Religion

Gay Marriage, Church and State, and the First Amendment

by
Gay Marriage, Church and State, and the First Amendment

Gay Marriage and LGBT rights have been a big thing in the news over here in the States for the past few months. I mentioned some of my thoughts in L’affaire Eich a while back and most people who know me have a general idea of what my thoughts are but I do still manage to surprise them by one thing (though, really, it shouldn’t be so surprising — it’s just my adherence to it even when it’s not to my advantage that throws people).

 

In my mind, there is no sentence more important in all of history than this one:

 

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

 

Emphasis mine.

 

That right there, folks, is the most important sentence in all of history. It’s the most amazing sentence ever written. It’s a sentence that, in one fell swoop, severely limits the power of a new-born government and places power directly in the hands of the people. It’s the sentence that makes “consent of the governed” actually work. Yes, yes, the Second Amendment is very important and I’ll always defend it. But without the First Amendment, the Second would be pointless because there’d be nothing to protect.

 

The First Amendment protects a lot of things: freedom to assemble, freedom of association, freedom of religion, freedom from being religious, freedom to speak your mind, freedom to argue and debate, freedom to protest, freedom to lobby the government, freedom to advertise, freedom to advocate for the overthrow of the government.

 

Notice I said “protects” and not “promises” or “grants.” All rights in the Bill of Rights are negative rights (something I’ll touch on in detail in a later post). No one is “given” anything — the assumption is that the people already have these rights and the government is told to keep its grubby paws off them even if they think they’re meddling “for our own good” or “for the children” or whatever the catchphrase du jour is this week.

 

The First Amendment also explicitly forbids Congress from granting favor or disfavor to any particular sect or religion. There’s no official religion in the United States even though some colonies were founded as charters of a specific church or movement. When it comes to religious beliefs and practices, Congress (and via the Fourteenth Amendment, the States) cannot interfere except in a very narrow range of circumstances such as parents refusing emergency medical services for their child if a third party contacted them, human sacrifice, slavery via contract, and things of that nature (granted, I’m not a lawyer so if I’m wrong, let me know). Congress cannot pass a law that would force a religious institution to support something against its fundamental beliefs — such as forcing the Amish or Quakers to speak out in support of a war, forcing the Catholic church to fund abortions, forcing an Islamic group to speak out in favor of strip bars, or forcing a Jewish synagogue to sell its members on the health benefits of bacon.[1]

 

The flip-side of this is that no religion or sect can force its members to vote in a certain manner, to refrain from certain beliefs or behaviors by force of law, or to support certain policies or candidates in political matters. A church can beseech. It can plead. It can remark upon. But it cannot force its members to action in the political sphere. Yes, a church can refuse to perform blessings or rites upon members who violate the church’s teachings or beliefs but it can’t call up the local sheriff and have him arrest a member for being a Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Socialist, Anarchist, or anything like that. It can’t take a member to court for being in favor of a tax increase, gay marriage, or voting against the Reverend’s daughter on the local school board.[2]

 

There is a legal separation of church and state that acts to protect both and this is a Good Thing. The church can, just as any other group, try to convince its members to live a certain way or to vote a certain way but it can’t force them to do so or punish them for not doing so by force of law. The state can’t tell the church that it has to perform certain rites or that it has to favor certain political policies. The church can’t baptize Caesar and Caesar can’t rule over the church. That’s a good thing because every single time we’ve mingled the two, it’s gone badly. Just look at the corruption in the Catholic Church during the era when the Pope ruled as a temporal king and claimed political dominion over all sovereigns. Look at the corruption that led to deaths in Salem, Massachusetts when all the minister had to do was point and say “witch.” Look at the way that Catholics, Quakers, Baptists, and Jews were disenfranchised in the UK and forced to pay taxes to support the Anglican church or be jailed for refusal to go against their conscience. Look at how Protestants were disenfranchised in France and Spain. Look at how Christians and Jews are treated in the Middle East (outside of Israel) today. Look at how anyone of faith is treated in China today. Letting the government enforce religious orthodoxy is a terrible idea because not a single human alive is perfect. Letting religious orthodoxy control the government is a terrible idea because religions are run by humans who aren’t perfect. Yes, yes, when Jesus returns, He’ll set up a perfect kingdom. Jesus is a special exception to the whole “terrible human” thing. As soon as you can find someone alive who is as perfect in every way as Jesus is, let me know and that person will have my vote. Until then, I’m going to function under the “power corrupts” adage and try to keep Caesar chained and unbaptized and keep religion from ascending Caesar’s seat.

