Sleepycatz

For Better or Worse

In the past few months the media has been alive with debates on Gay marriage. Now I have no strong feelings oneway or another on the subject of Gay marriage, as I feel as though it is a bit of a red herring issue; but I do have strong feelings on the subjects of consistancy and hypocrisy. In the interest of full disclosure, I must say that I am not Gay; however, I am married.

Those who oppose Gay marriage focus on two central arguments in making their point:

• Gay marriage irreparably harms the traditional marriage institution
• Homosexual acivity is marked as an abomination in the bible; thus, the sanctaty of marriage must be witheld from them

\r\nAs I said earlier, I am married, and have been so for nearly 10 years. While this does not make me an authority on marriage, I feel as though 10 years experience at anything allows one to comment on it with some insight. After careful thought I have come to the conclusion that if two men, or two women, were allowed to marry it would not effect my commitment or feelings for my wife, or the respect I have for our union. Anecdotally, I took a survey and asked some of my married friends (some of them with objections to Gay marriage) if they wouldn”t have married if men and women were allowed to marry each other. While some raised objections to Gay marriage they said they loved their partners and wanted to express that with their marrage. I then asked them if they felt as though their marriage would be somehow be reduced or harmed if people of the same sex could marry. Again, none of them felt that their marriage would change. None of them believed that they would feel justified in breaking their vows, or become gay or lesbian, or fulfill their desire to try to marry a farm animal. From my small survey, and personal insights, it seems as though this first argument is more then a little disingenuous. I have read a great number of essays opposing Gay marriage; none of them have explicity enumerated the harm to hetrosexual marriage. Many of them speak of children; however, we do not regulate marriage based on procreation — if we did women over the age of 40 would not be allowed to marry, and married couples would be barred from purchsing contraceptives. Other essays speak of a slippery slope where Gay marriage leads to extended rights for pedophiles and necrophiliacs. Again if this were so, our society would have to endorse non-consensual unions, and I have heard no cries for the endorsement of shotgun weddings or kidnappings.

Putting aside the argument that our government was founded on the idea that no religious belief would be enshrined by law, and that no law would define a religious belief — not a small argument. The biblical restriction against homosexualality is quite explicit and harsh. Yet, as sins go it isn’t even one of the top ten, as enumerated in the decalogue. Given this fact, I am forced to ask why those who oppose Gay marriage on the grounds of biblical authority aren’t campaigning to bar convicted murders and thieves from marrying. Should those men and women who have commited adultary be allowed to enter the sacred union of marriage? Again, scripture suggests that this should be prohibited; yet, I have seen no editorials or cries to stop such couplings. Nor have I seen ministers calling for the isolation of perjurers. By this lack of consistancy, I am forced to conclude that that those who advocate the point of view that marriage between same sex couples must denied due to sacerdotal prohibition are at best inconsistant and worst hypocritical. Frankly, many of the biblical arguments seem to border on the ridiculous. I read one essay in which the author insisted that the fall of the Roman empire was tied to its acceptance of homosexual relationships. It should be noted that Rome flourished for 800 years as a polytheistic society before becomming Christian. Rome, as we commomly refer to it, fell about 250 years after it became a Chritian empire. Thus, one could argue that Chritianity caused the fall of Rome; this silly argument has more basis in fact then suggesting that homosexuality caused the downfall of the empire.

Marriage is one of those rare institutions which enjoys both civil and religious significance. But each institution offers different things to marriage. For the religious, marriage is a union sanctified by God and the church. For civil authorities, marriage grants a host of civil rights. Some religious institutions have sanctified marriages between same sex couples. The question which arises then is should we as a society say which religion is authoritative and which isn’t. Which religion has greater insight into the mind of God, is not a question which should be left to the government or to others to answer. That decision must be made by individuals, and governments must repect that personal decision. To suggest that a union sanctified by one religion or state is legal and the other is not brings us dangerously close to asking the governement to answer that question.

