Not the best for an Easter blog, but there you have it. I will try to coordinate better in the future....
I am so frustrated with both sides in this ideals war that I'm not even sure I'll be able to finish this blog. On account of my ambivalence, let me say, if you are on a bandwagon for either side, you will NOT be able to enjoy or possibly even finish this post.
First,what's a band-wagon? IMHO, anything unreasonably, implacably zealous.
This guys with a sign came on campus once and I foolishly tried to talk him out of his sign, which was indeed quite hateful, and he said he had to speak the truth. My feathers ruffled, I tried to point out the entire phrase includes "in love" and he said, "This is love! Tough love!"
IMHO, tough love is grounding your kid when s/he violates curfew too many times, or when you remain firm on boundaries with someone in your family, ("No mom, you cannot borrow my JUICY sweats because you never wash them after you use them"). I think of tough love generally as about enforcing boundaries and keeping people accountable for what is their responsibility, ("There's no way I'm lending you rent this month, not after the last time when you used it to pay off your Where's Waldo tattoo... nothing against Where's Waldo..."). Back to bandwagons.
The people on bandwagons are generally more dangerous because they're the ones that get loud and vicious and aren't afraid to make a spectacle of themselves ::cough WESTBORO cough:: often using Bible verses to elevate their stupidity to martyrdom (I mean, what do you think I plan to do?). Bandwagon-ing considers any allowance for the other team to be selling out, giving in, "compromising", or "giving the enemy a foothold".
As an example, let's talk about another equally fun and inflammatory topic! Abortion!
I used to get awful looks in church when I would say I could understand why a woman would want to have an abortion. Some people, it's true, just can't seem to figure out where babies come from, and if you don't want to deal with the effect, stay away from the cause. It's still a traumatic choice to make, even for women who are pro-choice. And then there is the woman dealing with rape, an abusive family, poverty, illness or a brutal husband along with her pregnancy.
IMHO, I don't have to condone something to get something. I can respect it, while still believing in my heart that abortion is wrong. If you want to stick a bumper sticker on me, I am "pro-life". But that doesn't mean it is impossible to appreciate the difficulty of the types of struggle that go on in a person's soul. I don't have to stand in front of a clinic with a sign to be secure in my beliefs and to be there to care for a woman making that decision (see the difference between the woman and the decision?). And who knows, your non-judgmental support and love might be enough to get her through the crisis without the abortion!
Back to bandwagons.
I really didn't care when Ellen became the spokesperson for JCP. She is a hilarious, talented woman. I would split a pizza with her. I "liked" George Takei on facebook because he posts stuff that makes me laugh so hard I pee my pants, and it's good for my geek cred (crazy Right Wings are going oh Myyyyy!)... I actually think the relationship between Willow and Tara is one of the sweetest love stories on television, and I think Tara's enforcement of boundaries with Willow is awesome, something we can learn from, whatever our orientation) and again, Buffy is great for geek cred. I have never quoted, as far as I know, "God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve", although, I have a pair of underwear that say St Eve, without punctuation, and it always makes me giggle. I can mourn and rejoice through the ups and downs of gay friends' lives and relationship without sneaking in an agenda to change their orientation.
And for all that, I personally do believe God designed us to live as man and woman. NO JUDGING! This might make you hate me and think I'm all about hate but I did vote for prop 8 (this might be one of those moments where I'm being too honest?). I don't think it's legally fair that we've voted so many times (except the once when we weren't allowed to) on this and the issue isn't put to rest. Why is it Starbucks can take a stand for one direction when a woman at a beauty pageant is asked her personal opinion and gets hell for it?
__________________________________________________________________________________
Btw, I just had to include one person's comment to that issue that I loved and please don't sue me, but I really appreciated his response:
The [] were for small typos, no other editing. Please don't sue me!
And then we have Westboro ::groan, facepalm:: I thought the painting the house thing was AWESOME by the way. Now Westboro might actually have to learn people skills...
See now, if you are on a bandwagon for either side, you're probably not reading anymore, or you're seriously pissed off. Remember the forgiveness! It's quite lonely being in the middle.
Marriage is a religious institution, and religion is between God and man (as in, mankind, feminists, don't freak), well, here, I'll say, God and the individual, not between man and the government. I've heard some people suggest we should have legal partnerships, whatever orientation you are, and leave the marriage ceremony for the individual to decide upon. Seems like a good--dare I say it?--compromise.
I do want to point this out. And again, I believe marriage is between a man and a woman (NO JUDGING!). We are arguing over a title. It is purely my opinion that the people who argue against gay marriage, aren't arguing against gay rights, they are arguing a religious definition of marriage (again, I'm not a sociologist, I don't have stats, I just have authentic eaves dropping in select locations). I don't think civil unions are an issue at all for them, simply because of the name. There are a lot of smoke and mirrors in discussing this issue and the definitions of words are moving targets. Anyway.
While we argue and play ping-pong with semantics, our government is being paid to do little or nothing about education, health care, security, unemployment, etc., while they waste time and resources holding the legal net high enough for us to play volley ball with ideals. Semantics, in this case, will not bind people's free will, but the government will be content to let us squabble amongst ourselves while they earn their salaries and pensions. I think it's like the guy who watches two girls fight over him. The idiots are the two girls (now, before I get arrested for sedition or called unpatriotic, I am very thankful to be an American, we have freedoms and luxuries some countries can only dream about, the kind of freedom that make it safe for me to post something like this without legal repercussions, render unto Caesar's what is Caesar's and all that, but that's another blog).
There is a bigger picture and I am NOT saying that this is a small issue in comparison, so let's all just forget about it; I'm saying if we consider the bigger issue, we might be able to dialogue more intelligently about this one.
So, I'm just curious... does anyone out there still love me?
