Duck Dynasty and GLAAD Tidings Of Hate

Those of you who’ve been reading my blog for a few years (*waves happily* at Kerry and Dudge) know that I was once a shrugging, not-my-place-to-judge accepter of gay marriage as a concept, as a hey, who cares, it’s not really up to me, God will be the final voice, government shouldn’t decide, blah blah blah kinda thing.  I’ve since, of course, changed my opinion, but not because I hate or fear gay people; I neither hate nor fear them . . . at least not in the leftist-accepted senses of those words.

Leftists, generally speaking, tend to claim that if you don’t embrace and do a happy dance at the [fill in the blank] parade, you “hate” the [fill in the blank].  Tolerance doesn’t mean tolerate, it means full-on, march-in-the-streets-support . . . or shut the hell up.  Bizarrely, not one of these self-appointed intellectual superiors questions this at all.  You can’t oppose gay marriage and not “hate” gay people.  All gay people, all the time.  You can’t oppose any of their pet projects and not “hate” . . . minorities, women, the planet, whatever.  It’s such myopic, sophomoric thinking that it’s truly laughable (honestly, if one of my first-year students tried to pass off a paper using this level of critical thinking, I’d be horrified. And their paper would certainly earn an “F.”).  I can’t believe, and don’t believe, that they actually believe this; in fact, I’m almost one hundred percent certain that they laugh at and ridicule the mindless leftist minions who gobble that up and spout it back as their version of gospel.

The far left doesn’t hate hate; it loves it.  Thrives on it.  Needs it.

Everyone and everything they target starts out as a “phobic” of some kind.  That phobic is then turned into the villain, who is then vilified, hated, silenced (and sometimes, with the left, that means literally killed).  But the end is not the hate for the “hater.” Oh no, that’s actually the means to the end.

Which brings us to what I do actually hate and fear about gay groups like GLAAD: their agenda.  They want gay “marriage,” not because they’ll get great government benefits or insurance breaks.  Indeed, 0Care and more and more tax laws are actually penalizing married couples–and all are Democrat initiatives. If marriage is so great that gays must have it, no matter how the people vote, then why are leftist legislators making it financially unrealistic to get married?  And why aren’t gay “marriage” activists screaming to high heaven about it?  Gee, maybe “marriage” isn’t the goal, not the actual agenda?  Consider, too, that these gay “marriage” activists never even contemplated any other option, such as making civil unions–for the government’s and contractual purposes–the rule for all of us.  Nope.  That wasn’t even on the table, it was derided as unfair (though how it’s unfair to have the same exact rule in place for all couples, gay or straight, as it pertains to government and civil law is beyond me.).

No.  They insist on gay “marriage” not because they value the institution of marriage but only to use the courts, use government to undermine religion, to force religions and churches to perform gay “marriages,” to go against their religious–and until now–protected conscience. That’s just wrong.  The goal, ultimately, is to undermine religion completely; after all, the “opiate of the masses” is never permitted in truly leftist regimes.

We’ve seen this gay bullying activity play out over the past few days with the uproar over the A&E, Duck Dynasty, Phil Robertson thing.  Apparently, A&E intended Duck Dynasty to be rather like Doomsday Preppers . . . only with more national mirth and holier-than-thou, I can’t believe such back-woods losers actually still exist in this century disbelief and ridicule.  Instead, the Duck Dynasty family appealed to millions and millions of Americans because they are real, they put family and God first, they love America, and they have actual principles and values.  They are, in essence, us.  Or whom we’d like to be, or whom we see our core selves as.

A&E was horrified (as it raked in the cash), and tried numerous times to bust the Duck Dynasty bubble . . . bizarre, really, since it was their own cash cow.  But they told the Robertson’s not to pray, they started “bleeping” randomly to make it seem that the Robertsons were cussing up a storm (and during prayer!), they edited and fudged and did everything they could to make that show about how low rent and laughable these apparently good-hearted people are.  This white trash, for goodness’ sake, we–goes the A&E logic–are better than them; they’re laughable with their provincial and quaint Christian values.  They have guns, for goodness’ sake!   They should be mocked!  And as far as A&E was concerned they WOULD be mocked.  No matter what it took.

