✄

I’m going to rehash what I said before since Dr. Pepper knows how it feels to be misunderstood.

I said this in my response to the comments, but who reads those other than me? Basically, I’m an advocate of gay unions sharing the same civil rights as heterosexual ones. I don’t see a gay union as being any less than a heterosexual marriage and respect anyone’s commitment to living a good life. I don’t, however, have a shred of respect for anyone who’s interested in turning this attempt to give gay unions the same civil rights as marriages into a hypocritical war over cultural values. Like I said in my comments: the violent bid for gay unions to share the same term as a heterosexual ones has less to do with civil rights (note that the movement in CA was not a push for gay domestic partnerships/civil unions to have the same rights as a heterosexual marriage, but for gays to have to have their unions acknowledged as marriages themselves) and more to do with propelling gay unions away from negative social stigma and towards perceived legitimacy by placing them under an already accepted (and perhaps advocated) umbrella.

This article sums up what I’m trying to say. I’m not a fan of the article’s website, but this particular writer did details what I think.

So. That’s what I have a problem with. I don’t expect the state to adopt my beliefs about marriage, and I don’t expect to be forced to accept the states. Gay couples don’t offend me and I don’t see their unions as any less than my marriage. I just resent the hypocrisy of having a traditionally religious institution turned into a parachute to further the cause and soften the landing of gay unions in mainstream society. There are other more respectful ways of proving social legitimacy. Thus. Let’s all just axe the term marriage and go with Civil Union. That lets me practice my religion freely and exercise my beliefs about marriage, and gives everyone the same legal rights and privileges.

Oh. And I was being sardonic when I said I’d solved the problem over breakfast, lest you seriously think I’m that cocky. It shouldn’t be the case, but you’d need more than an all-nighter at a Chuck-a-Rama to straighten this out. No pun intended.

Obviously, Prop 8 was just a formality, and now the majority’s enjoyed a few months of having their say reflected in law, the government will go about their business of doing whatever they feel like. Sounds about right.

Religious persuasions completely aside: I have issues with gay ‘marriage’ because of semantics. No matter how you twist it, homosexual and heterosexual unions are different by virtue of the humans involved in each relationship, so I don’t see why they shouldn’t have different names. i.e. I don’t see why marriage, traditionally and religious defined as being between one man and one woman, should be the same term for a union between two men or two women. It’s not as if having different names elevates one kind of union over the other, or DOES IT, Liberal media? People are all about pronouncing and celebrating differences until it comes to this topic. Ticks me off.

This morning, while grumbling about gay marriage over a Cheerio’s, Andy elucidated an idea that’s been forming in my mind for a while: forget the term ‘marriage’ entirely, so far as the state goes. I’m not happy unless I call a spade a spade and I’m not interested in trying to pretend that homosexual marriages are identical to heterosexual marriages, hello, one kind of marriage is made up of members of the opposite sex and the other is made up of members of the same sex. I don’t devalue a homosexual union to be less than a heterosexual marriage (we all love the same), but I resent the notion that we can only pronounce differences when it suits the left and if people can’t handle calling heterosexual marriages MARRIAGES and homosexual unions UNIONS, then fine. Let’s all go by Union. Homosexual, heterosexual, vegan (ONLY JOKING, chill, man). All of us. Unions.

Now toss my religious persuasion into the game. I believe Temple marriages, or sealings, are designed for worthy, heterosexual couples. That’s not to say that a heterosexual marriage is more committed than a homosexual union at all. I do mean that the religious doctrine I subscribe to doesn’t permit for homosexual relationships to be notarised, if you will, in the same way. Why doesn’t America just take a leaf out of Europe’s book and perform civil marriages all around? The state, or those with the state’s power vested in them, can unite couples (gay, straight, whatever) and then if LDS people want a God-ordained marriage, they can work on getting to go to the Temple.

So yeah. This morning Andy and I solved that problem over Cheerio’s. Tomorrow: Oil Spills over toast and jam. Take that, breakfast.

Still Andy.

Andy here again.

Julian Andrew Martin
2 May 2010, 5:05am
8 lb 7 oz

I am facebook-friends with far too many Utahns who use the status of Token Democrat for an identity (I get the feeling that being LDS isn’t counter-culture in the slightest there, so they need something else generic to set them apart). Said Utahns are all about joining Facebook groups ranting on about the immigration reform in AZ (nothing says ‘Noble Activist’ more than joining some sort of Facebook group). My newsfeed has been littered with backwards status updates like ‘STOP THE HATIN’ IN ARIZONA’ for a few days now. Backwards, because the reform isn’t meant to incite hate: it’s a state law designed to enforce a federal one. If backing federal law is unconstitutional, destructive and hateful, then paint me Thanatos and slap me Republican because I was under this weird impression that states were supposed to support and enforce federal laws. The only part of that sentence that’s a joke would be the part making me a Republican: I happen to think it’s important for states back federal law (well, when federal law doesn’t supercede states rights to tailor things to meet that particular states needs cough healthcare cough).

Anyway. People love to whitewash anything ‘controversial’ with the emotive brush of love or hate, perhaps because they think it justifies their disproportionate reaction to things. Like with Prop 8. Bunch of nuts on one side self-righteously dehumanising gays under the name of protecting ‘Love’ and then the nuts on the other side yelling Prop 8 = ‘Hate’ and then taking to Mormon churches with flamethrowers. Apparently people feel justified in brandishing the umbrella of hate on the issue of immigration because the reform law mandates ‘racial profiling’. i.e. will permit the state to attack Latino’s in particular. Undoubtedly there exists a collection of thick, racist policemen who will abuse this reform law like they do any other, and enforce it as violently and discriminatively as possible. Naturally, that disgusts me. It has to be said though, that this law wasn’t made to encourage or legitimise that kind of behaviour.