 

Why? Because separation of Church and State is one of the only things that makes the whole American Experiment work. Without it, we’re just another England or France. Without it, we’re not America anymore. Which is why I favor stripping all religions and sects of the power to perform legal marriages and going with a system like the current one in France. Currently, in France, if you want to get married (and have it be legal), you go to the Mayor’s office and apply for a marriage license. You have to post banns for a certain amount of time to give anyone who knows a legitimate legal reason why the marriage shouldn’t happen a chance to raise an objection. Then, you go before the Mayor who reads off the laws concerning marriage, you sign on the dotted line, and bam. You’re married. If you’re religious, you can then go to the church/temple/synagogue of your choice and have a matrimonial ceremony in line with your faith. The minister can’t make the marriage legal to the French government and the French government can’t tell the minister who they have to marry or who they are forbidden from marrying in their faith.

 

“Oh, but then you’re trampling on our rights!” I hear some cry. “You’re forcing us to think gay marriage is okay if you make it legal. Next people will marry their brothers and sisters and dogs and cars…” Yeah, no. Every place has laws regarding consanguinity for public health reasons. People too closely related who petition for legal marriage are refused because of the likelihood of their offspring having recessive birth defects come up and tainting the entire gene pool in a region. However, these laws don’t come with fines or jail times (otherwise there are entire communities in Appalachia who would be in trouble). The government just refuses to grant a license to them. Same thing with animals or inanimate objects — if they can’t express consent in human terms that anyone who speaks the common tongue can understand, they can’t sign the certificate. And, fun fact: it’s actually not illegal to marry your pet in some places yet no one seems to do so in those areas. It’s not that it’s permissible — just not forbidden. So, refusing to ask the government to use the power of law to enforce your religious definition of marriage will not lead to the downfall of the civic order. And, there are several religions where same sex marriage is permitted as a rite and refusal to grant legal status to those couples constitutes an infringement of their First Amendment rights — so long as ministers are allowed to perform legally sanctified marriages. Remove the ministers’ power to do so and let the local government decide and you’ve removed the danger there.

 

You’ve also removed the government’s ability to come into your church and tell you what to teach if you do that. Right now, a lot of conservatives in the US are all aflutter that the government is allowing lawsuits to compel people to perform services for gay marriages when gay marriage is against their beliefs. There are rumors that the government might even force ministers to bless such unions by the threat of withdrawing their power to perform marriages at all. Many conservatives fear that soon they’ll be legally compelled to support a lifestyle they find to be sinful.[3] The first step to removing the ability for the government to have the first say in your religion is to divest ministers of the power to perform legally binding marriages. Many conservatives (my mother among them) will scoff at this and have a Wall of Text from the Bible about how this tramples her rights or some other such nonsense. It doesn’t. It actually protects her church from the government. Don’t believe me?

 

Well, it worked in France.

 

France is, compared to the US at least, a pretty liberal country. Not quite so liberal as the Netherlands but still pretty liberal. Just recently, gay marriage became legal in France and gay couples can now go before the Mayor and be married legally. That’s equality in France. However, the LGBT lobby in France wanted to compel churches (particularly the Catholic church) to bless such unions by performing the Sacrament of Matrimony and by letting gay couples partake of the Eucharist (which means that the couple would be “in communion” with the church instead of violating its teachings on sexual purity by living an unrepentant homosexual life). The case didn’t get very far at all. From what I understand (and again, I welcome correction if this is wrong), the LGBT group got into the courtroom and the judge looked at them like they’d dribbled on their shirts before informing them that the French government had no power to force a religious institution to perform any rite or support any belief beyond “you can’t murder people or take their stuff” and that if the LGBT group wanted the Roman Catholic Church to perform same-sex Matrimonial Rites, they needed to take it up with the Church because the government didn’t have the authority and didn’t want the authority to tell any religion what it had to do or teach. The case was dismissed and though I’ve heard rumblings of it going before the EU High Court, I have a feeling that even as batcrap-crazy as they can be, the EU court will rule against it on the same grounds.

 

Separation of church and state means just that: the two are separate and neither can compel, by force, the other to do a damned thing it doesn’t want to do. Even if it’s “for equality” or “for the children” or “because it’ll hurt my feelings if this doesn’t happen.” You’re not compelled to go to a specific church, believe specific things, or perform specific religious duties — you can always go find or start a religion or church that is exactly what you want it to be. Hell, L. Ron Hubbard did this and I’ve seen plenty of Protestant churches spring up over some dispute about which SEC team to support in the NFL semi-finals or because someone ate a bad piece of fish and had a revelation (I swear, it does seem to me that Protestants make things up as they go along). But, no one can force a church to do anything that church doesn’t want to do. If your feelings are hurt: go somewhere else.