Isn’t that just insane?  Imagine if Hitler’s antiSemitic cultural barrage had met with the same sort of resistance?  If his propaganda about Jewish people being dirty, worthless, animalistic, etc. had backfired so intensely, so spectacularly?  Imagine if the German and Western European peoples had seen, instead, that spark of humanity, that love of God, that sameness that they could relate to, embrace, celebrate . . . .  The comparison might seem outrageous; heck, it might even BE outrageous, but propaganda is propaganda, and its goal is always the same: to minimize, to mock, and ultimately, always, to dehumanize fellow human beings.

I’m proud of America for standing up and saying “no more!”  We should remember this and push back every single time the GLAAD bullies or any of their leftist race- and gender- and political affiliation buddies do the same thing.  Crazed feminist Camile Paglia even called them out for their fascist, “Stalinist” attacks on the Robertsons; if she can see the oppressive horror that is GLAAD and its ilk, we certainly should be able to  . . . and stay strong, stand tall in pushing back against it.

Part of that push back has to be buying only Duck Commander merchandise (the Duck Dynasty label is owned by A&E), getting rid of A&E (if you still have cable or satellite), refusing to support their sponsors, letting them know that their propaganda and attempts at social engineering will not work, and letting them know exactly how we feel about our religion and support for the free expression thereof.

Punishing His Enemies: It’s What Tyrannical Dictators Do

In 2010, Obama told a Latino audience:  “We’re gonna punish our enemies and we’re gonna reward our friends who stand with us on issues that are important to us.”  We, in the conservative blogosphere were horrified.  This sounded Nixonian, it sounded banana republic unethical.  Yes, the president sounded petty and self-important, but he was also proud in a bizarre way–as if, punishing enemies and rewarding friends was something that was not beneath him, as we might expect from someone in a position of such power, but was instead something that he actually relished.  It was mind-boggling, really, to think that the president’s political “enemies” (not “opponents,” not “loyal opposition,” but “enemies”!) were going to be labeled by the head of state as essentially “‘enemies’ of the state.”

Even those of us who heard it and understood the implications didn’t know how, exactly, these punishments would be doled out, what form they would take.  Perhaps, we hoped, he’d just keep calling us names, mocking and deriding us, sneering down at us from his Styrofoam pedestal.  Maybe he’d lie about us more than usual, urge his sheeple in the tabloid media and regressive groups to attack and attempt to discredit us more often.  Maybe he’d set up another version of “Flag the Fishy” and “Attack Watch” to get our fellow citizens to turn us into the state . . . for some reason, to locate all the “enemies” he has?  And to what end?  After all, this is America, you can’t “punish” Americans for political dissent or on the whim of a president.

You can’t, right?


This president has taken punishing his enemies (and often simultaneously rewarding his friends) and elevated it to an art form that would make history’s worst tyrants and dictators drool with envy:

His DOJ: in addition to suing Arizona for violating federal immigration laws (while ignoring violations of immigration law in “sanctuary” states and cities, of course–after all, what petty tyrant doesn’t pick and choose which laws he likes best?), also has a well-known policy of never prosecuting blacks for crimes against whites.  0’s DOJ also went after Gibson guitar on bogus “wood” crime allegations.

His TSA: in addition to gross abuses of power and zero ability to actually detect an actual terrorist, the TSA considers anyone who “opts out” of their porn scans and gate rapes to be “domestic extremists.”

His DHS: in addition to the unprecedented (and frankly bizarre) stock-piling of ammunition about which they decline to comment, issued a memo in April 2009 telling various law enforcement agencies across the country to be on the lookout for dastardly “. . .. groups that reject federal authority in favor of state or local authority [i.e. that pesky 10th Amendment which protects citizens and states from a too-powerful central government]. It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single-issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration,’ the warning says.” I.e. conservatives, TEA Party groups, patriots.

