Prop 8 Has Nothing to do with Bigotry

First, let’s clear something up. Marriage isn’t a right. Neither is health care. Neither is food. Neither are plowed roads in the winter. Neither is a never ending littany of conveniences (mostly imparting some type of material gain) that are routinely confused as rights in the name of “equality” and “tolerance”, both of which are imaginary concepts outside of mathematics or physics.  Yes, that includes imaginary under the law.  Biased divorce courts.  Racial profiling.  A progressive tax.  The law is a tool wielded by imperfect, unequal humans.

This issue isn’t about gays getting married.

This issue is about a much broader concept of which gay marriage is merely a convenient, incendiary manifestation.  That concept is social libertarianism – in other words, “as long as it doesn’t hurt or affect you [directly] it’s fine.”

Funny how the gay rights activists aren’t also bleeding at the gums to legalize heroin for the same reasons, right? Or what about our good friends the Mormons? What about their rights to practice polygamy? It’s not hurting you, now is it?

Perhaps I’m the only one who revels in the sheer irony of the Mormon church – whose marriage practices are at-odds with United States federal law – taking such a stake in this issue.  You have to give it to the Mormons.  They are willing to sabotage the footing that will eventually serve as a legal precedent for plural marriage, something they would presumably practice if it weren’t illegal, because they believe in a moral code prescribed by something other than a majority-rules vote, or a popular meme started as a stray thought in some loud Mormon’s head.  On the other side of the coin, the gays, who themselves scream for rights in the name of tolerance, are not screaming as loudly for Mormon marriage rights as they are for their own.  In fact, they’re not screaming at all.  “But they’re different!” cry the gays, “because marriage is two people, not more than two!“  Ah, yes, I see.  Number matters, age matters, but race and gender do not.  The criteria seem conspicuously arbitrary, don’t they?  Isn’t int mind-blowing that a reasonable person could choose to include gender as a discriminating factor, along with number and age, instead of ignore it?

But I digress.  Even social libertarinism is just a facade of the even deeper issue of the nature of morality, which is at stake in this debate. Is morality something we each have the authority to define for ourselves, or is there some larger, universal morality that is applicable to all?

The foundation of the law – and the concept of legality – hinges on the idea that morality is not relative. Otherwise, who are you to say that muder is wrong? That theft is wrong? That pedophilia is wrong?  That marriage is between two people, not three?

Social libertarianism is the near-sighted differentiator between moral relativism and moral absolutism. “Some morality is absolute,” they say, “but that is restricted to actions that interfere with other people like murder or theft. When an action doesn’t affect other people, they have the freedom – nay, the right – to decide on their own whether these benign, victimless actions are suitable for themselves.”

As soon as those magic words are uttered, you can bet your lunch money that the utterer is an opponent of propisition 8.

I say that social libertarianism is the near-sighted differentiator because it ignores a fact that is inconvenient to their argument: chiefly that the very existence of a gay married couple affects everyone in this country who is aware that it is exists.  The fact that sraight people who will never be directly affected in this issue are both marching in favor of and in opposition to the legality of this is enough proof to show that gay marriage does not affect only gays.  If such were true – and by extension, if their state of marriage were indeed benign – then straight folks wouldn’t even be having this exchange, the proposition would never have appeared on the ballot, and gay marriage would have stayed, under law, where it has been since the first gay couple ever fantasized about one day having a wedding.

It is impossible for these champions of tolerance – also known as libertines – to understand or to accept the fact that gay marriage negatively impacts other people. One argument we’ve all heard ad nauseum is “homosexuality is natural!” If the naturality of homosexuality justifies the behavior, why then does the naturality of a repulsion to homosexuality not justify anything?  Why must homosexuality be tolerated for no other reason than a claim that gays don’t choose to be gay and homosexuality is natural, yet homophobia must not be tolerated, even though its only reason is a claim that gays choose to be gay and homophobia is natural?  Why must homophobes be forced to change their world outlook and behavior, but homosexuals take to the streets when it is suggested politely that instead homosexuals be forced to change their world outlook and behavior?