 

“But I want to be Catholic/Orthodox/part of the Southern Baptist group/Muslim/Orthodox Jewish/whatever and they say I’m violating their beliefs by being gay.” Guess what? You are. Part of belonging to a religious faith means living by its teachings even when it’s not easy or convenient. I’m Eastern Orthodox. That means that if I want to keep calling myself Orthodox, I have to get up on Sundays (even when I just want to laze about in bed) and go to Liturgy. I have to refrain from having wild orgies. I can’t visit a psychic. I can’t sit around and say that God doesn’t exist. I even sometimes have to fast and spend time praying. I can’t say that the Patriarch of Antioch and All the East is stupid (well, I can, but it’s not really a good policy). I can’t demand to go up to the altar because I’m a woman and that’s a man’s place. I can’t demand to be made a priest (though I could become a monk if I wanted). I can’t have a boyfriend move in and sleep with me — I have to get married to him first.[4] Those are some of the rules of being Orthodox and I knew them when I converted. If I find them that onerous, I’m free to leave and find another faith. I’m not free to demand that an institution that’s been around for 2000+ years change its views just for me. If the place you go to worship says that you’re violating their beliefs, then you can either suck it up and try to live according to their teachings or you can leave and find some other place. If someone refuses to perform a non-vital[5] service for you because of their own religious beliefs, then you can suck it up and find someone else. You can’t force an institution or individual to change their beliefs for you any more than they can force you to change yours for them.

 

That’s separation of church and state. Don’t like it when it works out against you? Then gather an army and go conquer some territory and form your own damned nation and see how it works out for you.

 

For now, that’s enough for this entry. There will be future entries in this vein given my fanatical adherence to the First Amendment and all its ramifications but, for now, I think I’ve probably pissed everyone off enough. 🙂

 

— G.K.

[1]Yes, this also touches on the birth control debate centered around the Hobby Lobby case and Obamacare. I will go into more detail on this in a future entry because this entry is long enough and needs no more meandering.

 

[2]A religious institution can refuse to perform sacraments for people who violate its teachings but it cannot call upon the law or the courts to enforce its teachings. It can, however, call the police if it catches someone breaking the law (such as someone breaking into a church to steal money or commit vandalism) and it can sue someone who has violated a contract with it (such as suing a contractor who was supposed to fix the roof and did not do so).

 

[3]And, seeing the backlash against Eich and photographers and caterers who refuse to perform services for gay marriages, conservatives actually do have some reason to fear that their lives will be made impossible if they donate to a cause against gay marriage or if they themselves refuse non-vital services to gay couples. In America, believing that someone is doing something sinful and not wanting to support that shouldn’t ever lead to a witch hunt against that person or group. The KKK should be free to believe blacks are inferior. The Catholic church should be free to believe that abortion is murder. The Baptist church should be free to believe that homosexuality is sinful. This is one area where the LGBT groups have gone too far in trying to force everyone to wholeheartedly support them and is fodder for a future entry.

 

[4]Having a live-in boyfriend/girlfriend for a “trial before marriage” is against the Church’s teachings. However, suppose I were sick or injured and needed someone to stay with me around the clock to help take care of me. If my boyfriend were the only one who could do that (say I couldn’t afford to hire a nurse and had no family nearby who could help me in such a manner), then he could stay in my home and sleep separately from me and the church, while not being a-okay with it, wouldn’t consider it sinful as long as we resisted the temptation to engage in hanky-panky without a wedding first. Or if my boyfriend was having work done on his house that necessitated he vacate the premises for a few days (like fumigation or major construction), again, he could crash at my place but not in my bed.

 

[5]Non-vital means just that — not required to live. Having a particular photographer work your wedding isn’t a matter of life and death. Having a particular caterer work your wedding isn’t a matter of life and death. Having a particular privately-owned building or hall host your wedding or reception isn’t a matter of life or death. However, an ER doctor or an EMT/paramedic cannot refuse to perform life-saving services on someone who is gay. A surgeon who finds out mid-surgery that the patient is transsexual can’t refuse to continue treatment. A Catholic doctor who is working as an OBGYN cannot refuse to perform an abortion for an ectopic pregnancy (a pregnancy where the fetus implants somewhere that is not the uterus. Such pregnancies can almost never result in a live birth and can almost always kill the mother if they are allowed to proceed by rupturing the Fallopian tube and paving the way for internal bleeding) if the woman comes to him in an urgent situation (such as when the pregnancy is about to result in a rupture of the Fallopian tube which can be fatal). A Muslim nurse cannot refuse to change a Jewish patient’s bandages. A Jewish ER doctor cannot refuse to treat a skinhead who’s been in a car wreck. When it’s a matter of life and death (and not just butthurt feelings), doctors and nurses and medical personnel can be forced to save the lives of those who do things they believe are sinful. Likewise, people in official positions like judges, police, firemen, and lawyers can be forced to protect or serve people who do things or believe things they find abhorrent (but are not illegal). That is something that all people who choose to go into those professions are taught and warned about early on. Most doctors will try to find a way to practice medicine that isn’t in conflict with their faith but, if it comes down to saving someone’s life, they can be compelled to perform the service even if they believe it is sinful or if they hate the person and everything that person stands for.