His military: in addition to forcing its pastors to perform gay “marriages,” has also targeted Christians in a special effort to silence their free speech.  And the army has been told not to consider actual terrorists (Nidal Hissan, for example) as terrorists, but instead to focus on Christians, Jews, and Islamaphobes.

His press secretary: tried to exclude the “enemy” network Fox News from an interview.  Yes, it was one interview, but if they had succeeded, it would have been the end of Fox in the WH press pool.  It was a baby step to see how far they could go in ending the freedom of the press.

His NLRB: targeted Boeing in a bogus lawsuit in an attempt to bully them into opening a new plant where the administration (and its union thug friends) wanted it.

His DOE joined with his DOJ to effectively revoke the First Amendment on all college campuses receiving federal funding (the majority of them, in other words).

His IRS: the recent revelations that the IRS was intentionally and methodically targeting TEA Party, “patriot,” and those groups or individuals “educating on the Constitution and Bill of Rights,” has created deep concern on the right–leftists, not being the targets this time, are perfectly happy to see this gross abuse of power to intimidate and silence opposition.  This isn’t that surprising; after all, if we’ve learned nothing else over the past four years, we’ve learned that leftists are perfectly happy with tyranny and oppression . . .  as long as they are the tyrants and oppressors.  Too bad for them that totalitarian takeovers historically end badly (very very badly) for the regime’s early supporters and apologists.

Not only are we, justly, concerned that political dissent will make us a target of IRS (or FBI, CIA, FDA, DOJ, or any other executive branch agency–keep in mind that the videographer 0 falsely blamed for Benghazi is still in prison.  Sure, he did something unrelated to the video wrong, but odd how he was only picked up after the attack in Benghazi when the president and secretary of state needed a scapegoat.  And believe me, every single person out there is guilty of some crime or violation of some regulation–there are so many that we don’t even know about. You could be harassed for collecting rain water, for growing vegetables or herbs on your porch, for who knows what else. So we are not only concerned about the IRS targeting us as taxpayers), but we also are concerned about what this means with the new role that the IRS has as the 0Care enforcers.  They now have, granted by the 0Care monstrosity, access to our personal bank accounts (actual access, not the power to freeze them–they’ve had that for ages), free reign to monitor our purchases and income, access to our personal medical files, and a list of other means by which to “enforce” the 0Care mandate.  These things could all be used to intimidate, bully, silence, even imprison any person “guilty” of political dissent.

And now we know, for a fact, that 0 is not only willing but actually relishes wielding the power of the presidency to “punish” his “enemies” (no, I won’t rant about his insistence that he can use drones to kill American citizens on American soil because he thinks them an “enemy,” but . . . well, not so tinfoil hatty now, huh?).  We, that is anyone who opposes this administration, are 0’s “enemies,” and no abuse of power, no strong-arm tactics, no bullying thuggery is beneath him.

These are the times that try men’s (and women’s) souls.  Luckily, we are Americans, and this tyrant wannabe will not intimidate, cow, or silence us.  We are not Germans defeated in spirit and nation, we are not Russian or Chinese peasants–isolated and disarmed, we are not, in other words, easy pickings.  And for that, I am forever grateful.

For Leftists: Thinking, Hard.

I’m not sure whom I find more despicable, the leftist pols who spin the most amazingly absurd narratives or the leftist morons who gobble them up as Gospel, infuse them with their own special brand of hate, and spew forth bile and vitriol like an overactive, over-reactive volcano.  Yes, I’m kind of talking about what’s going on as the left struggles to defend their Dear Leader and “messiah” on Benghazi.  Note that the last link was to a British news site; oddly, apart from Fox News, the only coverage of this massive story is being conducted overseas (oh, and it’s the leftist Guardian, not the rightish-but-still-faaar-left-of-me Telegraph, but you know how those Brits are just RAAAACIST Republicans who hate Obama.  Or something.). Note, too, that some tabloid television networks, like NBC, are willing to admit that Obama is incompetent or “sloppy.”  That’s huge.  He’s been the bestest best thing since best things were first found to be best, but now suddenly he’s incompetent? That’s one hell of an admission from the salivating, slavish media.  And we know why they’ll throw out that bone.

