First, marriage is not a religious creation, it is a social convention that was created to define relationships between families.  While the modern view in the US relies heavily on religious overtones, it is not the only way to see it.  Consider that there are three forms of “marriage.”  The first is actually a legal and social form which is really the version that most same sex couples want.  It does not require religion in any form.  All we need is a couple of signatures on a piece of paper and the government recognizes that two individuals have entered into a relationship.  This is where those rights and responsibilities accrue that form the basis for the desire of same sex couples to marry.  We want those 1000 rights that we would have if we were allowed to marry.  The tax benefits, inheritance, medical decisions, parenting rights, and everything else.

Then comes the second form: religious marriage.  The problem for most people is that they ignore the civil elements of marriage and concentrate solely on the religious elements.  Well, you don’t have to be religious to marry.  In many countries, the only marriage that counts is the civil one.  Here in the US we have given way to the idea that a religious ceremony counts just like the civil one and, in fact, trumps it.  But marriage is not something that requires religion, otherwise it should be denied to athiests and agnostics and those who have left the church.  No, just like divorce is a civil action (frowned upon by many religions) the marriage that preceeded it should also be nothing more than a civil event.

The fact is that when the religious folks spout off about marriage being a sacrament and should be limited to one man and one woman, they are referring only to those ceremonies practiced under their religion.  In fact, there are a number of religions that DO recognize same sex marriage and even celebrate these ceremonies.  So, same sex marriage can even be religious in nature.  The problem is that those specific religions where it is not allowed are forcing their beliefs on the rest of society and not allowing for any other kind of marriage.

This is where I get to have fun with the Christian crowd because they are the ones pushing the one man-one woman marriage deal.  You see, marriage is not the June and Ward Cleaver relationship that many people think it “should” be.  It is something that was created centuries ago and has changed throughout history.  It is not this immutable sacrament that came down from God.  No, the Catholilc church co-opted marriage (as it has so many things) by making it a requirement for recognition of any relationship.  When the church’s power grew, marriage under the steeple became a requirement, not the option it used to be.

And let’s talk about marriage.  The bible has men marrying their sisters, polygamy was the norm and the woman was subjugated in the relationship.  Why did women change their last names when marrying their husbands?  To denote the change in ownership from their father to their husband.  Some faiths refuse to recognize marriage outside their sects and until just recently (in historical terms) mixed marriages were not allowed.  This furthers my contention that marriage is a social convention that just happens to have a religious element to it.  Remember dowries?  Those were bribes from those families unfortunate enough to have female children to the families of the fortunate ones with male children to try and get rid of the girl.  Is this the ideal of marriage those religious proponents are trying to “savor?”

They claim that same sex marriage “destroys” the institution.  No, infidelity, divorce, and abuse destroy the institution of marriage.  And you can’t tell me that the clergy don’t look the other way when important people want to get rid of a spouse.  The number of “annulments”  given out by the church don’t entirely coincide with the concept of one man-one woman forever.  I would suggest that because divorce is civil (you know what I mean) then marriage should be civil as well.  That would alleviate the fear that the clergy have of being “forced” to marry same sex couples in their churches.  Now why would we want to go into a place that doesn’t welcome us?  Especially on that day!??

So, there it is.  Take religion out of marriage and grant everyone the same civil rights under marriage.  Allow the religions to marry as they see fit (including those who allow same sex marriages) but don’t grant any civil rights as a result to ensure that everyone is treated equally.  And let me marry the man I want to spend the rest of my life with so we can be just as happy and miserable as every other heterosexual couple out there, as our relationship becomes.

Let’s begin with the most obvious reason that this is not a celebration of Jesus’ birthday.  Religious scholars all agree that Jesus was born sometime in the Spring.  Every effort to put a real date on this event has been difficult with the counting of calendars, but the fact remains that there was no baby in a manger in December who was the son of God.  Rather, it was the early efforts of the fledgling Catholic Church which struggled to gain members that “created Christmas”, at least in December.  No, the church leaders hijacked the pagan traditions of the Winter Solstice, wove in a few mystic traditions from Egypt, and, voila, Christmas was created.

Now, if you were to come to me with a celebration of religious welcoming, then I might have a different view.  And while I agree that the season has become far too commercial, there is a value in the entire season that cannot be underestimated.  As long as you view this holiday season as a reason to be good, to recognize others, to reach out to those less fortunate, and to celebrate your relationships with others (which, by the way, does include God) then I’m all for you.  But if all you want to do is try to monopolize the month by claiming that Jesus is the “reason for the season” then I will shut you down and tune you out.  It is simply NOT TRUE!  Face facts, your religion co-opted a pagan event in order to draw more followers, not to celebrate an actual event.

