Poor stupid bastard. That sucky spike through the wrist thing was apparently a waste of time. The crown of thorns is still an asshat.
The gay people I know best have wedding bands, and I found it eminently endearing to hear a man refer to his husband. That said . . . I live in Massachusetts.
The bottom line is that the denial of literal gay marriage is solidly based on the palpitations of the bewildered masses, who are claiming that God Himself finds this problematic. Thus, the whole thing is really a matter of church and state. However, the problem with that appealing notion is the irony that it can be argued that that isn’t in literal fact the case.
I’ve been stunned that I’ve heard NOBODY aggressively ask–and catechize–the people audaciously calling themselves Christ-ians about what Jesus said about it. He was only around for 30 years and apparently was well aware of the time crunch–I’m not sure why this wasn’t covered, seeing as He knew He was under a deadline. He was undoubtedly distracted by all those tiresome people He rather disgustingly claimed to love. I mean, God the Father actually spelled out the adultery thing in an actual Commandment–and what does Jesus do in John 8: 3-11?
Thank Heaven that He realized the breadth and depth of His screw-up and zapped Paul so as to provide editorial footnotes, before even bothering to nudge the writers of the Gospels. It’s obvious that the Evangelists were too hung up about this idea of trying to talk about the actual Jesus guy. Maybe they figured that Paul beat them to the press on a lot of stuff (Paul and Peter had themselves a bitchout, which Paul lost)–or maybe they were just working on spin. Maybe they were queer themselves–although there is certainly no real indication of this, as opposed to the substantial evidence that James I was at least bisexual. (But Jimbo was inspired by God to produce the only Bible that really matters, so I guess that evidence goes the way of the dinosaurs.)
Yes, it’s really too bad that He overlooked this vital issue, but there it is; and we should pick up the ball and run with it, especially since He was also ignorantly nattering on about “judge not” and whatnot. As Luther said, “In Christ’s realm no punishment is to be found.”
These modern counterparts to Jesus’ cranky Pharisees are the ones who are controverting the will of the person they call their God. But that’s OK. The Constitution they’re also controverting gives them the privilege to plop this thing of theirs in to rock’em sock’em with the Flying Spaghetti Monster–it’s all good. But they’re metaphorically infringing on an a copyright upon which they themselves insist; and by gosh, they’re getting away with it, because the average leftist is apparently better equipped to talk math with Stephen Hawking.
I’ve capitalized His pronoun deliberately here to make my point–anybody stop really paying attention to anything I’ve said as soon as they hit it? Tsk. Those black eyes from the knee jerk can be the dickens.
( Helpful hint: The traditional heretical beefsteak should be acquired from the supermarket in the tonier areas–it’ll be substantially cheaper than the one sold in de ghetto.)
I recommend that liberals see that their political stances will be far better informed when they stop sneering at the “fucking holy book”–a phrase with 2,420 hits–and study it thoroughly, despite the stomach-clenching prospect of laboriously acquiring their own data. (Got some links over there to the right for ya.) It’s a pity, since the left has made a few laudatory efforts to blunder about trying to stick up for people following a holy book for a few years now.
In fact, it is abundantly clear that nobody on the left can afford not to understand the central text underlying Western culture. Read the thing; read it again; then read the exegesis. Several of them. (Who was Paul? Who was Moses? What does “synoptic” mean? What’s a canon and who says so? Why do those questions matter?)
In any event, ignorance of Biblical history is sadly understandable in a country that reads at a 7th grade level; but surely we can work on the last fifty years, where we have pictures.
Just as the Tea Parties are really modeled on the Civil War, instead of the Revolutionary, protecting the rights of gay marriage isn’t akin to the Civil Rights Act per se–it’s all about context, kiddies. The Act itself has changed the world, which now only vaguely understands its deconstructive implications. The modern but-it’s-all-those-bad-guys’-fault fingerpointers lack the backbone and the stamina of their recent Democratic forebears. I’d like to see them filibuster as did the Democratic 18 out of 19 Senators who opposed the Act!
But we’re all kind of dumb, and Obama ain’t Kennedy, or even Johnson. He–and the concept of gay marriage–both lack a sufficiently broad base of at least grudging tolerance.
I’m not surprised by Obama’s decision. What did y’all expect, people? For over a year he scampered away from the far less controversial “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” issue–which he *did* campaign on, if memory serves, which can’t be said about gay marriage. Yes, he’s an accommodationist–but maybe that’s not a bad thing, all considered.
Honestly, at this point the Teabaggers would have overloaded into public actual physical violence. So far, queer people have been gradually gaining acceptance, and so far, the Teabaggers have refrained from openly attacking–yet. (Um, while you’re going over that Wikipedia article–use your finger, it’s okay–do a little crayoned collage on why it actually-in-fact-sorry-you-don’t-like-it-really-indicates-change that they haven’t definitively and unashamedly outright called the POTUS a jigaboo. We have also made an important linguistic victory by the substitution of “entitlement people” for “nigger,” as it focuses on a behavior instead of a “race.”)
But junkyard dogs bite when cornered; and as we have let them steal the rope for nooses instead of ourselves commandeering it for leashes, it’s presently good tactics to duck and cover until we really get our shit together–or the Mexicans will just have to make room on the wall.