the offending comment:

My thoughts are that marriage is between a man and a woman. It's a well-established fundamental pillar of society and no group, be they gays, be they NAMBLA, be they people who believe in bestiality, it doesn't matter what they are, they don't get to change the definition.

The point he was making is he doesn't believe anyone has the right change what has long been considered one of the fundamentals of our society no matter who they are.  His choice of examples can be criticized but what would you use as a substitute?  I must admit, however, that I've not heard of people demanding marriage rights between men and boys or people and animals.  But then, in my naivety, I hadn't heard of NAMBLA either.

From reading his most recent book, America the Beautiful, I find that Dr. Carson is a man steeped in his religion.  It resonated when he said, "God doesn't change, man changes." It's rather like Catholics wanting priests to marry, women to become priests, and birth control blessed.  Those people while clinging to Catholicism, have change; the church as protector of God's teachings, has not.  Nor do I expect that it will.

Because of religious beliefs there will always be a divide.  There are those who devoutly follow those teachings and those who have strayed from them to varying degrees for a variety of reasons.  I do not condemn either.

I admire Dr. Carson.  Much of what he has to say is truth to common sense.  I do not, however, have to agree with everything and I don't.  He is a good man with an incredible story.  You can read what you want into his words but remember there are those who will find no fault with the other outliers he mentioned.

I look at it as he meant it.  Does any one group have the right to demand change of our most basic principles and values?  If you look at our government today you know that there are many who think they do.

SCOTUS And The Human Condition

If justice was truly blind would we even be having the conversation about gay marriage? Actually I think she may just be cross eyed. We're trying to make her decide if legalities should apply to the usual outcome for falling in love, and at the same time cater to those who have been taught that same sex attraction is somehow evil. It would make anyone cross eyed trying to figure it out.

I have no doubt those against gay marriage believe what they preach.  Take the Catholic Church. I don't see them ever changing their stance.  It's what they believe and that it's the way for their followers.  If you follow without agreeing you're a hypocrite.

Now I see  a whole slew of politicians have suddenly become pro gay marriage in the past few days.  I haven't seen how long it has taken them to 'evolve' though at least a couple of them are now admitting they have relatives who are gay. I'm wondering how many of them actually find it to be fine and dandy or are they too hypocrites?  I have my opinion.  Political expediency always raises it's unseemly head.

The issue in and of itself doesn't bother me.  I ascribe to two beliefs.  One, I believe people are born gay, that it's not a learned condition.  And two, people fall in love.  No amount of legislation can prevent that from happening.  Unlike lesser beings, we don't just mate for the sake of continuing the species.  It's so much more complex than that.

This is why I don't think social issues and politics mix.  Politics as it is today wants a one size fits all fix for everything.  That's why Obamacare is becoming such a mess.  One size doesn't fit all.  Neither does it when it comes to love nor should it when it comes to marriage. Everything has variables.

It's easy for me to understand why two people want to marry.  Some time after the initial attraction and insane emotions of courtship a bond is formed.  That's when the relationship slips into a comfort zone, a time when you want to be with that person, you can't imagine your life if he/she were no longer a part of it.  That's when you know it's really love. Then you marry.  Why?  It's an act of faith for both the relationship and one another.  Maybe you want to have children, maybe you don't.  You do want to be with that person.  It's not a package deal.

How can you say that sex is a part of that equation? It's pure emotion that embeds itself in your being. The feeling is really beyond definition.  If you've been there you know it. You can't help it nor should you have to try.

I've said before I don't see any sane way for this to shake out if the decision isn't a universal one from a legal point of view.  People have the right to marry and to the benefits that come with it.  Also the responsibilities.  That's part of being a civilized society.

If religions don't want to accept the premise of same sex marriage it is their right.  Those who choose that path will find other religious organizations who will satisfy their spiritual needs and make them welcome.

The law is something else again. Yea or nay, make it universal in the eyes of the law on a national level, not piece meal state by state.

You see it's not just words we're dealing with here.  It's human lives.  People.  Like you and me.  We  we agree, we disagree and we love. Why should some of us be allowed to honor that love by marrying and others not?