However, there is always something special about Christmas.  My Grandmother was the holiday queen and she made sure that the entire season was wonderful, from Thanksgiving through Christmas, the entire extended family (6 kids and spouses/boy-, girlfriends; 12 grandkids and their assorted spouses and friends; and at least a few greatgrandkids before she passed) would get together in some combination to celebrate.  And she always made sure that the grandkids had plenty of presents under the tree.  After college I joined the adults in the gift exchange (cause there were just too many people to buy for!) and even today there is a recognition that the season is special.   My Mom and her brothers and sisters still get together with the many cousins and their spouses and kids.

Last year, I took my partner home with me for Christmas and he got to see what the season is about.  No matter the drama that inevitably played itself out at the event, we are truly a family and this was a chance to celebrate that fact.  It was interesting because, as is usual with my family, he was accepted almost immediately and wasn’t entirely sure how to handle it.  But when he held my hand, no one commented, and we even got to enjoy dinner with one aunt and uncle and their gay associate pastor.  That was pretty cool because he and my partner got into a bit of a debate which was a bit of a highlight for me.

So there you have it.  The season deserves the credit for the feelings that we have, the things that we do, and the relationships that we reinvigorate and cement.  It’s nice that the Christians celebrate the birth of Christ a few months early, but don’t dare try to monopolize this time for your own purposes.  This holiday season is for everyone.

First, it is apparent who the party in power is because of the level of rancor of the protesters at the RNC.  There was a lot of anger and frustration vented in St. Paul.  And yet the people in the Xcel Energy center remain, in my view, out of touch with the common people.  I mean, really!  He owns seven houses and thinks middle class ends in the millions.  (Yes, I know he was jokingly unsure when he gave the figure)  And his pit bitch VP?  She is vicious and mean and vile, the epitome of bitch, and somehow a true representation of the party.  I mean, just look at the speeches by the two parties.  The Republicans seem to know all about the plans and future actions of the Democrats since they kept telling us what would happen.

 - A slight aside, there is a political ad on TV right now that tells you what the Democrats will do including deficit spending, higher taxes, etc.  History proves that the last balanced budget with a surplus was created by a Democrat and destroyed by a Republican…um, please get your facts straight before you try to spout them.

Anyway, the Democrats tended to be a bit more positive in their spin of things, not telling us what the Republicans will do, but what they will do when they get into the White House.  Mind you, they are not absolved of the vitriol and hate mongering, they just tended to focus more on their own agenda instead.  And I guess that’s one of the things that really toasts my buns about the political process is that candidates are so afraid of standing for something that they turn to denigrating their opponents instead.

Well, let me be clear that in my view, people who tear down their opponents are cowards and obviously don’t have any principles on which to stand.  Because people who don’t stand for anything will fall for anything.  Ok, so I stole that one from somewhere.  But it holds true.  If the only way for you to rise above your opponents is to tear them down, then maybe you aren’t worth electing.

Back to the rant, while I appreciate the efforts of John McCain to try and protray himself as a maverick and reformer, my problem is that he left that camp a number of years ago.  When I lived in Arizona and he was my senator, I loved his style and approach, but he gave that up in an effort at appealing to the “masses” and since about 1998ish he has watered down his beliefs.  He’s had 26 years to make changes and while he did try for some 18 years, he lost it before the millenium.  For that, I will have to disbelieve him.

And that’s why he brought Sarah Palin to the ticket.  Oh, believe me, I understand his tactics (and anyone who thinks this is anything other than tactics needs to drink from the fountain of reality) and I even made a comment to my staff the night before the announcement that McCain’s best choice would be a woman for his VP.  If course, I was thinking that it would be someone with a little more name recognition, but there you have it.  However, making her the attack dog for the campaign?  There is a difference between a strong woman and a bitch.  Sarah Palin is a bitch.  Hillary Clinton is a strong woman (most of the time, she had her bitchy moments) so the thought that the Republicans are actually gaining women?  Not the ones who see the hate for what it is.

Joe Biden?  He was the wrong choice as well.  I admire Barack Obama’s campaign for the message they are getting out and the fact that they tend to maintain their positive message more than their counterparts.  But a Senatorial veteran like Biden?  No, Obama had the chance for the dream team and I think he made the wrong choice for the wrong reasons.  In this case, I believe that he is afraid of Hillary and her power.  He had the message, she has the experience, and together they would have been very strong.  And, I bet that McCain would have gone with one of his white male compatriots instead of the Alaskan Mala-not-so-mute.

And here’s one particular rant that the Republicans really have to get right if they ever figure to recover their standing as the party of Lincoln: 93% of the delegates were white?  Ok, if you do not have your delegates representative of the country as a whole?  No wonder you don’t get it.  And 1/2 the delegates had a net worth in excess of $1/2 million.  Damn.  Middle class is basically $35,000 to $80,000, according to the local paper.  Even if we stretch that to $250,000 a year in income (which is 3 times the top of the range) those who “represent” the Republican voters of this nation are NOT representative of this country. 

