Gay Marriage: Right or wrong, it should be legal

            The discussion over the possibility of gay marriage is one fraught with miscommunication. On the one side, opponents see themselves as championing one of the pillars of society, defending it from the endless erosion that eats away at the moral fiber of our nation. Proponents see themselves as the oppressed minority, with heterosexual opponents as uncaring and willing to pull out any sort of argument to avoid recognizing same-sex love. The truth, as it often is, is concealed in the nuance of the two arguments. I myself grew up opposed to same-sex marriage. I personally believed that homosexuality was wrong, due only to my religious convictions (I had no personal quarrel with the practice), but that was not why I opposed gay marriage. I opposed it because marriage being between one man and one woman was an evolved social mechanism that had been around for a very long time. It worked for the majority of cultures quite well, and I was concerned for the possible unintended consequences that could arise from tinkering with the fabric of our society. I longed to have a rational discussion, but unfortunately one side of the argument would point to a religiously fueled morals which have no place in legislation, while the other side would dismiss my concerns as hateful. It was not until I stumbled upon the incredibly thoughtful Jonathan Rauch that I finally got the discussion I had wished for. It was that honest exchange of ideas that changed my mind for good.

            Jonathan has written a book which summarizes many of his positions on gay marriage. Himself being gay, his positions are fairly predictable, but how he expresses them are not. What causes him stand out are his acknowledgements of the dangers.  He admits that those who oppose same-sex marriage, by and large, do so out of nobility rather than spite. He says that “Honest advocacy requires acknowledging that same-sex marriage is a significant social change and, as such, is not risk-free.” His acknowledgement of the validity of his opposition sets the tone for the ensuing argument where he addresses these concerns one by one, saying that these risks are “modest, manageable, and likely to be outweighed by the benefits”. He asks those who disagree with him to remember what marriage is: a social contract between a couple and their community. It is a situation which has a calming and stabilizing influence on young men and women, tying them down and encouraging them to set roots (Rauch, 2004).

            Imagine that there was no marriage for anyone. Imagine a society that does not acknowledge that there is a situation where two people could become more than close friends or lovers. Such a society sets to expectation that relationships should endure. It has no safety nets or security for the families that try. Likewise, the community itself has no social contract with couples. There is an anchoring effect to marriage, caused in no small part by society's expectations of the couple which are taught as they grow up.

            This anchoring effect of marriage holds true regardless of whether the couples involved are of the same or differing sexes.  By opposing gay marriage we are making the statement to a segment of the population that their love is no good here and that the relationships they have will never be sanctioned or acceptable in the eyes of the community. We give them few external incentives to settle down, to raise a family, to be the same productive contributing members of society that straight couples are. Should we not be encouraging strong, stable relationships no matter who is involved?

            Further, by saying that marriage is for some, but not others, we run the risk of enforcing in our youth the idea that marriage is not necessarily the desirable end state for their relationships. In order to avoid changing the definition of marriage, we erode the very idea of marriage as the ultimate & community sanctioned goal of any long term relationship.

            I personally do not see why it is a big deal who Billy chooses to give his heart to. If you do think that it is wrong for Billy to kiss another boy, consider this: Is it better to at least expect that they do it in a stable, loving home which can be an asset to the community and therefore acknowledge that marriage is a good thing that should be preserved? Or is it better to force them to do it on the social outskirts, which tacitly encourages others (who may themselves be straight) to abandon marriage as well?

            What message do we send?

Rauch, Jonathan (2004, April). Gay marriage: Why it is good for gays, good for straights, and good for America. Booklist. Volume 100, issue 13, page 1099. Retrieved October 30, 2013 from MasterFILE Premier database.

The People's Islamic Republic of Pennsylvania

Here's a situation: You have a man (guy A) who wore a t-shirt that another guy (guy B) thought was very insulting. So, guy B takes it upon himself to attack guy A in the streets. The entire incident is caught on tape. Guy B is arrested, charged, and admits that he committed the crime.

You're the judge. What's your verdict?

I'm going to guess nigh on 100% of those polled would answer guilty. You would be incorrect, according to the People's Islamic Republic of Pennsylvania. The very same incident occurred there, with two differences:

Guy A was dressed as the Prophet.

Guy B was Muslim.

Oh, well I guess that changes everything. Innocent it is, then!

The "Pennsylvania State Director of American Atheists, Inc., Mr. Ernest Perce V., was assaulted by a Muslim while participating in a Halloween parade. Along with a Zombie Pope, Ernest was costumed as Zombie Muhammad. The assault was caught on video, the Muslim man admitted to his crime and charges were filed in what should have been an open-and-shut case. That’s not what happened, though.