And, frankly, I–at least–don’t care.  We’re talking about “news” organizations that failed to cover the Gosnell trial because it was “local” but spent hours and hours on some crazy, murdering biotch’s guilty verdict . . . while the Benghazi hearings are the actual news–national and international news–of the day.  Indeed, the hearings are being covered not only in Britain but in Germany, even in Russia and in the Middle East.  Our “media”?  Dancing around like puppies for scraps from their master’s table.  Massive fail.

But I’m not really talking about that, per se, others are covering it amazingly; instead, I am mostly talking about . . . well, just generally. I was just reading through some articles and a couple illustrate my point magnificently: one talked about how the majority of Americans accept gay people and the other was about the Traitor in Chief’s comments about immigration.  Oh, and let’s not forget the bogus stat that 90% of Americans support background checks. Dude, 90% of Americans can’t agree that the sky is blue, but the myriad lies–outrageous, in-your-face-ridiculous, “not one dime” lies–this president tells are not really my point.

Here’s the thing, the point, if you will.  A poll shows that the majority of Americans accept gay people, and that’s probably true.  I do.  And I know that my conservative friends and relatives do.  But here’s where everything gets murky for sophomoric leftist brains: I can accept gay people without *gasp* supporting gay “marriage.”  Yes, it’s true!  I can also accept that Obama is president without wanting to make him dictator for life.  Imagine that!


Nuance that is, of course, totally lost on the all or nothing, my way or the highway left.  You can’t just accept gay people, you can’t just accept that the government should recognize gay relationships as they do those of heterosexuals.  Oh no!  That’s not good enough, not “tolerant” enough for the most intolerant people on the planet.  You must accept that God is wrong, that your religion, your faith, your beliefs are all wrong.  You must embrace something that you might accept but not endorse; if you’re not ready to don a pink tutu or a suit and tie and march in the gay pride parade, then you’re not tolerant enough.  Actually, well, you’re just a toothless troglodyte teabagging troll.

Uh huh.

It’s sad, isn’t it that our wanna-be intellectual and emotional superiors on the left are incapable of reason, of compassion, of understanding, of anything remotely resembling human feeling?

Sad, and I used to find it perplexing, but it’s really not.  They just have simple, childlike thought processes that literally jump from “you accept gay people” to “therefore, you must accept gay ‘marriage'” and with that the utter destruction of religion and of religious freedom in this country.  And if you don’t, well, everyone knows you can’t accept gay people without supporting gay “marriage”; therefore, you must HATE gay people!  Again, uh huh.  The lack of logic, of critical thought, is mind-numbing.  But not unexpected.

The left does this on purpose and urges its mindless sheeple to not think, to be “tolerant” and to think that tolerance somehow means acceptance, even submission.  It does not.  I can tolerate something without accepting it, much less submitting to it.  There’s a huge difference, actually, but the English language seems to be a bit problematic for shallow, unthinking leftists (probably why they feel the need to “revise” and “adapt” it so often).

And we see this knee-jerking, conclusion-jumping, skipping over major points and differences, ignoring of language and its meaning again in Obama’s statement that “unless you’re a Native American, you came from someplace else.”  Well, no . . . poop, Sherlock.  (omg, is that an awesome show or what? Anyway,) yes, Dear Leader, we–well, okay, maybe not me, personally.  Or my parents.  But sure, somewhere down the line, some of my relatives–came to the United States from someplace else.  But here’s the thing, they didn’t come here illegally.  They came here within and abiding the law, respecting their new home and hoping to succeed in the land of the free and home of the brave.  They didn’t sneak in, they didn’t “overstay their visas,” they didn’t come as “birth tourists,” they came as legal aliens who acquired citizenship and paid their own way, often against great odds.

