I've Got your Marriage Right Here.

My greatest fear is that Amber will leave me. Not voluntarily; I know her well enough and trust her and know she would never do that. That does not change the fact that something heinous could go down, healthwise. The only thing that I can think of that would make that worse is something like this.

Now, I managed to get away with fronting that I was James' sister when he missed his dismount, but that was luck; I did not expect them to believe me for a minute. I am not, in fact, sure that they did and maybe they decided it was ok since there weren't any medical decisions to be made (because, DUH, he was going to have surgery, like now), and further, if worse came to worse I would have bit the bullet and said fine, he's my husband, dammit, now talk to me.

(See what sacrifices I would make for you, O Keys.)

Last week, in the emergency room, the triage nurse did not bat an eye at the presence of either of them (James was along for comic relief). But stuff like the above linked just makes my entire insides go numb. What if, for example, I had been hit in the head and knocked out and there was an ambulance. How would Amber have been treated? Granted, we have not fully formalised ourselves.

However, years ago when my Aunt C and Uncle W were engaged, she, along with another aunt (N) who was not formalised were in a horrible wreck on the way to Kerrville for a bridal shower. We were mightily freaked out and my mom, my elder aunt, my grandmother, me and my sister hauled ass to get there. My mom's youngest brother (Ch), who at the time was the boyfriend of the latter wrecked aunt (N), had called us to tell us about it, and him his soon-to-be brother-in-law (W) were on the way up and we met them there.

The short of it is that since we were there my grandma could speak for C, her daughter, and I younger and don't remember much about the technicalities, but I do remember that Uncle Ch said that Aunt N was his wife.

No one asked for proof.

Now, were it me and Amber in that situation I would not be able to claim that at all.

My long-winded point is that there are those among us to say they love -me- and know that there is nothing wrong with -me- but that gays shouldn't be allowed to be married because of one or more of the following:

a) It is not God's plan
b) It's just wrong
c) Kids need a mother and a father (so, all widowed, divorced or otherwise single parents lose their kids?)
d) Gays are pedophiles
e) et cetera

To you, I now say this: YOU are WRONG.

Sarah in Chicago eloquently states why (specifically regarding the linked article):

To all the people that have qualms about us gaining marriage rights ... you are responsible here. Your bigotry contributes to this. There is no grey on this matter, no middle-road. Either you think gays and lesbians are equal to straights, or you don't.

You can't expect to merely 'disagree' on this matter and think we're going to somehow magically respect you for that. This is not a matter of merely agreeing to disagree on an issue; this is about you saying we don't deserve having full civil rights, and somehow we're supposed to respect that?

Emphasis mine. This is not a debate regarding the merits of radishes or whether or not MLB players get paid too much. This Is About People's Lives.

This is about -my- life. Think hard about how you would feel if the above happened to you. The situation is not different. If you cannot have the empathy to understand why this is important, then you may want to reconsider your definition of love. Denying someone the right to be with their loved one, whether your particular denomination thinks it is allowable or not, is not love. It is bigotry, and it is hate. So either reconcile with the fact that you are a bigot in this instance, or analyse your new information and change.

And know this: Wherever she goes, I will go. Wherever she lives, I will live. Where she dies, I will die, and there I will be buried. May God do this (death) and much worse to me if I let anything but death separate me from her.

And that damn well includes your bigoted laws.

But, it's not Welfare, so it's OK!

Ok, so when black people or Mexicans need a government bailout so they can eat or something, that's WELFARE, and that's BAD! BAD BAD! They need to pull themselves up by their bootstraps! They should not have made those mistakes!

But, when Wall Street banks need a government bailout, well, that's ok. Also, if you are an aspiring suburbanite who bought a house you can't afford, you can get a government bailout and that's ok too.

I suspect it has something to do with the fact that the latter class (Wall Street/pretentious dumbass) tends to be white. And Republican. Because for all the griping people do about their hard-earned money going to welfare: HEY! Two Hundred Million of your Hard Earned Dollars just went to some guys up in NYC who have more money right now than you will ever make in your entire life! We could have fed and clothed the poor population in the country for YEARS. YEARS!

Oh, right. They're black. Or wetba---- I mean Mexicans. And we don't like them, do they? They are LAZY! All of them! It's genetic.