Yes, Virginia, I Do Hate Christmas

by
Yes, Virginia, I Do Hate Christmas

I actually don’t have a huge beef with the holiday itself, mind. I don’t mind going to Mass or Liturgy. I don’t mind the Biblical teachings or the religious songs at all. I think that Nativities are charming and that there’s not much cuter in this world than a bunch of kids in terry-cloth robes trying to remember their lines as they re-enact the First Noel. I don’t mind the Christmas trees and the candles and lights so much — after all, I’m damned proud of my Scottish heritage. We were Nordic, once. The holdovers from the feast of Frey are charming. The holly. The mistletoe. The wreaths hanging on the doors.

 

But I hate Santa Claus. Oh, when I was younger I adored Saint Nick who brought presents to everyone. The magic of it all. I loved that. Still do. But what really has made me hate Christmas with a passion is the commercialization of it all. Black Friday. Cyber Monday. Sale sale sale! Get the hottest new toy of the season! Get this! Buy that! Augment your winter wardrobe. Get this sexy lingerie for that special Santa in your life. Buy! On sale now! Savings! Just in time for the holidays…Ca-ching, ca-ching, ca-ching.

 

I work in marketing. I’ve worked in marketing for a lot of years now. At my old job, we did marketing right. At my current job, we don’t. There’s nothing sacred, nothing holy, nothing we won’t exploit in the chase for the Almighty Dollar. Frankly, most marketing departments would exploit and screw over a wet dream if there was money in it. I probably shouldn’t work in marketing — I’m tremendously bad at exploitation. Instead of writing gift-guides about how to get the hottest, greatest, and most expensive thing for your kids/SO/spouse/parents/friends/aliens from the Triangulum Galaxy whom you met while doing the pub crawl, I write gift guides about what might actually be useful and welcome by people in your life. I’ve always thought that if you were buying a gift for someone, you ought to put a little thought behind it. I generally avoid gift-cards unless I know it’s something the person would want. Me? I love getting gift cards for Amazon because I’ll use them. I go through books like most people go through underwear. And, I do tend to buy books for my loved ones because I want to share that magic with them. Books are like hand-held TARDISes. You can go anywhere in all of time and space just by opening one. And you can go back again and again. You can take an adventure and then imagine other ways it might have happened. Take characters and imagine other things they might have done.

 

Giving people books is my last, desperate, probably-in-vain attempt to re-infuse that lost magic in this exploited winter holiday. Giving people music is next on my list. Lastly, for the kids, I get them toys. Toys that they’ll keep for years. Things that they’ll play with and explore the world with. Last year, Mini-me got a bunch of dinosaurs, a book on dinosaurs, and a holding case for them. I like to imagine that she pulls them out and plays with them. Or that she matches the toys up to the pictures in the book. I like to imagine that she makes up stories about the dinosaurs. Maybe she does. Maybe she doesn’t. But she’s never going to get the Latest and Greatest in Toys from Aunt Kelly. No. I’m going to give her books. I’m going to give her toys that make her use her imagination. And, if I ever get a job where I can spend time with her, I’m going to do that and see just how her little brain works. I gave my nephew a book as well. It was from a game we both liked. I hope he enjoyed it. I gave his mother — my sister-in-law — a book. A book that helped me survive high school. I gave my quasi-sister a book. A book that made me want to become a writer. I gave my dad some books — books from a series that he and I both like.

 

I gave my mother an angel figurine because she collects those. That’s what she likes. But if she liked stories like I do, I’d give her a book. Books are magic. Books are my first love.

 

My most precious Christmas gift was a book. My late brother gave it to me. The Blood Jewels Trilogy by Anne Bishop. I still have it. I still read it. Took me a while to get into it but I did. My brother knew what I liked. He liked to read — albeit not to the extent that I do — and he shared that with me. He found a series he liked and he shared it with me. The fact that it was the last Christmas present I ever got from him just makes it that much more precious.