But I digress.

I say that social libertarianism is the near-sighted differentiator because it ignores all of the consequences of gay marriage.  Many gay marriage supporters cannot possibly fathom what reasons there could be in the mind of a prop 8 supporter.  Here are some:

First, my children will be taught in the liberal bastion known as the public schools, who are backed by the liberal bastion known as the courts, that two men getting married is natural. I can remind you of another incendiary issue of schooling that has gone on for almost one hundred years now: evolution vs. creationism. The parameters of this debate are different, but on this issue a compromise has been struck: evolution as presented as a scientific theory and all facts about it are evidence, not reassons, why evolution is true. Creationism and evolution are not mutually exclusive topics because religious parents can easily justify evolution to their children by explaining that God’s mechanism for creation was evolution. Problem solved.

On the issue of gay marriage in schools, there is no compromise and there is no room for disagreement. This has been assured by the hair-trigger reaction of homophobia to anyone who claims that sexual desires should not govern one’s lifestyle, and that heterosexual marriage is the foundation of every human civilization that has ever existed, a fact which is undeniable but nevertheless ignored. Homosexual marriage has never had a significant place in any culture of which we are aware, but public shools will not stop for a second to promote it to the equal of heterosexual marriage to further the agenda regardless of historial fact. I hope I don’t have to explain that when a school begins to equate to unequal bodies in the name of tolerance, a child’s critical thinkiing skills, and therefore their education as a whole, is jeopardized because they are not taught how to properly analyze and weigh two quantities.

I suppose next we can expect the schools to teach our children that America had it coming in 1941 because we stopped selling oil to an ally of a country that was bombing England. The facts become secondary to the message. It’s better for our children to be raised as “world citizens” then to be taught historical facts, isn’t it?

And that’s schooling. Next will be every pastor in the country who is given legal authority to marry their paritioners. Their Justice of the Peace status will be revoked the minute a pair of gay paritioners demand to be married and threaten to sue the pastor for discrimination when he refuses on religious grounds, despite the fact that their mutual religious doctrine explicitly states that homosexuality is a lifestyle sin.

How about that! Marriage and religion at the same time. Two birds with one stone!

Don’t see it happening? You think too highly of gay people. Look at the protests at churches now. The fact that most people who voted yes on Prop 8 are not in fact religious is irrelevant. They have picket signs and they need a place to use them. Non-religious blacks in places like Compton overwhelmingly voted in favor of Prop 8. Where are all the white pro-gay supporters in Compton? Too afraid of being shot, I’d imagine, because even though they believe in equal rights for blacks, they are still terrified of most of the ones who live in their own state.

Next will be marriage counselors who refuse to treat gay couples. Sued out of oblivion.

Next will be divorce laws. Right now, women have a big upperhand in divorce proceedings. What do you suppose will happen when two gay men get divorced? Do you suppose one gay father will be treated like the woman in divorce proceedings and be awarded staggering alimony, child support, half of the other gay father’s money, and their shared house because one gay father is … what, exactly? The bottom? More femme? Makes less money?

Kiss special considerations for women in divorce courts goodbye. If it’s good for the gander, it’s good for the goose. The number of impoverished divorced mothers will grow even larger than it already is.

As a man, gay marriage may actually help me one day, since every ruling in every gay divorce court will serve as precedent to every heterosexual man to be treated fairly by liberal judges.  Oh, they shall reap what they sowed!  But I am against it anyway because my personal interests are less important than the interests of human society as a whole.

These are the kind of consequences that aren’t even on the horizon of gay marriage supporters because thinking about nasty things like results distracts them from the emotional high of “tolerating” everyone and inventing rights for “oppressed” groups. Society be damned, that gay couple wants to have a wedding. It’s their right!