But conflating all immigration with illegal immigration, all immigrants with illegal immigrants, is par for the regressive course.  Now, do you really think that Obama himself doesn’t understand the difference?  Of course he does.  Do you really think that Obama doesn’t know the difference between accepting gays and demanding that gay “marriage” be the law of the land?  Of course he does.  As in all things from the economy to foreign policy, he just plays his mindless minions like a fiddle.  Rome may burn . . . but his disciples won’t notice.  Until it’s too late.

Terms I Put In Scare Quotes . . . And Why

When I was writing my dissertation, my dissertation chair complained (seemingly) endlessly about my use, misuse, and (too often, flagrant) abuse of scare quotes.  As it happens, she was right: dissertations are not really the place for the challenging of accepted ideas with such a simple device–actually, as it turned out, dissertations are not the place to challenge ideas accepted by leftist loons at all (but that’s another story for another day).  However, snapping on some scare quotes is fun for the snarky and, as far as I’m concerned, mandatory for tweeters (particularly snarky tweeters like me).  While I can’t seem to write complete blog posts at the moment (several half-started, half-hearted drafts languish in my Drafts folder), I am rather active on Twitter where expressions must be succinct (140 characters or less) and still make sense.

This is actually a wonderful exercise for me because I tend to be verbose to the point of rambling incoherence.  Okay, maybe not incoherent, but I can rock a simple stance into several pages with little effort.  Scare quotes are my saving grace on Twitter because I can say so much with only two additional characters: “”.  Hard not to love that . . . even as it makes me think of that Friends episode in which Joey tried so hard, and with hilarious results, to understand “sc-air” quotes (when you wave your fingers on both hands in the “quotation” gesture to undermine, question, or otherwise lampoon the word, term, or phrase being “sc-aired”).

“Gun control”–It’s never ever about controlling crime; it’s always about controlling people.  Leftists create gun-free zones and then are shocked (shocked, I say) that lunatics hell-bent on mass casualties “hit” these gun-free zones.  That makes sense how?


“Marriage” (when used in conjunction with the word “gay”)–there is no such thing as “gay marriage.”  Marriage is what it is, and government plays exactly no role in its definition.  As long-time readers of this blog know, I was not always opposed to “gay marriage”; however, once it became clear that this was not about equality (civil rights–a term that never worked on me in this context) but about undermining religion, I realized just how wrong I was.

“Religion” (when used in conjunction with Islam)–Islam is not and never was “simply”  a religion (woot at the scare quotes).  It is, and always has been, a complete economic, political, religious, and socio-cultural dictate.  And it is, and always has been, a vehicle for barbarism, even evil.

“Compassionate Conservatism”–this one is SO annoying.  It means being a great big big-government leftist in faux-conservative clothing.  And yes, I do mean George W. Bush (his dad was, arguably, even worse because he was responsible for Agenda 21 in America).

“Progressive”–I always mean “regressive” because that’s what they are.  They anchor themselves in a destructive, regressive past that is fantastical (and/or evil: segregation, slavery, prohibition, eugenics, etc.).  For example, in the midst of the Great Depression, lunatic regressive FDR paid farmers NOT to farm.  People are starving, particularly in the South, and the government limits farmers’ crops or flat-out bars them from growing much-needed food.  This is not evil how?  FDR has earned his place among the worst presidents this country has ever had the misfortune of electing, and it’s no accident that the Constitution was amended (22nd Amendment) upon his death (he was barely cold in his grave before Americans ensured that two terms as president was quite enough).

“Conservative”–as expected, when I use scare quotes on this term, I mean establishment GOP (the big government “compassionate” conservatives–the “c” in “compassionate” more aptly stands for “communist”).  When I speak of Rubio, Christie, and/or Ben Carson, I use scare quotes.  These men are not conservatives.  Rubio is a corrupt little toad who used the state campaign credit card for his own personal use (yes, he repaid it, but not until he was caught . . . two years later), who claims that conservatives who oppose his amnesty idiocy are not “true conservatives,” and who refused to join the Senate TEA Party caucus (keeping in mind that he would have lost his race in FL if it weren’t for the TEA Party).  Christie, omg where do I even start?  He’s pro-Islamist (calls anyone who questions anything about Islamfascists “ignorant fools”), pro-big government “solutions,” and pro-Obama on far too many issues for my liking.  As for Carson, I love love loved him because of the prayer breakfast beat-down of 0, but he’s said that he thinks that the Second Amendment should only apply to people in rural areas.  Sorry, he’s lost the plot by too much for my comfort (or support).

