One Man'Z OpinionZ... or AvocationZ

November 20, 2003 - 9:15 p.m.

Not That There's Anything Wrong With That, Revisited

A couple of days ago, the Massachusetts Supreme Court issued a decision which says, in effect, that gays should be allowed to marry.

I say "in effect," because many Massachusetts legislators are burning the midnight oil, studying the exact wording of the decision, trying to decide if there's a way the state can comply without really complying. These legislators include Governor Mitt Romney, who's done as good a job of hiding from the public as anyone ever has who's been elected to such a high office. Not that anyone's really missed him. I mean, how seriously can you take a man who's named after a piece of athletic equipment? (I know, I know, that's a cheap shot. But then again, that's my specialty!)

Religious groups are (predictably) up in arms, as well. But there's nothing in the court's ruling saying that the churches have to recognize gay marriages. Maybe some of these churches are just upset that consenting adults can do what they want, but mixing clergymen with underage boys is still taboo. (And maybe they've forgotten that homosexuality is merely about sexual orientation, whereas child molestation and other crimes involving sex, such as rape, are more about sick power trips and less about sex, regardless of whether the victim is of the same or the opposite gender.)

Personally, I think that anything denying gays their rights boils down to simple discrimination.

I get a tad upset when I hear these self-righteous s***heads state that marriage is a union between man and woman, and that no other combination is acceptable. Oh, yeah? Acceptable to whom, and why, I wonder, and I just love it when they fall back on the Bible for their answer. Even 'though I happen to be a practicing Christian ("practicing" meaning that I prob'ly ain't got it right yet), I take a perverse pleasure in shooting holes in someone's argument whenever they're using the Bible to justify a law.

Anyone here remember that pesky ol' " separation of church and state?"

In order to avoid offending anyone anywhere, Christians have had to stop putting up Nativity scenes on city hall property. Those Americans who believe in the Judeo/Christian God are verbally chastised for having innocuous phrases like "under God" in our country's Pledge of Allegiance, and "In God We Trust" on our money. And if it wasn't for the brief -- but somewhat inspirational -- unity we U.S. citizens showed immediately after 9/11/01, I'm sure there would have been more comments against "God Bless America" being our rallying song. And of course, who can forget the recent brouhaha about Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore and his refusal to remove the monument to the Ten Commandments from the state's Judicial Building?

Folks, I'm not arguing against the aforementioned " separation of church and state," I'm simply suggesting that if this country is going to observe said concept, it do so across the board, and not ignore it when it's -- to quote Dana Carvey's Church Lady, fittingly enough -- "conveeeeenient," like when it's a good way for a politician, pressure group, or so-called "private citizen" to say "I'm not a bigot, I'm just following God's laws!" while he or she is trampling someone else's civil rights.

If you insist that grocery store & department store intercoms play generic, non-denominational "holiday" music (endless variations of "Here Comes Santa Claus," "Jingle Bells," "Frosty the Snowman," etc.) as opposed to anything which actually reminds us -- God forbid! (pun intended) -- that the first two thirds of the word "Christmas" refer to that Jesus guy ("We Three Kings," "The First Noel," "Oh, Holy Night," etc.), why stop there? All these references to "the holiday season" and other, non-Christian holidays, are just a blind, at least when it comes to what day we're actually commemorating. This isn't meant to invalidate anybody else's religious beliefs, but the plain and simple fact is that Christmas itself is a Christian holiday. Get over it. Or, failing that, if you insist that it's solely "their" holiday, stop celebrating it!

Now there's a thought!

Let's make these self-righteous Christians just pick up their toys -- you know, the toys ostensibly delivered by a Saint named Nicholas? -- and go home. And while we're at it, let's invoke the separation of church and state once again. Why should a Christian holiday be a national holiday, anyway?

Other religions have their own holidays at this time of year, too. And more power to 'em. But they don't have national holidays. So, why should Christians?

Therefore, here's my message to Christians and non-Christians alike: From now on, on every December 25th, shake off your eggnog-induced hangover, get your lazy ass out of bed, and go to work! And forget about a Christmas bonus while you're at it. What do you really need that extra money for anyway, except to buy more presents? If we're getting away from Christmas-based practices, the gift-giving itself has to be toned down. Let all of us -- Christians, Jews, Muslims, pagans, etc. -- concentrate on the "real" meanings of our respective holidays, and let the atheists and agnostics -- God bless 'em! -- do whatever it is that they do this time of year, too. And if the economy suffers a bit in the process, oh-freaking-well! Babies.

I'm just asking for a little consistency. That's all. Just a little. Kinda like Swift's "A Modest Proposal," 21st century style.

Thanks for your time.

All entries copyright � David M. Lynch, except where it's blatantly obvious that they aren't. And I don't care if this is the internet; don't f**k with me! And by the way, any e-mails I receive may be quoted from -- in whole or in part -- on my RantZ page (or elsewhere) without the permission of the author(s), unless you specifically state that you do not want me to do so somewhere in the body of the e-mail in question! S'awright? S'awright!

previous - next