Gay Rights And The Conservatives

Are the Christian Conservatives becoming a dying breed?  They who made gay marriage an issue during the last election cycle? Because of their being so out spoken, the anti-gay label stuck with the Republicans.  Oh, sure, many tried to nuance it by saying they were for civil unions but not gay marriage. One man and one woman and all that.

I've always wondered why the gays weren't satisfied with that if the benefits were equal except for the term 'marriage'.  But they weren't.  Perhaps because the benefits were inconsistent from state to state just as is gay marriage.

Some states have legalized it. Others have not. You can join the military but not the Boy Scouts.  If the Republicans had won I'd probably not be writing this.  But they didn't and the Democrats have stolen the march on them  largely thanks to the President himself 'evolving' on how he feels about it.

Amazing how losing an election can bring about change.  According to Politico some 80 Republican leaders have now signed a pro-gay marriage brief.  Some pretty heavy hitters too.  George W. and Laura Bush, of course Mary Cheney, David Frum, David Stockman, Christie Whitman and Meg Whitman  along with dozens of others from administrations past.

Wow.  Where have they been?  Which brings about another question.  How many of them really believe gays have a constitutional right to marry?  How many of them have put their signature on the brief only because the time has come when it's politically expedient to do so?  who knows?

I'm sure the gays don't care about the reasoning as long as they've done so.  Now the Supreme Court has to enter into the fray.  It won't be pretty.  Depend on a backlash from the staunchly anti-gay groups and more ugliness from the Westboro Baptist Church types.

I for one will be glad when the issue is resolved one way or another.  I don't see anything positive from having the rules regarding marriage vary from state to state. If a religious organization doesn't want to recognize such a marriage that should be their right, but as for the legality of it, why shouldn't it be uniform?

When it is resolved the gays will go on living their lives as they so choose.  So will the rest of us. The behavior is a part of the person and no amount of preaching nor posturing will change it. What some think needs to be 'cured' is another's normal.  If we'd spend more time caring about how we conduct our own behavior and less about others perhaps we too would 'evolve' into a more civil society.  In other words, what happens behind closed doors should stay behind closed doors.  It works.

What In The Name Of GOD??

I hadn't quite finished my coffee this morning so I picked up the current issue of Arizona Highways. Hub said, "Inside the back cover." I turned to the story; a memorial to a young soldier who had written to the magazine asking if they would send copies to his unit to give them something to read and remind them of home.

The staff was so taken by the young soldier's humility and concern for his friends they sent far more then magazines and soon they had a special bond - plus an inside perspective of what war was like in Afghanistan. He was killed January 10, 2010. I was wiping my eyes by the time I finished reading. They were grieving because they would now never meet this young man to say a heart felt "thank you", not only for serving his country but what he gave them.

It reminded me of my own GI who picked up one of many Christmas cards I had sent to his unit, several years ago now. You know, one of those special requests that come around the holidays. He was serving in Iraq. We too have a special bond, a warmth that embraces me, even though we've never met.

The stories of these soldiers brought to mind the story of the father of a young Marine who is suing a group of protesters that invaded the privacy of his son's funeral.

We know people protest any and everything these days. There is something so ugly about this, however, I'm finding it difficult to articulate how I feel. This group is claiming first amendment freedom as they spew their hate. The Supreme Court is going to hear the case. Chief Justice John Roberts has shown in recent days, due to his flap with the President from the State of the Union incident, that he understands the frustration of humiliation.

Beyond the legalities of these actions, is the vileness of them done in the name of God. These people claim to be Baptists and most are relatives of the founder, one Fred W. Phelps, Sr. A crotchety old man who is reveling in the publicity for his cause - spreading hate.

It's hard to grasp how deep this hatred for Catholics and Gays, and who knows what else, runs! How twisted are minds that think the war is "divine retribution" for America's sins!

It's will be a fine line for the Supreme Court to deal with. In the meantime, it seems to me the Baptist Church should denounce this congregation at the very least or forbid them to claim the Baptist Church before it is diminished by their actions.

Short of that they should all be placed under psychiatric observation. No one that hates so deeply they use the funerals of fallen servicemen, those who have died serving their country, to get their message front and center can be considered sane.

It is beneath contempt.

There Are Queens...