The defendant is an immigrant and claims he did not know his actions were illegal, or that it was legal in this country to represent Muhammad in any form. To add insult to injury, he also testified that his 9 year old son was present, and the man said he felt he needed to show his young son that he was willing to fight for his Prophet."

[NOTE: Many articles you may read about this case may indicate the judge was Muslim himself. This is incorrect, and stems from an isolated sentence in his ruling that was unclear and seemed to be him admitting to being Muslim.]

Judge Mark Martin is a veteran of the Iraq war, and uses that as justification for his ruling.

Having had the benefit of having spent over 2 and a half years in predominantly Muslim countries I think I know a little bit about the faith of Islam. In fact I have a copy of the Koran here and I challenge you sir to show me where it says in the Koran that Mohammad arose and walked among the dead.

Perhaps Judge Martin might want to invest a little less in Islamic studies and bit more in humor, particularly an understanding of satire.

Martin goes on to berate the assaulted victim, saying that he should think before he insults a religion, and basically saying it's his fault he was attacked. He also says that he's lucky, cause if he were in a Muslim country he'd be put to death...

...cause that's a good thing...

This ruling is completely inane, and I hope it is appealed so this whacko can be paraded on the world stage as the idiot he is. Here are the facts:

• "ignorantia legis neminem excusat" or "Ignorance of the law excuses no one": The defendant is a Muslim immigrant who claimed he was ignorant of the fact that you can't assault people in the streets of America. While I understand it may be difficult for him to get cable, what with living under a rock and all, the fact remains that ignorance of the law is no excuse.
• First Amendment protects speech, not assault: The assaulted atheist was clearly not attacking anyone. Regardless of how offended the Muslim man was, he does not have the right not to be offended. He could have left. He could have heckled. He could have explained to the 9 year old son he had with him that the man was violating God's law and would be punished. He cannot, however, simply attack someone because he feels like it, and if he chooses to do so, ought to pay for it under the law.
  
• "Hate" is not a crime: It's unlikely that Mr. Perce saw his costume as anything other than a harmless mockery of religion in general. Regardless, even if he is a hate-mongering Koran burning Islamaphobe, the fact remains that hate is not a crime. This is the problem with defining "hate" crimes as separate from other sorts of crimes. If we punish people for simply feeling a certain way, for holding a certain opinion, you are giving the government the ability to define what is an acceptable opinion to have and express.

Think that the government would never abuse such an authority?

I bet Mr. Perce did too.

As a show of solidarity to Mr. Perce, I leave you with this picture of the Prophet with his turban on fire, painted in central Asia.

Mosque at Ground Zero: Just because you can...

Unless you A) live under a rock, B) are a hermit, AND C) are currently dead, you have no doubt heard about Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf and his plans to build a large $100 million center in the city of New York. This community center will include many features, such as a gym, a pool, a performance arts center, and yes, a mosque. Normally the construction of a mosque would cause little stir. New York City is in fact already home to over 100 mosques to serve its Muslim population. The problem and source of controversy in this instance is the intended location of the mosque: Two blocks away from ground zero.



You can read up a bit on Imam Rauf through a bit of google searching. For example, you can read an article here about his condemning the lashing of a man in Malaysia for drinking alcohol, which was said to be a violation of Sharia law. It has been said that he wishes to have Sharia law put in place in America and all other countries of the world. However, some careful reading of what he actually said is that Sharia law is compliant with the doctrines of the Constitution, and I could not find any direct quote from the man that implies he wished to use the sword as a method for conversion.

In short, despite the massive amounts of sites proclaiming the Imam as a radical Islamic terrorist, I am not convinced. What I am convinced of that this doesn't really matter, at least in the sense that it does not change the conclusions I draw. For the sake of this argument, I’m going to give him the benefit of any doubt and assume his intentions are pure.

There are actually two questions we ought to be asking.

The first: "Should they be allowed to build a mosque at this site?"

The answer to this is an overwhelming and resounding "YES!" It ought to be obvious to anyone who has even a passing acquaintance with the Constitution and fundamental human rights. The First Amendment to our Constitution states:

"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)

Part of the practicing of most any religion is the establishment of places of worship. Christians found churches, Jews construct synagogues, and Muslims build mosques. So long as they obey the local laws (provided those laws are not overly restrictive), legally own the land, and construct to the proper building and noise ordinance codes, building a place of worship is no different than building a shopping mall in the eyes of the law. Moreover, building a mosque of any size can NOT be regarded any differently than building a church. If we allow ourselves to simply stop the things that make us uncomfortable and eliminate the rights of the minority out of convenience we pave the way to our own enslavement. As Ayn Rand once said: "Individual rights are not subject to a public vote; a majority has no right to vote away the rights of a minority; the political function of rights is precisely to protect minorities from oppression by majorities (and the smallest minority on earth is the individual)."

