Wulfie's Wurld

Commentary: Sacred Institution

“I believe [marriage is] a sacred institution that is critical to the health of our society and the well-being of families, and it must be defended.” Thus spake President Bush yesterday in reaction to a decision made earlier by the New Jersey courts. Let's ignore the fact that the decision was about a slightly different subject.

I have only three things to say about that particular statement. First, it's George Bush's opinion. He has a right to hold that opinion. I'm willing to stick my neck out and suggest that, politics aside, that really is his opinion and merely rhetoric to win votes from the Religious Right, and not merely to stir up the homophobic vote less than two weeks from Election Day. It is one of the reasons I went into the military--not to defend my opinion, but to defend all opinions, whether they agreed with mine or not. I may not agree with this opinion, but I respect it.

Second, I'd like to point out the discrepency of the rhetoric versus the reasoning. If marriage truly is "critical to the health of our society," I'd imagine that marriage should therefore be encouraged. Currently, married couples are in the minority. There are more people living together or remaining single than are married in our country. If marriage is critical, why work against a small segment from taking part and by so doing, increasing the health of society and families and the overall commonweal? If marriage is so critical, why not also encourage those living together to get hitched? I don't hear anything at all along those lines. If I didn't know the background of this contention, and looked at the President's statement at face value, I'd think it was an argument used by the homosexuals, and not an argument against them.

Third, I'd like to point out the use of the word "sacred." That's the part that scares me. That the President has an opinion doesn't bother me. That it differs from mine doesn't bother me. That it's moronically illogical doesn't bother me. Use of the word "sacred," however, does.

"Sacred" comes from the Latin to consecrate or make holy, and is defined as "dedicated or set apart for the service or worship of deity." It not only has religious connotations, it has religious denotations. The scary part isn't that this happens to be someone's opinion, but that this person is an elected government official and speaking in an official capacity. The Bill of Rights to the Constitution says that Congress shall make no laws respecting an establishment of religion. The Legislative Branch shouldn't do it, the Executive Branch damn well shouldn't be doing it or advocating it be done. That is not the way to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." And if that is the best of the President's ability to do so, then he is unfit for office.

In my opinion, all citizens of the US should enjoy the same rights. Marriage, as currently defined, carries with it legal rights. The direction ahead seems perfectly clear to me. Either grant all people the same rights by allowing all people to marry, or separate the legal part of marriage from the religious part. That means that showing up before the pastor and getting married may give someone the warm fuzzies, but to receive legal recognition of the bond, that same couple must also appear before a Justice of the Peace and form a legal, civil union. Various religions will be free to restrict "marriage" however the wish, because it will have no impact legally. One or the other.

Either that, or stop quibbling about definitions and stop wasting everyone's time on these stupid non-issues and deal with the issues that are killing people.

Commentary: Why Political Junkmail Works

I don't know about you, but I live in California. That means that almost any new proposition, whether added to the ballot by the State Legislature or by petition collectors who sit at little tables in front of super markets, results in ammending the State Constitution, which is now more of a confused Gordian knot than ole Gordo ever could imagine.

But it's okay. I got my state-supplied "Official Voter Information Guide," all 191 pages. The damned thing looks thicker than the US Code. It's pretty daunting. It's the document I use to make my decisions. I can see the proposed text, the impartial summary, the impact, and arguments for and against as supplied by those individuals either for or against it. It's, in my opinion, the best way to make a decision. Weigh the relative merits and bad points, think about them, run over them again, do a gut check, then decide yea or nay, and vote that way.

But 191 pages?

I was thumbing through the mail, and scattered in amongst the bills and the people wanting me to refinance, were the slick, full-color "flyers" of the various candidates, all of whom are honest, have great values, tons of exeperience, and are not evil like their opponents. I noticed on one of the flyers a recommendation on how to vote for the various propositions. Wow, if I was to take those recommendations, I would save hours studying the issues and sweating over trying to make the right decision. Ah, but do I trust them? Or was that flyer from one of the evil ones?

Such an easy trap to fall into. Let someone else make the decision for me. But if I were to do so, how would I decide whether the recommendations were good or evil (after all, we no longer live in a full color society--everything is either black or white now)? If I was a Democrat, I'd suppose that the Democrats were good and the Republicans were evil, and vote the way the Dem party hacks would want. If I were a Republican, I'd suppose the opposite, and end up voting the way the Pubbie party hacks wanted.

I guess I'd better study the issues.

What about the candidates themselves. Should I examine the voting records (and probably the police records) of the various incumbants, and check out the positions of the challengers? That would be the right thing to do. That would also be an incredibly time consuming thing to do, and let's face it, my time is valuable. Really. Or do I remember that I'm a Dem or Pubbie and just vote the party, and give up my voice. I might feel guilty if I do that. I'd better read all the political flyers of my current party and get all the warm fuzzies that I'm making a good choice by voting their way, and decide that the others are evil.

Alas, as a moderate and affiliated with no party, I have to make an informed decision on my own. So I throw the political junk mail away, unread. I study the issues and candidates objectively. That means I have to understand them. That means I'm going to be spending many hours of my valuable time doing this. It could be as much as six to eight hours. Perhaps more. But you know, six to ten hours, once every year or two around election time, is not a bad price to pay for Democracy. In fact, it's a bargain.

I wish everybody felt the same.

Question:

Could someone please explain to me why being homosexual is a political issue? Could someone please explain to me why the sex of people who wish to marry is a political issue?

Perhaps, if I was gay, I'd understand it, but I don't.

It seems to me if being gay is genetic, then it could be considered by some a type of handicap. Should we pass laws against people who are born blind or without fingers?

It seems to me that if being gay is a choice, how does that choice affect me? Should we pass laws against people who choose to go skydiving? Both are activities I wouldn't engage in, but that's my preference.

What I see is a religious prejudice against gay people. It seems to me that if it's religious, any issues would be between the gays and God, and again, should have no part in politics. It seems to me like it's a nice gimmick to stir up religious frenzy in the the political process, particularly around election time.

If not, if there is a real relationship between politics and homosexuality, would someone please please please explain it to me?