 

It wasn’t anything “on sale.” It wasn’t the latest, hottest release. It was a story. It had dark parts. It had funny parts. It had sad parts. It took you on an adventure. And he shared that with me. For so many years, I’d been trying to get him to read. And now he was. And he was sharing that with me.

 

Shit, I read Twilight because he did. He enjoyed it. I critiqued it. But I read it because he did. That was something we could share. My dad reads A Song of Ice and Fire because I got him hooked on the HBO series. But he got tired of waiting to see what would happen next and so he asked for the books. And he got them. That’s something we can share. I’m hoping to get my dad into The Wheel of Time, into Dragonlance, into The Death Gate Cycle, into The Mistborn Trilogy. Because that’s something we can share. I’m hoping to get my family watching Doctor Who because that’s something we can share. Great stories. Great acting. Very, very sexy Doctors. Wonderful companions. Adventure. Love. Separations. Tears. Life. Loss. Something that can be shared.

 

I can recall one Christmas when I was a teenager. I got lots of nice clothes. I got lots of nice things. But I wasn’t happy. Not until I opened up the last present and saw the first three books of the Meetings Sextant from the Dragonlance series. Then I was overjoyed. Because, even back then, when I was a surly, sullen, sarcastic teenager who lived to sass off her parents, something inside me knew that the clothes, the gadgets, the games, the gizmos — they wouldn’t last. But those books? Those damned books about elves and dragons and magic and love and death and betrayal and hope? Those would last.

 

People constantly wonder about what to get me. After all, I have plenty of computers (I own two and a half). I have plenty of games and gaming consoles. I have a good smartphone (iPhone 5s). I don’t really need a tablet computer. I have a Kindle. So, what to get me? Especially at Christmas? Well, I’ll tell you. It’s not that difficult.

 

Get me a book. History. Science. Math. Religion. Philosophy. Myth. Legend. Ghost Stories. Get me a story. Something that will last. Or, give me a memory. Instead of stressing over whether the turkey is perfect or there are enough deviled eggs or if the icing on the cake is right, sit down and talk to me. Tell me funny stories from when I was a kid. Tell me embarrassing stories from when I was a teenager. Tell me things about your life. About your childhood. Your youth. Things that happened before I was born — good and bad. Tell me the truth. Tell me about girlfriends or boyfriends you’ve had. Things you did. Memories you have. Sit down and listen to music with me. Not that tinny pop modern shit. The old songs. The Old Ways. Go to Mass* or Liturgy* with me. Don’t bother getting dressed in the latest Approved Fashions. Wear something warm and comfortable. Laugh with me. Cry with me. Watch frickin’ Doctor Who with me. Listen to me ramble on about things that don’t matter to you at all but are so terribly, terribly important to me. Things like Legend of Zelda. Video games. A TV series I’m writing. My dreams of going freelance or pro-writer.

 

You want to give me something? Give me something that will last. Something that won’t rot in my closet because I already have enough clothes and shoes (seriously, I have three pairs of shoes. How many more could I need?) Give me a memory. Give me a story. Give me laughter and tears. Give me your time.

 

Because one day, none of us will be here. We’ll all just be memories living in our descendants’ minds. Because that’s what lasts. Not the latest fashion. Not make-up. Not the stupid hats you Protestants insist on wearing to your weekly “who’s better dressed than you and who can say ‘Amen’ and ‘Halleluiah’ the most” meetings.* Not the food. Not the decorations. The memories. Give me those. That’s all I want. Memories. Things that tie the past to the present and the present to the future. Keep the bows. Keep the fancy wrapping paper. Keep the frivolous. I want your time. I want your memories. I want your stories. And I want to share mine with you. Because they’ll last.

 

Presents and Santa are for kids. Give me my meat and my mead. Give me yourself. Because you’re not going to be here with me forever and I want something of you to wrap around myself when you’re gone and it’s just me here all by myself.

 

Don’t ask me what I want for Christmas. I hate that over-commercialized excuse for a holiday. Instead, just give me you.

 

— G.K. Masterson

 

*All right, I’ll fess up. I was raised Catholic and converted to Orthodoxy because Catholicism was too liberal in doctrine for me. I think that Protestants are cute and adorable like little toddlers. But I have a really hard time taking them seriously. I mean, c’mon. Every week there’s a new Protestant church opening up because Brother Billy Joe Bob had a Deee-vine Re-ul-a-shun after eating some bad fish. I’m sure that the Trinity is flattered but doesn’t take them too seriously. Yeah, they’re Christian but they haven’t figured out the whole “coloring inside the lines” thing. They’re adorable but…honestly, who can take them seriously? Sorry, Mom! It’s the truth and if you doubt that, go open a history book. Catholics and the Orthodox were 1000 years old before the Protestant Reformation even thought about getting started! Your church is adorable but…yeah, I’d rather go to Mass with Dad and Mamaw because that makes sense to me.