The second question we need to ask is: "Should they build it there?" To this I will answer a much softer “No.”

I would recommend reading this article written in the NY Post by M. Zuhdi Jasser, an American Muslim who has been very active in building mosques all across our nation. Mr. Jasser writes:

"To put it bluntly, Ground Zero is the one place in America where Muslims should think less about teaching Islam and "our good side" and more about being American and fulfilling our responsibilities to confront the ideology of our enemies."

Like it or not, the fact of the matter is that at this place nearly nine years ago a group of Muslim men murdered thousands of Americans (to include a score or so American Muslims). Like it or not, Ground Zero will always be remembered for that day and the lives that were lost. Like it or not, anything constructed on or nearby this site will be viewed through that prism.

I will be the first to say that political correctness is strangling our nation, and ought to be discarded. At the same time there is something to be said for the consideration of others in your actions. This is a principle that is taught in both Christianity and in “mainstream” Islam. If we allow that the purpose of this center is, in addition to being a place of peaceful worship, to teach the community about Islam in a way not associated with violence and to heal old wounds, then we must question the wisdom of choosing a site uniquely positioned to offend the entirety of its intended audience.

What is so special about this site, if tolerance and education are the Imam’s goals, that makes it impossible to move to a place less brazen and still accomplish the very same things?

I strongly believe that most Americans would applaud the construction of this center elsewhere in the City of New York, even elsewhere in Manhattan. I think that actions taken nearby by the Muslim community, such as building memorials that are, as Mr. Jasser puts it, “blind to faith, race, creed or national origin”, at Ground Zero would be laudable and would go a long way towards accomplishing his stated goals.

Under no circumstances whatsoever should Imam Rauf be stopped from building his center. Unless, of course, it is Imam Rauf himself who does the stopping.

A reasoned voice on the left

Thanks to Maelyn for directing me to this gentleman. His name is Jonathan Rauch. He is a leftist journalist, a self described "homosexual Jewish apatheist", and there seems to be little he says that I agree with. That being said, I find his writings fascinating. Here is someone with whom you could speak, debate, disagree, and still get along with just fine. Someone who seems to have the intellectual maturity to argue without name calling and straw man arguments.

His arguments for gay marriage are especially compelling. He manages to go through eight dissertations on the subject (and has written some books I haven't read) without once denouncing his opponents as bigoted, ignorant, or anything else. He even teams up with a similarly fair minded individual on the right (One David Blankenhorn) who staunchly opposes gay marriage to write an article describing a workable compromise. I'll eventually formulate my own impression of them in a blog, but for now, read for yourself.

Lego Jesus

It was only a matter of time.

Connecticut seeks to govern Church

The the Judiciary Committee of the Connecticut State Legislature, which is chaired by Sen. Andrew McDonald of Stamford and Rep. Michael Lawlor, introduced a bill on March 5th. The name of the bill is bland enough: "AN ACT MODIFYING CORPORATE LAWS RELATING TO CERTAIN RELIGIOUS CORPORATIONS". You can read the bill in it's entirety here. (Thanks to Hotair for bringing this story to light)

Of course, by 'certain religious corporations', they only mean the Roman Catholic Church. What do they want to change? Nothing, really. (WARNING: Extreme sarcasm follows) I mean, it's no big deal. For instance, section 1B states:

"The corporation shall have a board of directors consisting of not less than seven nor more than thirteen lay members. The archbishop or bishop of the diocese or his designee shall serve as an ex-officio member of the board of directors without the right to vote." (emphasis added)

See? They only want to remove the right of the Bishop to have any say in the governance of his own diocese.

It's not that bad though. This Board only has absolute authority in trivial matters, such as:

"(1) Establishing and approving budgets;
(2) Managing the financial affairs of the corporation;
(3) Providing for the auditing of the financial records of the corporation;
(4) Developing and implementing strategic plans and capital projects;
(5) Developing outreach programs and other services to be provided to the community"

And of course, "The pastor of the congregation shall report to the board of directors with respect to administrative and financial matters."

The Connecticut legislature does find it in their hearts to allow the bishop to be in charge of "matters pertaining exclusively to religious tenets and practices." Gee, thanks.