There are queens and there are queens. The question is which should wear the crown?

Miss California, Carrie Prejean, did not win the Miss USA pageant. The speculation is it's because of her answer to a question by one not vying for the same crown. Perez Hilton, an open and flamboyantly gay judge and blogger, asked her if every state should follow Vermont in legalizing gay marriage.

Horror of horrors, she did not take the bait and give the politically correct answer. Especially to a gay who was obviously baiting her. She said it was her belief that marriage should be between a man and a woman. At least that's how it has been reported.

This is a story that illustrates what selective quotes can and cannot accomplish. What she actually said was, "I think it's great that Americans are able to choose one or the other." That could be considered a "yes" to my way of thinking. She went on, "But in my country, and in my family, I think that I believe marriage should be between a man and a woman." That could be her own personal opinion, having nothing to do whether or not it should be legalized by the states. "No offense to anybody out there, but that's how I was raised." That's how she was raised! That was the value with which she grew up she held true to it.

If she was denied the crown because of that then beauty pageants have not risen from the lowest of low esteem in which I already hold them.

I am not anti-gay. I do not, however, have any appreciation for the in your face types like Mr.Perez who make a living ridiculing others until it's themselves and then they scream "Foul!"

Miss Prejean will not wear the Miss USA crown, but she will probably gain more from this tawdry exercise than the actual winner. Does anyone know who she was?

The one who should be crowned is Perez Hilton, though in an entirely different context. Especially after he told Matt Lauer she should have left her politics and her religion out of it. Her politics? What about his? He's the one who asked the question in the first place!

Carrie Prejean will not be Queen, even for a day. As for Perez Hilton? What a drag!

The Right To Pursue Happiness Unless You're Gay

Well, we've overcome one hurdle in this country. The ability to consider a person's ability and substance over skin tone. Will the next one be Gay rights? Don't you think it's time?

The Gays in California are coming out in force to protest the banning of gay marriage. It is my feeling they have every reason to do so.

Our Declaration of Independence says, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Unless you are Gay and want to get married. Or at the very least have the same rights as married couples.

The major argument put forth by all who are not Gay seems to be the definition of marriage. Our religions, I'm told, tell us it is an institution to be shared by one man and one woman. I can buy that. I can also buy the opposing point of view.

As with all serious issues, there are no clear cut answers. Just like the argument of when life actually begins, so rages the controversy of whether one is born Gay. Those arguments will continue as long as man resides on earth for there is no defining criteria other than the opinion of one set of "experts" pitted against another.

I should like to think the time has come to accept the fact that we are not all the same. Depending on the division of those pesky little genes we have different proclivities. Some of us are more attracted to our own sex. Even to the point of falling in love. Have you ever tried to not fall in love? Should how people who fall in love and want to spend their lives together be legislated by those who oppose their lifestyle?

It can't be easy being Gay. I read the column in the Spokesman written by a Lesbian. She has a partner, a couple of kids and they've just bought a home. The owner of the house they bought warned the neighbors about "them". What a great start in a new neighborhood!

Gays are becoming more and more forthright about their lifestyle. They are pioneers in a cause not unlike Martin Luther King's quest for equality. Is it not time that be granted?

As with any cause, there are those within the ranks that do more harm then good. Like the "gangsta" image put forth by many Blacks. It's an "in your face" posture meant to intimidate and it does. The same goes for the "I'm here and I'm queer" in your face Gays. They are their own worst enemy. There's a limit to the effectivness of the squeaky wheel!

But for all the others still closeted, or those we live and work beside who have inched out, we owe them more then they're getting. If they'd be willing to compromise language for rights I really believe most people would be satisfied. What's the matter with having a civil union? Many heterosexual couples have civil unions if you will. They wed in the eyes of the law but forego a religious ceremony.

Had Hub had his way, that's what we would have had. I just don't think tinkering with constitutional amendments in the fever of fear and anger is the way to solve the problem. It won't make it go away. It will just stoke the fever of hatred. Haven't we had enough?

At the very least they deserve consistency. How, in good conscience, can a state and the people within okay Gay unions, marriages if you must, then take them away? They're not living in sin, they're living in limbo. It's unconscionable.