Also, homosexuals are worse then Terrorists and are converting your two-year-olds.

War? What war? You mean the one we've been in for five years that we started? The one which has had 83974238 turning points? And on which we have spend more Hard Earned Dollars than I care to think about because my student loan interest is compounding by the nanosecond (also, we could have fed everyone in the country on steak for a few centuries)? Yes! That one!

Clearly caused by the homos.

How Stinky is Too Stinky?

This guy posted a good article discussing this picture. It turns up that he's a megachurch pastor and we know how I feel about that, but we will let that slide for a moment. I do not have to like his methods to acknowledge his point.

I left a comment on the blog of Shae (who is the pastor of a church in Baytown and a good guy), who was asking if Jesus (Christ) of Nazareth would wash the feet of the bin Laden (I had not yet looked closely enough at the photo to figure out quite who was whom, but it does not affect my point):

Why wouldn’t Jesus wash the feet of bin Laden? Look at the others in the picture — [edit: Kofi Annan], Merkel, Blair, Bush, [edit: former president of China], and I think the king of Jordan [edit: India] — arguably, [Annan] and Merkel are the only two who are, at least politically, more “worthy” of having their feet washed by Jesus. Mandela has been married three times [True, but he's not in the picture]. Merkel is, of course, Lutheran and a physicist and is therefore superior in all ways [I stand by this statement].

Does Osama fit the mortal definition of evil? He certainly fits -my- definition of evil, being that he willingly contributed to the deaths of quite a mass of people. Bush and Blair did/do similar. Are they less evil? Are they less evil because the people to whose deaths they are contributing are overwhelmingly a) brown and b) not Christians?

If “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (1 New Testament Some:where) then Merkel is no more worthy than Bush who is no more worthy than bin Laden who is no more worthy than me. Or Ann Richards. And, to say anything else is not only a double standard, but is to directly contradict Scripture. That is my theological argument.

My personal argument is that maybe if we’d go about washing each other’s feet more often instead of griping about sheetheads, dykes, and godless liberal sheetheaded dykes, maybe this wouldn’t be an issue and we could blog about bunnies or something.

I also stand by my statement regarding bunnies. At any rate, this fellow Boyd points out that we tend to allow patriotism to take precedence over our alleged Christianity (someone said that nationalism was one of the greater threats to Christianity ever seen by the human race. Or, I could have just made that up). God is clearly on -our- side because -we- are the good guys. Also, we have "In God We Trust" stamped on our money and that therefore makes God like us more. After all, the only way He can get any attention is by being put on some mortals' currency. Forget black holes and the Grand Canyon, those are laaaame compared to being acknowledged on the same object as George Washington.

This, I believe, is the tiny bit of something that started hurting inside of my brain as I watched the news of us bombing Baghdad and Silver Foot Junior intoning that God is (sniff) on our side. It is also one of the somethings which prevents my saying the pledge of allegiance. The something is "Who the Hell are we to judge who God likes?" I feel like we are the hanger-on kid, the one on the playground who when the big popular kid looks at him goes skipping home to his mom yelling, "He likes me! I'm popular! I'm one of the cool kids!" It's like we have to have some kind of validation, and once we think we have it, we can start beating up on the other unpopular kids because we think we're cool now.

This is starting to make me think about people interpreting the Bible to mean not at all what it means, which is a completely, utterly different subject and one into which I do not care to delve at this time. My final point is, however, that if anyone gets to have their stinky feet washed by Jesus, both physically and metaphorically, then so does everyone. God's grace is universal, and if it weren't, it wouldn't be grace. If God's grace is universal, then ours should be as well.

ENDA and the Ts

ENDA, for those who don't know, is a bill before Congress which is meant to prevent workplace discrimination against homos (in a similar vein to the Civil Rights Act of 1967, which left out homos and folks with disabilities; the disabled got added in the nineties). ENDA has been thirty years in the making and this year, for the first time, might have a chance to pass.

So, what's the problem?

"T"

Transgendered, transsexual (not transvestite. Guiliani is still covered). The newest version of the bill had the T in it, but Barney Frank, the openly homotastic sponsor of the bill chose to drop the T because there is no way in hell it would pass with the T in it. And then all hell broke loose.