There comes a point where we have to take a step back and ask ourselves: do we really want to live in a society where a group – today it is homosexuals, but tomorrow it will be another exaggerated minority – can demand any privilege whose purpose never included their application of it under the name of “equality”?  I’ve found most prop 8 opponents immediately shut their brains off when they are confronted with the suggestion of a slippery slope, but that is the point.  If morality is whatever any arbitrary group with enough names on their petition dictates it to be, then what is the purpose of law?

You know, the Islamic community in this country is right now oppressed.  Their religion demands them to practice Sharia law.  Now, we all know that religion, spirituality, and God Almighty doesn’t mean a goddamned thing but where John Doe wants to stick his dick is the nation’s business, but it’s already happened in England.  English courts rolled over to the demands of an Islamic community whose population by percent in Britain dwarfs that of the United States.  This is the future you’re promising the United States by getting loose on morality in this country.

I don’t want to argue whether homosexuality is moral or immoral.  Such an argument will never, ever sway a prop 8 opponent.  But isn’t the concept of having morals – morals that cannot be challenged on what has amounted to a whim, some great cause, some great progressive crusade to break the monotony, to scratch the revolutionary itch those of us born after 1950 missed – is critical to a nation of laws.

The Only Solution is to Leave

In the next 20-30 years we are going to see a lot of population shifting going around in the United States.

Chiefly, right-minded people will flee states like Massachusettes and California.

When the courts rule in those states that their public education systems will teach whatever they want in the name of tolerance while simultaneously displaying zero tolerance for anyone who isn’t tolerant regardless of parental consent, the only recourse citizens of those states will have is to relocate.

Unfortunately America is turning into 1984.  Those who preach tolerance the loudest are themselves the least tolerant, and their methodology is sinister.  The school systems are wildly leftist and liberal.  Couple this with parents who are barely involved with their children, and you have a totally unapologetic, systemic brainwash machine targetting young impressionable minds.  These people are just as guilty at pushing their ludicrous agendas as the people they scorn in movies like Jesus Camp.  The only difference is which ideological worldview is being forced upon children.

The problem is that the world is rapidly running out of acceptable places to go.  The people who push most for diversity will be the most responsible for killing it when it becomes a thought crime to express an idea like homosexuality is a choice or that stay at home motherhood is a good idea for most women.  It’s already happened on both the east and west coasts, and it will start to spread inward.

There will always be opposition to wrong ideas, even when entire generations of children are force-fed nonsense in public schools.  The same exact principles that liberals believe are liberating them from the shackles of outdated concepts like religion or absolute morality will liberate their opponents from the intellectual bonds they would put on them.

I’d love to say that it will be possible to stem this tide but unfortunately the concept of states’ rights in these United States has long been forgotten in this country in favor of an all-powerful central government.  Most people care more about who their president is than who their governor is, or who sits on their state supreme courts.  As we can see in Massachusettes & California, these details actually matter far more than who the president is.  I’ll give the Prop 8′ers some due credit: I haven’t heard any of them insinuate that Bush was somehow involved in its passing.

The only solution will be to flee.  To move.  To relocate.  I am already prepared to deal with the bastardization of “education” that public schooling has become, but as Massachusettes has shown, the schools and the courts are cut from the same cloth.  If I have no recourse to protect my children from abject indoctrination of poisonous ideals, my only options are private schooling or moving to a better state.  I’ll be damned if I spend thousands of dollars on property taxes yearly to prop up a school that seeks to destroy so much of what I love about this country while simultaneously paying out of pocket for private schooling and getting no tax credits for doing so.

The only solution is to leave.  Better start thinking about where you’ll go.

House dreams

In the past two months I have had three house dreams, all of which had different details but were the same general theme.  House dreams apparently represent our inner metric on how we perceive our own lives.  I won’t try too hard to interpret them, just lay them out.