 

Still, love you!

In Which I Make EVERYONE Angry

by
In Which I Make EVERYONE Angry

Right, I was raised not to discuss politics or religion publicly. Those two topics are guaranteed to incite strong emotions, cause the reason and logic centers of the brain to shut down, and result in nothing but hurt feelings.

Well, get ready for some hurt feelings.

North Carolina, in a move of stunning boneheadedness, followed the rest of the anti-liberty, anti-Constitution pack in amending their constitution to forbid the recognition of any same-sex couples. Yes, I am all in favor of gay marriage — or at least complete and utter neutrality in the government’s recognition of marital status. I think you should have to draw up your own marriage contract. I think that both parties involved should have to sit down, negotiate, discuss, and come up with a contract that they both sign. Then, the government’s job is to oversee the orderly enforcement of that contract. There shouldn’t be laws concerning child custody, visitation, support, alimony, or any of that crap because it should all be spelled out in the marriage contract you and your partner drew up. The only “regulation” I’d have on this would be that all parties have to be over the age of the majority. You’re adults, by Liberace’s sparkly suits! As long as you’re not physically harming someone or destroying someone else’s property, do whatever you want. Your neighbors can be scandalized and can decide not to invite you to their ice cream socials but they cannot use the law to force you to live the way they want you to live. God/Frog/Whatever bless America for that.

But then, I’m just logical and rational like that. Unlike the vast majority of my fellow members in the Homo sapiens sapiens club, I am categorically unable to turn off my logic and reason centers unless I am under the influence of some really fun substances.

Now, why am I riled up about this? Well, because, for one, it’s stupid to decide that a civil state can only be reachable by certain privileged members of a given society. That’s like saying that skin color should determine if you can vote, genitals determine if you can own property, and bloodlines determine if you can get a discount on an overpriced college education.

But, ya know what, my liberal/Democrat friends? You idiots brought this on yourselves! And the fact that you turn around and bitch about it — Madre de Dios that takes a special kind of stupid.

Why do I say you brought this on yourselves?

Set the time circuits for January 22, 1973 and let ‘er rip.

People deserve the government they get, and they deserve to get it good and hard.
–H.L. Mencken

On January 22, 1973, the US Supreme Court handed down a landmark decision in the case Roe v Wade. Later, the same body would reject its own trimester outlining and overturn state regulations on later term abortions.

Now, am I against abortion? Not really. I’m against late-term purely elective abortion, yeah. I’m not thrilled about abortion at all but it’s not my place to judge so I’d say that a sane rule would be “up to the point where the kid can live outside of your body. After that, it can only be by medical mandate in a case where the mother’s life is at an extremely high risk of ending if she continues the pregnancy.” Current jurisprudence in the US (for my European readers) is that, basically, a woman can have an abortion up to the minute the kid’s head comes out of the birth canal. In Europe — as I understand it — abortion is only allowed up to like the 22nd week of pregnancy (varying by country, I know).

Basically, the abortion group did an end-run around the legislature of every state in the union and had legalized abortion up to the moment of birth rammed down the throats of everyone. This, of course, galvanized the pro-life movement (seriously, Roe v Wade did more to ignite the fire under conservative voters and politicians than anything else in history), and has led to the politicization of the judiciary — the one branch of the government that, according to US history and political theory — is supposed to be neutral. By Craig Montoya’s bass strings, that was fuckin’ dumb.

Nowadays, watching the Senate confirmation hearings on any judge nominated to the Supreme Court is like watching a circus. I’m seriously waiting for some judge to be smart enough to remark “hey, ya know what? This whole thing about believing when life begins and beliefs about abortion is very close to a religious test for office — something expressly forbidden by the Constitution (Article VI, paragraph 3). As a matter of fact, by pressing this issue, you’re violating your own oath of office and could, theoretically, be considered guilty of treason. So, how about you stop asking me illegal bullshit questions, you look at my conduct as a judge, stop posing for the cameras, and we just get on with this before I file a lawsuit against all one hundred of you for violating my First Amendment rights? By George Carlin’s ghost, this shit is getting old.”

And it didn’t have to be this way, my friends on the left. It really didn’t. If you guys hadn’t pulled that end-run, elective abortion would be legal in just about every state in the union. It would be legal probably up to the point of fetal viability outside the womb — like it is in the Europe so many of you worship! After that, it’d be legal only under medical necessity. And then you guys wouldn’t have to sweat through every Republican administration wondering if the composition of the court was going to change, judges wouldn’t be subjected to the farce that is modern confirmation hearings, and we could all be getting on with our lives.