Ok, so that was a rant, but I truly am angry with the political process in this country.  The two party system doesn’t allow us to truly express our beliefs since the “big tent” or “party umbrella” has to cover far too many people.  While I don’t think the multi-party system always works (see, Italy) it does force people to choose their philosophies and stand for something.  I see the German political process as a successful process for standing for something.  The best part of this is that while you tend to fragment into blocs based on your personal beliefs, the only way to make a government is to compromise.  You develop alliances and work out compromises to get a government together meaning that strength comes from your beliefs and alliances.

Ok, off the soapbox.  This year I am remaining with the Democrats although I vote for the best candidate regardless of party.  I voted for Reagan because he was the best candidate.  I did not vote for Bush, either time and feel smug enough to laugh at people who did.  You get what you vote for and this year, I am definitely voting for change.  The risks of change are much less than knowing what you are getting.  And I think everyone knows what we would get.

Apparently she met with the fine folks from PFLAG and during the course of their talks, Ms. Kern stated that she agreed with the idea that gay men and women should not be fired from their jobs because they are gay. (We are worse than terrorists but shouldn’t be fired because of it?) She said this twice in the conversation. But when she went back out into public, she denied ever saying anything of the kind! She claimed that PFLAG had “misrepresented” her comments.

In a delicious twist or irony, her perjury came to light quickly when PFLAG released the recordings of the conversation they had with her (and which was recorded with the consent of her staff!) where you can hear Ms. Kern say, in her own words, that she believes gays should not be fired from their jobs. Oy! So what we have here is not a failure to communicate but an appalling lack of brains from an individual who 1) cannot think for herself and therefore mimics words she hears in her church and 2) tailors her conversation to the audience even when it means she says two things that are complete opposites. So, does that make her a liar, or just a very good politician? Well, neither. A good politician wouldn’t be caught lying.

Ellen DeGeneres called her up to talk to her about her views and she refused to open the conversation.  Why?  She said she doesn’t want to walk into the lion’s den.  Um, hello?  Did you just say that you are afraid to defend your position?  Are you telling me that you made these statements but don’t believe in them enough to justify them to others?  You hypocritical coward!  This is exactly why I don’t believe politicians and people in general.  If you are not willing to defend your positions then shut up.  You don’t have the convictions of your beliefs then don’t tell me what they are!

I will challenge anyone in their beliefs because it is only by challenging our own beliefs that we strengthen them.  I mean, come on, if your belief system can’t handle a challenge then why do you believe in it?  Convenience?  Inertia?  I know that most people who believe in a religion came by it because someone “gave” it to them.  Very few people seek out religion by challenging themselves and the various options before coming to a decision.  They accept the religion handed to them by their parents, or find acceptance in a group that happens to be a church.  But then they don’t challenge themselves or their beliefs leaving themselve, I believe, weaker for the lack of effort.  It means we don’t have to think for ourselves, something mankind has been good at.

But the point is simple: if you don’t believe in what you say or feel strongly enough to be challenged for it, then stop spouting it in public and then running away when someone calls you on it.  Keep your weak beliefs to yourself and stop trying to force others to believe as you do.  It’s not a strong enough argument.

If you were, in fact, in the stall trying to “cleanse the colon,” how wide a stance could you possibly have had? I mean, you’re not that fat, so your pants should have been restricting the “travel” of your legs to a reasonable distance. So you either had your pants at your knees and looked like a strange travois with your feet splayed apart or you weren’t wearing your pants in which case I would have to assume that you really were not in the stall for digestive waste removal. I mean, really!

Take the Chinese.  They want to be a world power but are unable to control their own manufacturing.  Their response to the repression in Myanmar?  To beg for restraint.  Why?  Because they are afraid to face the truth about themselves.  This is inherently the fatal flaw for all tyrants and tyrannical systems.  The only way to ensure that they remain in power is to deny the truth of why they are in power.   By oppressing others, a small group remains in power and controls the resources.

Welcome to the new Millenium, please pick up your reality pill and a sharp dose of truth and move to the back of the line.  The internet and advances in communication mean that you cannot keep things hidden any more.  China found this out during the SARS debacle.  Human beings have a natural urge and desire to communicate and they will share most anything about themselves or their environment.  Don’t believe me?  Just one word for an answer there: YouTube.

What is being peeled away are centuries of layers (or decades of copycat layers)  of secrecy which used to hide atrocities and secret deals.  It also advertises the excesses of those in power who try to benefit but also to hide their wealth.  More and more these days, “scandal” is a daily revelation, not something that has to be researched and pulled out like taffy.  I feel almost sorry for Woodward and Bernstein.  They could have seen Watergate come and go in the span of a week or less these days.