Paper Moon

‘The song goes like this:

“It’’s a Barnum and Bailey world Just as phoney as it can be
But it wouldn”t be make believe If you’d only believe in me”

One can easily imagine figures from our current administration hoofing up and down the capital steps belting out this refrain. At every turn they seem to ask us to ignore questions and facts and simply to place our unwavering faith in them. The recent accounts by, former terrorism czar, Richard Clark seem underscored by those presented by, former treasury secretary, Paul O”Neil — and those accounts are seemingly backed up by the administration’’s own disparity between its words and actions. All together, this leads us to believe that this administration is at best uncoordinated and inept, and at worst mindfully deceitful. One need only look the record of this administration gain ample evidence of the latter.

When President Bush took office he presented his administration as one which would strive for bi-partisan consensus. Yet, he and his party have done more to divide our government, and the people, then any administration since the civil war. This President, for instance, saw 98% of his judicial appointments confirmed — a record in recent times; yet, he, and his party, presented their opponents as evildoers bent on holding hostage his nominees. In the end, Mr. Bush took the rare step to supersede the process and elevate two of his most controversial nominees to the court as recess appointments. This step infuriated many democrats, as well as some republicans, and drove even a greater wedge between the parties. Again during the recent vote on additions to Medicare, the president and his party took the unprecedented step of holding the roll call vote in the early hours of the morning (05:00 AM) and kept it open for over 3 hours — the normal vote is limited by rules to 20 minutes. During that time, congressman were pressured to change their votes from no to yes. According to one congressman, he was first offered a bribe — in the form of corporate campaign contributions — and then threatened if he didn”t change his vote. Throughout the debate the Bush administration assured representatives the total cost of the bill would not exceed $395B; yet, in his budget request, two months after passage, he placed the bill’’s cost at $530B. Once again, these actions alienated both democrats and republicans alike.\r\n\r\nThroughout his administration, Mr. Bush has presented himself publicly as a moderate environmentalist. This position is constantly belied by the actions of his administration. In December, for instance, without public or congressional review he authorized the rollback of mercury protections in the clean air and water acts. That same week, the EPA announced warnings to pregnant women and children to avoid consumption of too much canned tuna and other fish, as the level of mercury found in them is considered dangerous. There is no question that mercury is toxic to humans and wildlife — in fact there is little dispute as to the amount of mercury which may cause birth defects and learning disabilities; yet, this administration has seen fit to permit a greater release of it into out water and air supplies. Why? is the natural question. Critics site the campaign contributions made by power companies, who were large contributors to Mr. Bush’’s campaign. Mr. Bush says this will allow power producers to be more efficient and competitive. In either case, more probing investigation has been stalled by Mr. Bush and his party. Their response is simply “trust us”.

With the recent insights by Mr. Clark, the administration has sought to take this attitude of blind trust to a near laughable extreme. In order to rebuke the criticisms of the former terrorism czar, Mr. Bush and his administration has said on the same day that Mr. Clark was “out of the loop” and asked why he didn”t raise his concerns while on staff, as he was in every high level meeting about terrorism. At the same time they have attacked Mr. Clark as a partisan, and as a disgruntled employee. These same two accusations were hurled at Mr. O’Neil, after he criticized this administration. The irony, of course, is that both of these men were originally appointed by republican presidents, and our described, by those who know them, as extremely loyal men. Through both the O”Neil and Clark affairs the Bush administration has defended itself with the simple mantra of “our opponents are extremists, and irrational. Just trust us, and every thing will be fine”.

Within our founding principles is the idea that no one branch of government is ever to be completely trusted. This is the reason the framers crafted the divisions in the constitution the way they did. So that every branch of government would be answerable to each other, and the people. It seems that Mr. Bush feels as though he is answerable to no one, outside of perhaps his campaign contributors. For every criticism or question arising from the actions of his administration comes the refrain just believe in me.