John Aravosis, of AMERICAblog, wrote this article on Salon regarding the issue, as well as blogging about it extensively. And, as Aravosis is wont to do, he upset some people; my raison d'blog is this post on the Curvature. I generally respect the writers of the Curvature and the associated feminist blogs, and I respect their opinion this time, but I do think their reasoning is faulty. Follows is the comment I left on the Curvature; I think it sums my feelings up:

Frankly, I think y'all are a) taking Aravosis out of context, and b) passing too harsh of judgment upon him.

The first sentence of the paragraph whose quote, in this blog, begins "Civil rights legislation -- hell, all legislation..." actually begins in Aravosis' article as "The main argument, which I support: practical politics." And he's right. Yes, I agree fully that it sucks that women did not get the vote (federally) for fifty years after black men. And I fully understand the consternation of everyone on account of that. However, and I am saying this as a white gay female -- I think it is better for a minority to be partially represented than Not Represented At All. Furthermore, if you get into the history of the suffrage movements, for one thing it was a huge step for black men to even be recognised as men (and for black women to be recognised as women), and for another, there was precedent for -men- to vote. Women voting, no matter what their race, was a whole other kettle of fish for the country to deal with.

Does this make it right? Hell no. Never, at all. But it -is- the political evolutionary process. Things take time because people are stubborn. For me (or anyone) to argue passage of ENDA with the T or not at all, we would have to cease taking advantage of civil unions, domestic partnerships, and the domestic benefits offered by some employers. Why? Because our ultimate goal is marriage, and anything less is an insult, right?

I disagree -- while I would prefer (of course) federally recognised marriage, right now I would be happy knowing that any kids/cats/wealth I produce with my future wife would go to her if something hideous happens to me, and vice versa. If the government has to call that a civil union in order for that to happen, then so be it.

I fully understand that my example is different from the "T or not to T" issue -- but my point is that -any- step towards protection for the nontraditional/heterosexual community is a step in the right direction, and I believe that would be the point which Aravosis is arguing.

As for Aravosis being judgmental, the full sentence reads "I'm not passing judgment, I respect transgendered people and sympathize with their cause, but I simply don't get how I am just as closely related to a transsexual (who is often not gay) as I am to a lesbian (who is). Is it wrong for me to simply ask why?"

So the man is saying that he does not identify with the transsexual/transgender experience, but that he DOES identify with the gay experience. It looks to me like he's being honest. He is not being judgmental; he is saying that he does not feel related to a man who identifies as a woman. What's wrong with that? I cannot begin to identify with the experience of any given black person, and you know what? I cannot identify with the transsexual or transgender experience either.

Does this mean that I, and therefore Aravosis, find that the T does not deserve protection? By his own words, no, and neither do I.

The passage of ENDA (sans the T) at least puts the gay community into a better position to provide support and protection for the T community, and that alone is reason enough for its passage. Is it ideal? Not at all, and as soon as it passes we have to immediately begin work for an amendment to include the T, but progression and reform in this country has NEVER happened at once, it has NEVER been anywhere near good enough on the first go (just look up how Jim Crow affected the black man's vote), and it has NEVER affected all parts of any community equally.

We have to keep working for that, and in the interim, turning on people who dare be honest about their opinions (which may or may not coincide fully with our own) will be only a slide backward.

I am, as most people know, a fervent arguer against the excuse, as I see it, of the zeitgeist, or the time period in which something happened. I think that is a pass on all of the atrocities committed by people at other people. I have never stood for the argument of "Well, that's just how things were," because that leaves us open for "Well, that's just how things are," and I don't think that human morality has evolved that much -- we know, in our brains and hearts whether or not it is ok to enslave, beat, kill, and oppress each other, but we do whatever is most convenient and what ensures our own power. Because I'll bet you that if Jesus Christ Himself were to show up and officiate a gay wedding, the fundies would crucify Him.

At any rate, my point is that despite the fact that slow change is not at all quick enough, it is the reality of how things work. That does not make it right at all, and it seriously pisses me off when people tell that it's just how things work; I think that people should, as soon as they recognise hideousness, change it, instead of the process. However, the process is better than nothing at all, and it is unfair to eviscerate people who argue in favour of doing a practical something rather than a symbolic nothing.