Additionally, you idiots also wouldn’t have given the conservatives the idea of cutting you off at the pass by amending state constitutions to forbid gay marriage in order to prevent you morons from doing another end-run around the legislative process! You guys paved the way for this epic own-goal just as surely as Art Alexakis has daddy issues. C’est incroyable, cette merde !

And don’t you folks on the right get too comfortable. The ass-reaming I just gave my friends on the left? That was what I like to call a “warm up.”

As Americans, there is only one document we should hold to be sacred and inviolate when it comes to politics, law, and government. That document is the Constitution of the United States of America. In it, things like a religious test for office are forbidden (Article VI, paragraph 3 — I referenced this earlier), and Congress is forbidden to interfere in matters of religion (First Amendment). State governments cannot pass laws that violate the Constitution or its amendments (Article VI, Clause 2). If a state law is in conflict with the Constitution, the Constitution wins.

Now, some of you have a book (or books) you believe are religiously sacred. I do, too (I’m an Orthodox Christian). In these books, you’re told that there are certain behaviors that are okay and certain behaviors that are not okay. Feeding the poor = okay. Killing people for no good reason = not okay.

However, your beliefs cannot — and should not — form the basis of our government. You should not pass laws regulating behavior based on what your personal guidebook says. If you’re going do that, then I’m going to write my own guidebook that says that it is morally required for me to punch you in the face. Then, I’ll get a majority of people to vote to make that a law and then I get to punch you in the face. Will that make it right? If you answer “yes,” to that, by the way, then, by Elvis’s hip gyrations, I fear for the fate of the human race!

If you use your majority status to enshrine your religious beliefs into law, putting the force of government behind them, then you really, really are not going to have room to complain when some other religion you find abhorrent does the same. You think gay marriage should be outlawed because of something you read in a book? Well, there’s a group of people who think that women ought not be allowed to go outside without a male escort because of stuff they read in a book. If they get to be the majority (an event that is not outside the realm of possibility) should they be allowed to amend a state constitution to require that women have male escorts at all times and have to wear a damned tent over their bodies? If you’re against that, then why are you okay with doing the same friggin’ thing when you’re the majority?

Scheiße! You can’t really be that stupid, can you?

And another thing — the Bible doesn’t really condemn modern homosexuality. It condemns visiting a temple prostitute. That bit of information comes from a Jewish friend of mine and since he uses the Torah as his book of religious reference, I’m pretty sure he knows what it’s talking about, right, Vic?

And, even if it did condemn homosexuality — it only condemns male-on-male homosexuality outright. Lesbianism? God’s cool with that otherwise He’d have made sure it got in the book. I mean, He wrote the thing, didn’t He? And don’t give me that “oh, it’s implied.” Especially don’t give me that if you’re Protestant. Protestants say that the Bible is literal but then do some serious goal-post moving when you get to the bit about Jesus being down with cannibalism (“This IS My Body. This IS My Blood.” The word is “estin” in Greek, “est” in Latin — the two languages used by the early Christian church. I’m pretty sure that if the Son of God wanted to say “represents” or “stands for,” He’d have used those words because He isn’t an idiot!) I refuse to let you get away with your goal-post shifting. Either the Bible is completely literal or it’s not. Pick one and stick with it for the love of Jon Bon Jovi’s lustrous locks!

Oh, Sodom and Gomorrah, you say? God wiped them out because they were homosexual? Really? So, you’re telling me that 1) Jesus is a liar or a moron and 2) If the townsmen of Sodom had been fine with just raping Lot’s daughters, God would have been okay with that because hetero rape is fine in His eyes but that gay stuff — that He has a problem with? If that is honestly your belief, then I am going to start worshiping the Flying Spaghetti Monster because I want no part of a God who will burn a town to the ground because gay rape is bad but would leave that same town alone after they gang-raped His servant’s daughters.

And, honestly, how do you rape a creature that has no genitalia? Jesus tells us that angels do not marry and are not given in marriage. The Bible tells us that marriage is supposedly for the begetting of children. So, it stands to reason that angels can’t have children. Since the whole primary function of breasts, vaginae, and penises is propagation of the species, then it also stands to reason that God didn’t give those things to angels. If they’re physical beings in the same sense as humans are, then they probably have nothing between their legs and just get mistaken for being male since they don’t have breasts. I doubt they have beards or body hair either (just a few other secondary sexual traits for those of you who think biology is a godless science). I don’t know for certain, having never knowingly encountered an angel (let alone asked said angel to strip to the skin so I could verify this) but, based on what the Son of God said, it stands to reason.