But it also brings to the fore the root cause of so much trouble in the world today: cowardice.  The fear that I will lose something I have leads me to twist things to benefit me.

I know I have an idealistic view of the future, but the fact is that there is enough for all of us.  Some of us want it all but that isn’t because of greed or hate or anything remotely similar.  Once again it is because those who want it all are cowards, afraid to lose it all instead.  Why are we so afraid?  Because we want something to be afraid of.  Our fear is that if we have nothing to fear, we just have to make something up.  Why are we afraid of terrorists?  Because not to be afriad would mark us as ignorant.  Nonsense.  It marks us as brave.  Not the foolhardy bravery of a teenager marching off to war with stories of bravery in his ears.  But the bravery of someone living their life without regard to the inherent danger of life itself.

So I ask you, dear reader, to look into your heart.  Why are you so afraid.  And why can’t you simply face the truth?  Because you were raised to be a coward.  Now, what are you going to do about it?

She was agitated because two women tried to get a marriage license here in Denver and were denied.  They protested by sit-in and were arrested for trespassing.  Not entirely an uncommon event but something which was always occurring in other states, at least she thought it couldn’t happen here.

The comment which triggered my little diatribe was when she said that god had created marriage to be between one man and one woman.  Hold the phone.  God did not create marriage, man did.  In fact, if you look at marriage throughout the ages, you find that religion was either not involved until sometime around the middle ages or was only for the wealthy and powerful.  Now I have to apologize to anyone who has already recognized that this is a christian-centric thought because that, unfortunately, is the primary bias against which I have to fight.  I know a bit about other religions and apologize that my remarks tend to be a bit generic here, but they can and do apply to other religions, just not all of them.

Anyway, I asked her where she got the idea that marriage was created by god and she said that it had always been that way.  I then asked if Adam and Eve were married which seemed to startle her.  I said, there is no record in the bible of god ever marrying the two of them.  I then asked if there was marriage in the time of Jesus and she said “of course.”  You mean when the family of a girl (usually 12 to 15 and worthless to the family) was offered to the lucky family that had a son (usually much older)  along with a major bribe - in the form of a dowry - just so they could unify the two families?  You mean when the woman traded her father’s name for her husband’s since she was considered little more than property?  You mean when only the wealthiest or most powerful individuals had those unions “blessed” by the priests?  Did you know that the sacrament of matrimony is only about a thousand years old?

She went still, this wild look of shock on her face as I pounded truth after truth into the argument. You see, she had been converted by someone who told her that everything in the bible was true and she willingly believed it.  But when confronted with the truth, she was unable to process it.  I asked her how two women getting married could, in any way shape or form, harm her won marriage.  She roused long enough to answer with the expected phrase: it diminishes the institution of marriage.

She was nervous when I laughed and responded.  So the strength of your marriage depends entirely on whether or not people you dislike are allowed to have the same rights and privileges that you have?  I would think that divorce, infidelity, and the ability to get married quickly would diminish marriage, not simply allowing two men or two wome to be bonded in loven.  You make it sound like a country club where you don’t want any of “those” people invited.

She was a little flustered and I could see that her mind was spinning.  It’s not nice to toss a little chaos into the rigidly structured minds of  people who rely on religion to determine their lives.  But sometimes you need to open the window and allow a little fresh air in.  Don’t ever claim anything as absolute when there is conflicting and contradictory evidence for something else out there.  And please don’t ever attack me personally.  You get me started and I won’t stop until I have completely destroyed your position.  You see, this little thing called truth?  She’s a powerful bitch!

The fact is that his participation in the event at Columbia University was necessary to prove the true power of democracy.  I was astounded and gratefully amazed at the University President’s comments which challenged President Ahmadinejad views.  And Ahmadinejad’s reaction and subsequent fall was the most perfect example of why this effort had significant value.  The derision he was met with when he stated that there were no gays in Iran is not something he is used to.  But he, and the world, need to see that true democracy allows idiots to spout their lies and fallacies but to also be challenged for them.  He couldn’t defend his views and so he lost, a true victory.

Unfortunately, those people who protested his appearance, while they have the full right to do so, obviously didn’t get it.  They didn’t want him to have the right to speak his piece in a forum where people could choose to be…or not.   If he had been barred from participating, then, remarkably enough, his views would have been validated because we would not be living in a democracy.  If the protesters had been there to challenge his views, then I feel they would have been valid.  But to seek to deny him the opportunity to speak?  I suggest you read the Constitution of the United States again.  And thank your lucky stars that we have not (yet) fallen from that ideal.