Atheists and Christians and making the Twain meet? Part One of however long it takes me to figure this out.

So, day before yesterday I read this over at Blondesense and was freaked right out. This occurred for a variety of reasons, not the least of which being the the serious hostility I perceived in the writing. I decided to ruminate/marinate on the subject before I posted a piteous and/or angry reply, and I am glad I did on account of what transpired in the comments, the upshot of which is this:

yes, we are bashing religion - we ALWAYS do. we are not dehumanizing religion. I don't even know what that means. Actually, if you think about it, religious beliefs are what cause most "believers" to be hateful of others and to dehumanize. AND, the catholics are the biggest bunch of racists I know.

What frustrates me and our gang here is that we could really use the majority of believers out there because most ARE good people. We need them to wake up to the fact that their leaders are using "faith" (religious beliefs) to get away with what ever they want to do. It's been working like a charm for a few thousand years now!

and

we get angry at "them, they, those..." and I especially get mad at the "good christians" who don't take a stand. THEY piss me off. Yes, I love most of them BUT THEY PISS ME OFF TO NO END. And there's nothing I can do about it.

Fair enough, I realised. Which, this discussion also led to a clarification on the use of the word "Christian." Bloggers on this particular blog coined a term a while back, "Christianistas" either in response to the use of the word "Islamists" in the media, or to differentiate from normal people who, unfortunately, seem to share a religion (though, in my opinion, not a faith) with these power-hungry crackheads. Which is a totally academic term.

I can completely understand where your average atheist, Atheist, agnostic, unaffiliated and unconcerned, or other nonmainstream religion practicer comes from on account of the Christianistas do the same damn thing to your average mainline Protestant. And also to your completely non-average, non-mainline, but still essentially Lutheran, Protestant. I am really quite sure that the Quad preachers will show up next week.

And Jersey Cynic, who was the author of the post in question and the above comment bits, raises an incredibly fair point: "good Christians" are being anything but "good" if we/they do not put the smackdown on this kind of BS. Of course, going about that could be vaguely frightening and inconvenient (and will probably annoy Amber if she is with me when it happens), but when people are preaching hate in public, it is necessary that the smackdown be put on it or it will just grow.

Martin Niemoller, who spent time in Sachsenhausen and Dachau, but fortunately survived, wrote this:

When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.

When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.

When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.

When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.

It is incumbent on those who call themselves Christians to speak out for those who are NOT Christians (and for those who are not their denomination), lest something similar happen. And no matter what anyone says, if we just let it go, it WILL happen, because that is how it happened in the first place.

What does this mean for relationships between nonbelievers and Christians? I think it is a critical time for us to prove that we are, in fact, able to love those who may or may not love us back, who do not agree with us. If we are to call ourselves Christians then we most certainly make an attempt at behaving like that guy who we believe is the Christ. Otherwise, we can have all the faith in the world (as to move mountains, as it were) and we will yet have NOTHING.

If that happens, all the dogma and platitudes and feeling secure in ourselves will be for naught, because if the God in whom I put my faith does, in fact, exist, then He is going to think that we are full of crap and is going to let us know about it. Looking at the way that Christianity has evolved since the time of Jesus of Nazareth, I can completely see why people choose to turn away from it, and I honestly think the only reason why I have not is because I would rather try to fix it than give up.

Probably more later.

Elizabeth Edwards is So Hot Right Now.

And this is why:

Henry disagrees on her relative hotness, but he echoes my sentiment in a slightly more well-written manner. Cap tip to Feministing.

Obama Actually says Something

I've been annoyed with him lately for not really having anything to say, but in this speech, it looks like he's made up for it, at least a bit.

"Somehow, somewhere along the way, faith stopped being used to bring us together and faith started being used to drive us apart."

Well, give me a mud mask and call me Esther. A reasonably mainstream politician, to whom people are paying attention, is espousing a belief that I have been attempting to express for a while.

I hope someone listens; God is not a dividing, but a unifying force. He is The Force, and it is patently ridiculous that humans allow their varying perceptions of Him to become the focus of things.

Edit: To further the point, here is today's Opus, by Berkeley Breathed. He makes his point succinctly.