This week, my fellow Observers, I found myself in a dilemma due to some feedback that I received over last weeks article. For the few Observers who actually read it, you already know that it was one of my longer pieces and I had mentioned in it that I had edited... a lot. Due to that editing, I left out certain aspects that I deemed unnecessary because I naïvely assumed that most were common knowledge. Much to my disappointment, on more than one instance, I found out I was mistaken. Mistaken in my assumption, mistaken in my definition of common knowledge, in my interpretation of the subject matter, in the fact that I thought I knew a friend and what his views were, and mistaken that at 50 years old I wouldn't have to suffer being spoken to like a child anymore. In last week's article I also mentioned a couple of times that I could be wrong. Using it as a figure of speech in my writing, but I didn't realize how wrong I was until it was pointed out to me.
Now to my dilemma. If there is one thing I hate doing is rehashing subjects. I have done so on occasion when current events merited my doing so, but as you know, my loyal reader, it has been in a very limited fashion. My wife made the comment to me while reading her my thoughts and helping me decide what to keep, that due to last weeks content dealing with so many faceted sides of the gay hater gem that I might have to make it a two parter. As I am constantly reminded, as usual, she has been proven correct once again. Taking into consideration the fore mentioned comments I received and going over my edited notes I have decided to forgo a new subject and further comment on last weeks issue, once again, and amend some of my succinct statements with a little more explanation of my views. Hopefully, after this, I can put this issue to bed... for this week anyway.
From bottom to top, let's start with the button paragraph of my last article which dealt with family, it's definition and how I felt it related to marriage. Some conservative critics of mine pointed out to me that family, looked at in the light of the issue at hand, has little or nothing to do with marriage. Far be it from me to point out that I have constantly heard statements from their faction that same sex marriage is destroying the American family ideal. That camp has also stated adamantly that they believe our country's family values are in the illegitimate toilet because a family should be based in marriage first, then children. So it would seem that marriage is a flip-flop issue for them that they use as a universal remote to fit their argument depending on what channel they're watching that hour. With these people wanting to have their cake, eat it as well and hold out for the option of having seconds while playing the marriage "definition of the day" card, I think I'll stick with my original position and keep my personal philosophy of what a family is in tact. Let these people keep changing their minds to fit their needs, while I continue to keep my fingers crossed that their family line and way of thinking ends with them. If there is any balance in the universe we can all only hope that most of them don't breed.
In the same paragraph I also commended the Supreme Court for making, what I felt, was the right decision when they legalized same sex marriage. Nay Sayers have stated to me and others that it was not the Supreme Court's decision to make. That they ignored the 10th amendment that asserts states legislate themselves and they should be allowed to define marriage laws. I was also criticized for saying Ted Cruz needed a "refresher course in the system of checks and balances". I was reminded, that in that system, the Supreme Court is not the branch of government that makes laws. Yes....I know this.... but thank you for reminding me and your comments. I can only elaborate by reasserting my opinion that the Supreme Court did not create marriage law. It only interpreted the current existing laws within the guidelines of the constitution. Exactly what that branch is supposed to do. I will, however, amend my "refresher course" statement to include my critics as well as Mr. Cruz because apparently they seem to share the same misconception. Funny thing is that these 10th grade civics class, ignorant "American" dropouts don't complain when the Supreme Court makes a stand on an issue that they are in favor of. They didn't seem to cry and moan too much or accuse them of "overreaching" their authority on the recent overturning of gun control laws certain states were trying to pass and were deemed in conflict with the 2nd amendment... did they? I personally didn't like my government telling me twenty years ago that I had to put on my seatbelt. I didn't see any presidential candidates running up to champion me when I got a ticket for not wearing one. I didn't even get a phone call..... fine.