Rep. Lawlor has this to say about his bill: "SB 1098 is a proposal to make changes in that law, which was suggested by parishioners who were the victims of theft of their funds in several parishes, and these parishioners feel that the state's existing Roman Catholic Corporate laws prevented them from dealing with the misuse and theft of funds."

He's such a nice guy. Too bad Rep. Lawlor has apparently never read a little document he swore to protect and defend, the US Constitution. If he had, he might have stumbled across the 1st Amendment. Since it's such a little known, dusty bit of parchment, I'll quote it here:

"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 added)

This proposed law is so blatantly unconstitutional I don't even know where to begin. The fact of the matter is the Catholic Church has every right to govern itself any way it likes. If they want to elect a chimpanzee (though hopefully not these chimps) to wear that funny hat and be a Bishop, that's their right. If they want their budget process to be throwing darts at the wall and then writing checks based on the results (kind of like the Federal Government), more power to 'em. The Government has no right to stop them.

I understand people are apparently frustrated that the funds they have given the Church aren't being used to their liking. Thankfully, we live in America, and for the moment you still have the right NOT to go to that Church. You still have the right to NOT give money to that Church, if you don't feel they are doing God's will.

The Legislature should not interfere, because the Church doesn't steal people's money at gunpoint. That's the government's job.

Newsflash: Islam still unfriendly towards West.

I write this note knowing that many people will look at my headline and instantly judge. I want to preface what I am about to say with this: It is my belief that a majority (how much of a majority, I do not know) of Muslims worldwide, particularly those who reside in America, are normal people like anybody else. They're just trying to live their lives and pose no threat to anybody.

That being said, I find this report quite disturbing (Credit to the Jawa Report, which is who I found this from). Most of the survey is written in statistic and is pretty boring, but fortunately you have me to do the dirty work. I've extracted a few of the graphs and added my own stolen wisdom to each.

Here's some highlights. At the top, question 1: How do you feel about attacks on civilians in the US? Here's how they responded.

Troubling. 5% may not seem like a lot, but...

The good news: Majorities agree that civilians, residing in the US, are not legitimate targets.

The bad news: Millions still think it's okey dokey!

8% of Egyptians (that's 6.5 million people) think that killing Joe Blow American, on his own soil, is a good thing. The Palestinian Territories (you know, the guys we just gave nearly a billion in aid to?) came in at an impressive 24% approval. These numbers don't even count those who have "mixed feelings" about the whole thing.

Moving to question 3: How about attacks on US Troops in Muslim countries?

Much more popular.

Ouch. The only good thing to say here is that at least the majority is endorsing attacks only on uniformed servicemen. It sucks for joes like me, but at least we're legitimate targets. Still, not a good thing that 40% of Turks, 90% of Palestinians, and 83% of Egyptians want to blow our boys away.

Question series 4: Opinions on Al-Qaeda views. Round 1: Sharia law. Not pansy sharia either, but "strict Sharia". You know, the kind that stones adulterers, punishes rape victims, that sort of thing. Survey says...

Well...That's not good.

Even in supposedely "moderate" Indonesia, nearly half of the population supports strict Sharia law in every Islamic country!

Round 2: What do you think of Al-Qaeda?

The first thing that strikes me is the staggering amount of "I don't know" answers. How can you not know? How have you, as a muslim, not ONCE thought of whether or not you agree with Al-Qaeda and its goals?

I'll tell you how: You have, but you can't say what you think.

This question, more than any other, should chill the bones. It subtly shows the effects extremism can have on those who are not extreme themselves.

Take, for instance, Indonesia. 9% approval of Al-Qaeda attacks and goals. Yet 51% say "I don't know." Perhaps I'm making a leap here, but I'm thinking a large portion of that 51% actually do know. What they know is if they speak out against Al-Qaeda, they become targets themselves. What they do know is that they have to stay quiet, or their families suffer.

This is what makes the Islamist so dangerous. The only person who qualifies as a Muslim, and who is therefore safe from his blade, is one who agrees with his stance on the will of Allah. All others are infidels, regardless of whether or not they face Mecca when they pray.

Maybe I'm crazy, but I think the writers of this survey have a terribly large set of rose colored glasses. They were also possibly high when they evaluated their data. I have to believe that, because otherwise that means they intentionally ignored the fact that what their survey actually shows is a loud, angry minority that believes: Sharia Law is a good thing, US Civilians are legitimate targets, and Al-Qaeda has the right idea. If we continue to pretend that these poeple do not exist, or that we can placate them with words and offerings, we do so at the risk of our own annihilation.

Danger lurks...Will we stop it, or be devoured?