So, if angels are genderless, 1) how could you have sex with them and 2) how could it be considered homosexual sex? Homosexual implies that angels are the same sex as the other party involved. By George Takei’s epicanthic folds, that doesn’t make any sense, now does it?

Okay, so you’re giving up on the Old Testament excuses now? Wow, I didn’t even have to go into Onanism or eating shellfish? Oh, you’re going to throw the stuff from Paul’s letter to the Romans at me? Yay! This is fun!

The letter to the Romans deals with the fact that everyone is a sinner. No one sin is better than or worse than another. Paul talks about how those who don’t follow God inevitably become overwhelmed with their own sin and give in to it. How men (and women) grow so overcome with lust that they just screw anything that will stand still long enough. It’s not being homosexual and wanting to be in a committed, monogamous, loving relationship with some of your gender that is sinful: it’s being promiscuous or just having sex to have sex that’s condemned! The concept of modern homosexuality was about as prevalent as the concept of Jim Steinman’s superior musicality in the first century A.D. In case you’re wondering what that means — it means that 1) Jim Steinman is awesome and that people in the first century A.D. didn’t know this and 2) they also didn’t have the same concept of homosexuality that we’re discussing today. To them, it was pederasty or temple prostitution, not gay couples living happily together, committed to one another, and just wanting the same rights as heterosexual couples have.

In Acts 15, there’s the first council of Jerusalem where Gentile converts are told they don’t have to uphold the Mosiac covenant to be Christian. “You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things. Farewell.” Well, sexual immorality in the first century included oral sex or sex with the woman on top. So, if we’re going to use that one, well, then, I think all of us are going straight to hell. By Link’s left-handedness, hell’s going to be a pretty crowded place, it seems. I’m foreseeing a bull market in housing in Lucifer’s neighborhood.

Now, people, even if the Bible, Judaism, and Christianity did all condemn homosexuality as we know it today — that’s still not a good enough reason to deny gay couples the right to have legally recognized marriages. Unless you, the Christian majority, are willing to concede that a Muslim majority would have the right to dictate that all ladies wear burkas or a Hindu majority has the right to forbid us from eating delicious steak, then you cannot and should not say that just because you’re the current majority and your religious beliefs say thusly that gay people can’t marry their partners. But then, I’ve covered this already.

Some of you are going to come out and say I’m pulling things out of my ass or I’m just using “worldly reasoning” and “vain thinking” to proclaim myself “wise.” I got news for you: I am many things — short, smart-mouthed, sarcastic, and cynical among them — but “wise” ain’t on the list. God’s Word is eternal and unchanging, you say? “Everyone” knows that homosexuality is a sin, you say? Well, three hundred years ago, God’s eternal and unchanging Word said that the negro bore the Mark of Cain and that it was the white Christian’s duty to take them from their savage peoples and cultures and Christianize them. Also, since “everyone” knew that the negro was little more than an intelligent beast and that the white Christian was given dominion over the earth, it was the white Christian’s place to enslave the savage negro. Three hundred years ago, God’s eternal and unchanging Word was pretty clear on women owning property — they couldn’t do it! It belonged to their husband or their father who was the head of the household, as God had so clearly ordained. And women voting? Perish the thought! “Everyone” knew that women were incapable of making rational decisions — it was her husband or father’s duty to vote. She could not be counted on to carry such a heavy responsibility. Not even one hundred years ago, “everyone” knew that interracial marriage was against God’s eternal, unchanging Word. God had clearly ordained the races and decreed that there should be no intermarrying between them, right?

Oh, no. Those were all interpretations based on societal prejudice of their eras. God never said any of that. Man just put those words in God’s mouth — just like some of you are doing now. People just justified their positions of power or their place within the majority as being reason enough for imbuing the law with their prejudice. By Meat Loaf’s wasted youth, you mean that none of that is really in the Bible unless you deliberately misinterpret it! Well, slap my ass and call me Leonard Nimoy — it’s true!

At any rate, in the long run, it doesn’t matter. All of those state constitutional amendments will get repealed. Gay marriage will become legal. It’s just another hurdle for those of us who have actually read, comprehended, and who uphold the entire Constitution to clamber over. But, I’d really like to give another round of applause to the liberals who used the court to ram their beliefs down the nation’s throat in 1973 and gave this idea to the conservatives who are now using their state constitutions to ram their beliefs down our throats. Good going there, everyone! I’ll bet you’re all so proud of yourselves for taking this sacred American document and wiping your asses with it.

Now, if you’ll excuse me, I’m going to go do some serious, serious drinking. ><