One More Blow For Freedom Of Conscience
Two out of fifty. Does that sound like good odds to you? Well, when you're fighting an uphill battle for simple human rights, and you're fighting your own government(s) for them, two out of fifty is a pretty good start.
Yesterday, Iowa became the second American state to allow same-sex marriage. And if you didn't know it already, Massachusetts (yup, home of "Banned in Boston!") was the first.
Slowly but surely, The You Ess of Eh is becoming the country they say they want the rest of the countries in the world to be -- a country where people are free to be themselves, to live as they wish to live without undue imposition by restrictive rules and regulations, where each person may live by the dictates of his own conscience without fear of being persecuted by those who disapprove.
Of course, this decision was immediately protested by idiots. Some of them are elected idiots. The governor-who-would-be-president, Mitt Romney, said: "The ruling in Iowa today is another example of an activist court and unelected judges trying to redefine marriage and disregard the will of the people as expressed through Iowa's Defense of Marriage Act. This once again highlights the need for a Federal Marriage Amendment to protect the traditional definition of marriage as between one man and one woman." Apparently, he doesn't like the idea of "unelected" or "activist" decision-makers. Someone really oughta clue him in that most voters are unelected; and a good number of them are also (or have been) activists at something or other. He is showing supreme contempt for his own constituents, and he wants to be president? Oh...right...
And I dunno where he gets his information, but usually the will of the people is not to have narrow-focus political hacks make all their decisions for them. Most people want to make those decisions for themselves, thankyouverymuch. Tradition be damned. Some traditions really need to be disposed of while wearing a hazmat suit. It also used to be tradition that you had to be white, male, and a property owner in order to vote. No one else was deemed suitable to have a say in the running of the country. And yes, it was entrenched in law.
Then, earlier today, the judge in the case stayed his ruling, pending an appeal. But one couple managed to get their vows in before the stay. That, I think, will be that. There will be some more backing and forthing, some toing and froing, some gnashing and wailing, some kicking and stomping, and some prognostications of dire social consequences. And then life will go on. More gay couples will marry without causing any deaths or disasters. Jerry Falwell will provide air conditioning in hell. And in about ten years the next generation will be scratching their heads and wondering what all the fuss was about.
To those who oppose same-sex marriage, I say this: Prove to me that someone else's lifestyle will directly cause your death, and that you can save your own life only by opposing their right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and maybe I'll listen. Until then, shut up and mind your own business.
Yesterday, Iowa became the second American state to allow same-sex marriage. And if you didn't know it already, Massachusetts (yup, home of "Banned in Boston!") was the first.
Slowly but surely, The You Ess of Eh is becoming the country they say they want the rest of the countries in the world to be -- a country where people are free to be themselves, to live as they wish to live without undue imposition by restrictive rules and regulations, where each person may live by the dictates of his own conscience without fear of being persecuted by those who disapprove.
Of course, this decision was immediately protested by idiots. Some of them are elected idiots. The governor-who-would-be-president, Mitt Romney, said: "The ruling in Iowa today is another example of an activist court and unelected judges trying to redefine marriage and disregard the will of the people as expressed through Iowa's Defense of Marriage Act. This once again highlights the need for a Federal Marriage Amendment to protect the traditional definition of marriage as between one man and one woman." Apparently, he doesn't like the idea of "unelected" or "activist" decision-makers. Someone really oughta clue him in that most voters are unelected; and a good number of them are also (or have been) activists at something or other. He is showing supreme contempt for his own constituents, and he wants to be president? Oh...right...
And I dunno where he gets his information, but usually the will of the people is not to have narrow-focus political hacks make all their decisions for them. Most people want to make those decisions for themselves, thankyouverymuch. Tradition be damned. Some traditions really need to be disposed of while wearing a hazmat suit. It also used to be tradition that you had to be white, male, and a property owner in order to vote. No one else was deemed suitable to have a say in the running of the country. And yes, it was entrenched in law.
Then, earlier today, the judge in the case stayed his ruling, pending an appeal. But one couple managed to get their vows in before the stay. That, I think, will be that. There will be some more backing and forthing, some toing and froing, some gnashing and wailing, some kicking and stomping, and some prognostications of dire social consequences. And then life will go on. More gay couples will marry without causing any deaths or disasters. Jerry Falwell will provide air conditioning in hell. And in about ten years the next generation will be scratching their heads and wondering what all the fuss was about.
To those who oppose same-sex marriage, I say this: Prove to me that someone else's lifestyle will directly cause your death, and that you can save your own life only by opposing their right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and maybe I'll listen. Until then, shut up and mind your own business.