The first dream in this series was about two months ago.  I remember it distinctly.  I remember going into a door of my house that I had apparently never gone into before, and it led to basement stairs.  When I went down the stairs, I discovered a labyrinth of rooms in a finished basement.  Carpet, drywall, even furniture.  There had to be at least 4 bedrooms, 2 full bathrooms, a living room, and a full kitchen, with an outdoor entrance (something I wish I had in my current house).  Also, there were steps leading even further down (like a basement within a basement) and in this second basement was another finished living room (like a TV room), and then there was some kind of secret room.  I forget how it was accessed, but the secret room also had another, smaller TV in it.  I remember the sensation of being in awe, and thinking three things: 1) this kicks ass, 2) how did I miss this and 3) how does this change the value of my house.

The next dream I had was another one just like this, except it was the attic.  I remember going up into my attic and discovering that there was this hallway in the attic that I hadn’t noticed before, and when I opened the door leading into it, I found a luxuriously furnished, penthouse quality apartment fully equipped with at least 2 bedrooms, 2 full bathrooms, a living room, and a kitchen.  All new, stainless appliances.  The counters in both the kitchen and the bathroom had granite, and the master suite was amazing.  And, to my surprise, it had yet another outdoor entrance.  When I went outside, I realized that my house was built on a hill, so this 3rd floor was actually leading out onto solid ground.  I remember thinking exactly the same 3 things as with the basement dream.

The last dream was most recent, and yet again, I found a new room in my house that I had never seen before.  This one was like a side room off a porch, and it looked like it had been used by the previous owners as a storage room.  My fiancee was with me and we were trying to decide what to do with the junk in this new room and how we were going to utilize the space.  The junk in the room consisted of an ugly, overly ornate dining room table and several exercise machines.  When I went ouside, I realized that attached to my house was this bizarre… thing.  It’s hard to describe.  It was almost like someone had built out the second story of my house so it hung over the side, and to support it, instead of using standard wood framing & siding, they built a structure that looked like one of the buildings in Mos Eisley.  In the space enclosed by this bizarre sandstone wall (underneath the overhang) was this strange, sandstone grotto that had a glowing cerulean swimming pool in it.  That’s when I woke up.

I don’t know what any of this means, but the fact that I keep having the same dream suggests that it must mean something.  Oh well.

Sad Day

I’m wearing black today.

As I predicted in October, Barack Obama did win the election with greater than 320 electorals.  I turned off the TV last night when Obama won Ohio.  It was over, even then.

I’m not altogether surprised.  If you think back to the 2004 election, the democrats should have won that race too.  They didn’t because they nominated Kerry.  Kerry has the charisma of a wet sock and although he actually had experience I don’t think the fact that he was living off of a republican senator’s fortune sat well with people.

Obama has charisma in abundance.  He’s another Bill Clinton.  But he’s scarier than Bill Clinton.

Barack Obama is going to ride his “landslide” victory over McCain as a mandate, and he’s going to capitalize on the discontent from the last 8 years of Bush that was boiling in 2004 and has now spilled over entirely.

If he weren’t such a goddamned socialist this wouldn’t be the travesty that it is.

We can expect:

• The same or higher taxes across the board.  Don’t bother trying to advance your career and make big money – Obama fully intends to punish success by spreading the wealth around.
• No one will spread any wealth to you.  If you are reading this post, there is 99.999% certainty that you are not a recipient of Obama’s vision of largesse to the needy masses.  The fictional tax cut for the middle class will not happen (nor does it ount, anyway).
• Obama will push hard to withdraw from Iraq whether or not the limp dicked Iraqi “government” is ready.  A civil war is likely to occur in Iraq in the next 8 years.
• Iran will rattle its sabre as loud as it possibly can, and will likely develop a nuclear weapon under Obama’s watch.
• Venezuela will spontaneously acquire a nuclear weapon.  It will be obvious that it was given to them by Putin’s Russia, and Obama will do nothing about it except give a speech at the UN.
• Osama Bin Laden will remain at large.
• Relations with Pakistan will deteriorate.
• The economy will stagnate as Obama’s anti-business/pro-worker policies eliminate jobs.
• Europe will still hate us.