“Feminist”–Okay, back to my dissertation director (she was a renowned “women’s and LGBT” scholar.  And, in case you were wondering, that’s worth exactly crap.).  She would get near-hysterical and down-right eye-bulgingly irate if I dared to mention anything that even remotely evoked what she sneeringly called “’80’s feminism.”  This was the so-called third wave of feminism, and as far as she was concerned was too pedestrian and intellectually barren for the would-be progressive academic she was intent in building (i.e. me).

I didn’t get it then.  But I do now.  “Feminism” had to change (to regress) to accommodate the new view that things like burqas and female genital mutilation (and honor killings, etc.) were actually–somehow–suddenly–okie dokey.  That being “tolerant” about these things was somehow more sophisticated, more intellectual.  You know, somehow.

I type that, and I see how insane it is, but these loons who still have the audacity to call themselves “feminists” (all the while actually hating women as women) actually defend such practices on the grounds of “tolerance.”  So feminists who once denounced female genital mutilation (as but one example) now look the other way when stats tell us it’s on the rise right here in America. A few of these faux feminists have even defended the practice.  All of this was anathema to me as an academic, a feminist, an American, and a woman.

So I’m bumbling along in my grad “training” to be a consummate Marxist; this just means that I wrote what was expected:  Marxist crap painted willy-nilly on every thought, word, and deed.  It was so easy, so mindless, that I didn’t even bother with it too much and would slap out a 25-page Marxist lunatic “analysis” in two hours . . . to rave reviews. (Yes, it was really that pathetic.).  It’s hard not to be good at manufacturing/ferreting out “inequality” in even the simplest prose; once you learn the basic premise, you see it everywhere . . . even though it exists exactly nowhere.   It’s like the hypochondriac who reads about the symptoms of a disease and immediately becomes convinced s/he has “it.”

“Mainstream”–let’s face it, “mainstream” actually means the 8-10% of Americans who are Obots (including, of course, the “mainstream” media).  What is actually mainstream is dismissed as “extremist” and lately as the behavior/thoughts of a “potential terrorist.”

“Racism”–One of the great travesties, I think, of leftism is the crazed notion that race is the root of any dissent.  This does nothing to advance debate and serves only, purposefully, to silence anyone who doesn’t agree with 0’s job-killing, middle-class-robbing tactics.

I used to feel insulted when some leftie accused me of racism for the simple act of verbalizing my dissent.   “You just hate him because he’s black,” was the accusation.  Um, well, I hated the same policies under Carter and some (NCLB) under Republican presidents.  Does this mean that I’m a sometimes racist? That I hate all white, Southern men?  It’s nuts; conservatives have nothing to prove here.  We’ve already lost the trenches; we’re evil, hate people, want them to die, blah, blah, blah.  If we don’t have “enough” black republicans, we’re racist.  If we have too many, we’re racist and only pandering.  The truth, of course, is harder for them to grasp.  Conservative values and principles actually empower people; less government intervention is GOOD for people of all races.

As I noted, I’ve actually felt guilty in the past for my views on 0’s destructive, disastrous policies.  He’s killing our economy, and he’s doing it on purpose.  This has zero to do with race and everything to do with policy (I hate what Reid and Pelosi are doing, too. Does that make me a hater of white men or women?  Of course not.).  But for scrambling, fearful leftists, it’s always–always–about race.  Even when it isn’t.  Even when the people don’t think about or care about race.