If you think about it, the law itself seems to propagate racial profiling much less viciously than the reaction to it: Screaming ‘I’m a target’ is probably the best way to ensure you have a bullseye painted on your back, and the majority of AZ residents taking to the streets over the reform are Latino/Hispanic/whatever offends you less… In saying that, I don’t mean that the state can go around busting Latino’s in particular simply because most of their illegal immigrants are Latino. Obviously not. But given that the majority of illegal immigrants in AZ happen to be Latino, the consequence will be that the majority of illegal immigrants busted will also be Latino. Stratified samples and all that. And before I get jumped all over for being racist, I’d suppose I could mention that I’d saying the same thing about Aryans if the majority of illegal immigrants in AZ were Nords and Danes, but as it happens, they’re not. I probably will get jumped all over for addressing Latino’s specifically though, because from my experience, American’s are generally more touchy and politically aroused by the rights of illegal immigrant Mexicans than your average illegal immigrant Serb.

Andy and I are in slight disagreement over one thing with this reform: I have no problem with the law requiring me to present documentation of my legal status in the US (thus don’t find it weird that a state could ask to see people’s documentation), whereas Andy feels that to be slightly big brothery and prefers the freedom of people being able to exist without having to account for themselves at the whim of the state. I get this, and agree with it on the whole, but I think that coming from a continent that requires even tourists to have their documentation on their person while backpacking, I’m a lot less wary of people asking to see my papers, so to speak. Also, as a legal immigrant to the US, I’m required and advised to carry documentation on me to prove my residency status in the US if needs be. The needs being if I get busted for committing a crime, or if I go for a job interview – stuff like that. I don’t think that presenting documentation at such times is an infringement on my freedom (although obviously it would be insane for the government to have the right to stop-check you for paperwork at ‘random’).

Anyway. While everyone’s hating my face off for being so prejudice and uncharitable towards illegal-immigrants/being communist because I don’t mind the state checking my documentation when I go for a job/get caught for a crime, let me point out that I’m simply harping on about how daft it is to rile on a law that supports the law. If the initial law preventing people from just hopping a fence and setting up camp in the US had been supported in the first place, this domino reaction ‘opening doors to racial profiling’ wouldn’t even exist. I think that the reform law in AZ was an attempt at beginning immigration reform in a state that has a serious problem with illegal immigration. Maybe it’ll spur the federal government into taking action on the issue. Maybe work on awarding temporary work permits more appropriately, enforcing permit time limits, bolstering the border, and making the path to citizenship more fair and comprehensible. The idea of the government just chucking green cards and citizenship at illegal immigrants in amnesty makes my blood boil – it’s a reward for breaking the law ( a law I happened to spend thousands of dollars on keeping and three years of legitimate worrying about being deported). I am, however, all about the provision of temporary work permits for those who wish to stay in the states, continue working, start paying tax, and try to become qualified for citizenship. I also don’t think it’s smart or humane to try kicking the kids of illegal immigrants out of the US since they didn’t ask to be plopped on US soil illegally. Anyhow. This post is getting garbled, I’m tired, and I’m starting to venture into my opinion of illegal immigration and the economics of deportation which I’d rather not. Point is, it’s daft that states have to pass a law to enforce the law.

I don’t have the energy to post on the effect of outing millions of illegal immigrant workers from the US, or the cost of Arizona’s ‘immigration reform’ law, or about the kids born on American soil to parents who landed on said soil illegally, or how I feel about illegal immigration in general, but I still feel like commenting on Arizona passing this immigration reform law. I’m just amazed that the state had to pass a law to make people keep a law that already exists.

Apparently GameStation added a clause to their terms of agreement for sales staking claim on patrons souls and 88% of customers didn’t realise. GameStation aren’t cashing in, but still.

I was reading a bit about Cardinal George talking at BYU on religious freedoms. I do not understand what on earth stops the leaders of the Catholic church (or any other church that covers for molesters) from denouncing the priests convicted of sexual abuse. If that were my church, those paedophiles would have been stripped of any position of priesthood they had and hung out to dry faster than you could say ‘confession’.

Most kids here aspire to at least one binge-trip somewhere in the Mediterranean before they hit their mid-twenties. Salou is a pretty popular destination. You take a couple thousand people of about 17-23 years old, remove most of their clothes and/or moral values, add a couple reservoirs of alcohol, ant-hills of coke, and tadaaa: your average Brit holiday.

Apparently at this particular resort, girls with the most one-night stands are give the illustrious Tour Slut award, and can earn more points for a threesome with strangers. Classy. One prime quote from an aspiring Tour Slut: “The first thing I do when I get home from Salou is sleep for a week, then head straight to the STD clinic”. Mmmm, nice. Or how about this genius: “‘I drunk so much last night and was so violently ill that the blood vessels in my face burst”. Good job! But no worries. Even though these kids are using and abusing local hospital stomach pumps and getting their money’s worth from their travel insurance, they look out for each other: “We were all out in a club having a great time when I noticed my mate wasn’t with me. I thought he had just gone off with a girl, but when I came back to our room I found him unconscious in the bath with the taps still running. The water was up to his nose. If I had been a few minutes later, he could have drowned”. Spring Break! Cancun! Yeah.