I also dismiss the claims that the Supreme Court overstepped it's authority when it comes to marriage due to individuals religious freedom. It didn't. It acted exactly as it should because marriage in every state is looked upon by the law as not a religious union, but a legal binding contract. Every State. You cannot go to a church and get married without a license approved by the government. You also can't go to a church to get a divorce. If you tried to get either from Father Flimflam or Reverend Righteous they'd send you to your town hall to fill out some paperwork. Moreover, if your requesting the latter, you don't seek clergy to decide it... you go before a judge. Again, these people wagging their prejudicial tongues have to decide how they are defining just what they are wagging them about. If marriage should be treated as a religious freedom then why is the government involved at all? Maybe it's because they want to keep that licensing revenue coming in, but that is neither here nor there. What is, is the fact that marriage is regulated by law, falls under the jurisdiction of the law and has to be treated as such by any court. Since a good portion of the states individually sat on the indecisive intolerant fence and couldn't decide collectively within their own states constitutions to honor two consenting adults choosing to enter into a legal contract with each other in order to pursue their happiness without prejudice or "judicial tyranny", Mikey, they simply made the decision for them because it was unconstitutional for them not to do so. Furthermore, for anyone to suggest that this decision conflicts with a citizen's right to practice their religious freedom is ludicrous for so many reasons. I'm going to single out a couple of them and then move on. First, states and the federal government by law have to stay out of their citizen's religions to begin with. The government a has no say whatsoever (at least they're not supposed to) in anyone's choice of religion, beliefs or the practice thereof and the Supreme Court's ruling reflects that. Second, if churches or religious groups don't want to honor a government issued marriage license to a same sex couple... guess what?.... They don't have to and most of them don't. That's the practice of religious freedom. It is exercised within the faith of your religion not within the letter of the law. It is also a choice made by a group upon religious principle within the laws of the governing body. And before anyone climbs out of the woodwork and tries to use that last statement against me (again) by saying I contradicted myself, I submit that if any religion within it's practice, breaks the law of the jurisdiction that it is in, will fall subject to that law being enforced against said practice..... so there!
Finally, in regards to my comments that were in response to statements made by Louie Gohmert and Ben Carson that suggested that the same sex marriage ruling opens the door for people who want to marry animals. I posed the question, and I'll quote myself "Really Ben? You honestly think that anyone is going to seriously entertain the notion of changing the marriage laws to include a person wanting to marry a goat.... or their dog?". According to my critics.... There are people entertaining this. With three showings a day including a matinee on the bestiality big screen with popcorn, Livasnaps, fresh water and soda at the canine concession stand. So... I guess I was wrong.... No, not about the issue. What I was wrong about was all the idiots and morons who actually think that this could and will happen and have to have it explained to them why it can't and won't. I honestly can't decide which is worse, but here goes. So get your doodle pads and Crayola's out and pay attention so that you can write this down. Maybe your mommy will hang it on the fridge for you. This is why Fluffy can't get married. I've already made this point, but I'll repeat it, just for the sake of argument. Marriage is a legal binding contract entered into by two consenting adults. In most states a person is legally an adult at the age of 18. Although Fluffy may very well be that old in poodle years, that's the only criteria she possibly meets as far as the law is concerned and that is a slim chance at best. When it comes to acquiring a marriage license, unfortunately Fluffy can't consent, (that loving look in her eyes doesn't count) agree to or even sign the contract. Besides, can you imagine what would happen if her parents objected because she's marrying outside of her breed? As ridiculous as this explanation sounds, what's even more so are the people suggesting that our society would even consider allowing it. Anyone who has a pulse and even half a rational brain can't even consider taking these ideas seriously and have to look at them as jut an attempt at using them as shock value to bring attention to and justify their cause, nothing more.
I started writing this weekly current event article in an attempt to create an open forum of discussion about these events and topics. I appreciate all the comments I receive via internet or verbal and I listen to all feedback. I understand that my comments may sound just as ridiculous to some as some of their ideals sound to me. But understand that this is how we communicate. This is how we learn from and about each other. This is how change is made. With different ideals and compromise. As long as we listen to each other and accept ideas within that compromise that are based in logic and rooted in common sense, progress is made, no matter how small. What bothers me is how quickly we can ignore, dismiss and talk over each other just because we disagree. Just as the saying "If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck." teaches us to look clearly at what is presented to us in a realistic light, I submit that if you hear something that sounds crazy and idiosyncratic the first time, listen again and confirm that you heard right... but do listen before you discard it. I choose very carefully which comments I receive to dismiss. It's not very many and I do not dismiss them lightly. Because I believe that even if something sounds ridiculous, there is the possibility within every opinion of an idea that could hold credence to better ourselves. Everyone's opinion does matter and we should all pay attention to each other whether we agree or not. Strictly an Observation. If you'll excuse me, my daughters stuffed animals are getting married and I'm the best man.