Here are a few that you probably didn’t think about when you voted for Barack Obama:

• China will discontinue propping up the US dollar as much as it has in the past.  In China, their society has three classes: blue collar, white collar, and golden collar, which refers specifically to the richest Chinese who work for American companies.  People love to get paid.  When Obama eliminates (or even penalizes) American companies who exploit foreign labor in a desperate attempt to force job creation here when his disasterous taxation plan fucks over the people who write your paychecks, you can bet the Chinese will not take this lightly.  We scratch their back, they scratch ours.
• The Supreme Court is likely to be packed with more liberal judges who ignore the Constitution in favor of “empathizing with blacks & single mothers.”  We might as well abolish the Supreme Court and let California’s do.
• Pelosi & Reid will hold huge sway over Obama, as it is unlikely he will veto legislation thrown at him by his own party.  Congressional approval ratings are extremely low right now.  The only thing stopping them from enacting disasterous legislation was Bush’s veto.  Unless Obama finds a pair, get ready for some crazy new laws.
• Illegal immigration is going to explode in this country.  At least 10 million more illegal hispanics will cross our borders in the next 10 years.  It will be better for Arizona, New Mexico, parts of Texas, and the lower half of California to be returned to Mexico than it will be to fund social services for amnestized illegals.  California is likely to go bankrupt in the next 8 years, even more so than it was under Gray Davis.  Count on federal bailouts for those states’ budgets.  250 million Americans who don’t live in California will get to finance the 50 million who live in California.  What’s this “states’ rights” I keep hearing about in the US constitution?  Oh, nevermind that.  We’re global citizens.
• Obama will probably be featured on currency in the future.

You may think I’m being overly negative, but just wait and see.  The only silver lining in this mess was Bush’s end-game move to fuck over Barack’s socialism at least in his first term.  You think Bush pushed the bailout because he wanted to bail those companies out?  No.  He purposely created a trillion dollar budget hole to stave off the possibility of a socialist like Barack Obama taking the reigns on the national budget and proposing his universal healthcare debacle.  Bush isn’t as dumb as everyone thinks, and I thank him for that.

That is one prediction.  Since the only thing we know about Barack Obama is that so far he’s worn the mantle of dyed-in-the-wool Marxist, he’s black, and he reads a teleprompter with the best of them, I can’t be positive that the Barack Obama I’ve grown to fear is actually President Barack Obama.  It is possible that he is merely a brilliant politician who told people exactly what they want to hear and has no intention of keeping any of his campaign promises.  Since no president ever keeps their campaign promises, there is hope.

If that is the case, then it is possible that the following will happen:

• Obama tells Pelosi & Reid to fuck off and essentially legislates from the White House, like Clinton tried.
• Obama will actually couple oppressive tax proposals with limited spending to balance the budget.  This would require ignoring virtually all of his campaign promises (like the dozens of varied entitlements he wants to provide)
• Obama flocks to the middle and actually listens to the minority vote.  Ironic that he wouldn’t since he himself is a half-minority and therefore should have empathy with that position.  I believe this is unlikely due to his large electoral win.  He’ll take it as a mandate.
• Foreign leaders are charmed by his charismatic speeches as much as 60,000,000 dipshit Americans who voted for him and relations improve.
• Obama actually supports Israel when they start a war with Iran.  I also think this is not likely since Obama’s solution will probably be to put economic sanctions on Israel and call them a rogue nation, or simply to not supply weapons.
• Obama’s cabinet is filled with good people who he listens to.  Again unlikely since his cabinet will probably include Bill Ayers, Tony Rezko, and Jeremia Wright.  Or just democrats in general.

Of course, if Obama abandons all the reasons you people voted for him and adopts the policies of the opposition exactly like Bill Clinton did in the 90’s, it’s possible that he’ll turn out to be an okay president as Clinton did, as long as he can keep his tiny half-white dick in his zipper.  You can count on me calling Mr. Obama out when he does this.  I hope it’s often.

But otherwise: I am not going to blog about politics for a period of at least 1 year.

1 year from now I will link back to this post and see where we are.  We will see how my predictions are panning out.