Gay Marriage, Weddings, and Civil Unions

I wrote this article on November 16, 2006

So I’m watching Studio 60 last night and they raise (yet again) the question of same sex marriage, so I roll my eyes, sigh, think about changing the channel, but ultimately stick around (not a whole lot on on Monday nights, right?). Don’t get me wrong, it’s not that I have no opinion on the topic or that I think the topic boring or unimportant or trivial, but I am just sick to death of the tired old arguments on both sides of the issue. We know both sides of this debate and have heard them until we (okay, maybe only I) am sick to death of the whole thing.

And then Studio 60 did something different, somehow managed to get me to think about same sex marriage again. Sure, they trotted out the “how’s it going to hurt traditional marriage?” and the “where is it allowed in the Bible?” questions (the answer to both is “it’s not.”), but they also brought up the question of a parochial society unwilling or unable to keep up with the swift changes of our age. This I found interesting. And refreshing. Maybe not accurate, but at least it was a new spin on the well-worn arguments in this debate.

The way the argument was posited was during an exchange between the two principal male and female actors: the female against same sex marriage, the male for it. She says the same stuff about same sex marriage we always hear from the right: it’s a religious, moral, and social question, and he responds by saying based on that argument, then, slavery shouldn’t have been abolished (I’ve not read the entire Bible, but I guess slavery is A-ok in there). Hmmm. So then she says (and here is the part that got my attention), but it takes time to accept change, and that Black people had been living openly as Black people for centuries; whereas, homosexual people had been living openly for only thirty or so years. Hmmm.

All in all not a very generous view of middle America (where the numbers are, and where “protecting marriage” is a real issue). But there just might be something to this argument, right? I mean, look what happened to Ellen DeGenerous. She comes out on her sitcom, kisses a woman on the show, and she’s out of a job before the end of taping that day. Next thing you know, everyone is kissing same sex people in prime time; Rosanne does it, happened all the time on Will & Grace, and well, on just about any sitcom you can name. Once it happened, it was somehow more okay. It’s like bad language and violence; it really wasn’t that long ago that prime time shows couldn’t air words such as “shit” and “whore,” but now, well, you hear those, plus “bitch” and on cable, even worse. It’s taking a mile when you’ve been given an inch; it’s pushing the boundaries . . . just a little, until they’ve been pushed back so far, they cease to exist. Women weren’t allowed to vote in this country until 1920, and now, less than a century later, at least one woman is thinking about running for President.

I have no doubt that same sex marriage will eventually be recognized by law in this country, and I think that’s a good thing (I’m not so sure that increased violence and foul language on prime time is a good thing). I guess it’ll start as “civil unions” which is just a bigoted and homophobic way of saying that homosexual people aren’t as important as the rest of us, that their love and commitment is somehow less than ours. But then, someone somewhere will realize that millions of heterosexual couples get legally married by Justices of the Peace or Notary Publics (the latter only in some states, i.e. Florda) without any religious involvement at all: across the land, opposite sex marriages are happening in court houses, on lawns, in living rooms, in forests, while snorkeling or sky diving for goodness’ sake, and all without the benefit of the (or any) church. Some of these people, GASP, are atheists or heathens or . . . worse! There is no “sanctity of marriage” involved here, right?

But these heterosexual couples are permited to marry and to be recognized as married by the laws of this land; so maybe it’s not a religious issue at all since marriage itself is not always about making an oath before God or even by people who believe in God, right? Wouldn’t that suck the religiosity out of it? To some people getting a marriage license is just as religous and spiritually meaningful as getting a fishing licence or registering their car with the RMV. But no one is telling them they better change their ways or they can’t get married (someone is probably telling them that they’ll burn in hell, but then, at least they can visit each other in the hospital on their way down.).

And when someone somewhere realizes all this, they’ll get the word out that a traditional church wedding and getting married are totally different things (very like a wedding and marriage are totally different things). And then people will be rushing to ensure that same sex people cannot be married in a church and/or before their God but only in nonreligious, nonsectarian ceremonies recognized by the State. And maybe that will be okay. I guess we’ll have to wait and see on that one.