Thursday, May 28, 2009

California Burns, America watches.

Here we go again!

The state of California refuses to lift the ban on gay marriage. Sure
enough, this is a burning issue now, and the evangelists, the
homophobic fools, and a lot of straight couples, many with families of
their own, somehow imagine gay people do not deserve the same civil
rights they enjoy.

Some even talk about what is good for children, and how a child must
have two parents, namely, a man and a woman. Oh, lord! Now, it must
be really illegal to be a single parent, right? How about those kids
who have NO parent? Clearly, concern over a child being raised with
optimum care is not to be scoffed at, but to bring up that point in
order to deny someone a constitutional right is downright low and must
be worthy of our worst condemnation - if not for conniving timing,
then for outright stupidity.

We hear the argument that marriage was originally meant by God to be
between a man and a woman. Duh, where did God come into this
discussion, and where is the rascal when people break their bloody
marriage vows? Let's leave the poor chap out of this, shall we?
There! Now it is between human beings. Actually, this should always
have between human beings, but who can ignore the power of those who
lean on God to enforce their own agenda on the world?

A country that claims to be a secular county that supposedly respects
all religions cannot constantly or predominantly refer to the Bible
and its implications. It should at the very least, refer to texts of
all religions represented amongst its people. This is clearly not
being done, and this is just one example of Americans running with
cattle momentum. Whoever makes the most noise is getting heard the
most, and forget about the rest? Shame on you.

Religion should really be left out of this debate. God did not invent
marriage. If he had an opinion on it, that was invented too, since
all of us do not subscribe to the same God, even if we occasionally
agreed on ONE God! But then, let's move out of the irrational, and
let's examine what we agreed to argue about - the Constitution,
rights, being gay, and marriage.

First of all, it is none of my business who wants to marry whom. Not
because I am heterosexual but because I should have no power or any
part of deciding another person's life or choices, sexual, moral or
social. And it is damn well is none of YOUR business either. What is
criminal about two people of the same gender getting married? And how
does two gay people getting married affect other marriages?

Now, let's spare a thought to the institution of marriage. It has
caused more misery than any other man made institution, so there is
something positive about warning people against it, but then anti gay
rights activists do not have such lofty goals, do they? They want to
"DENY" that right to other people. Isn't it obvious that to save the
institution of marriage, we should have more people getting married
than those guilty of sneaking out of it? So, unless there is a ban on
divorce, there is no justifiable reason for anyone to ask for gay
people to be denied the right to get married in order to protect this
lousy institution. So, this nonsense about saving the institution of
marriage can be summarily rejected, with outright and complete
prejudice, I might add.

All the time, we hear how it would be damaging on children to be
taught that marriage can be between any two consenting adults. Well,
fat load of good it has done to be taught that marriage can only be
between a man and a woman - just look at the percentage of divorces!
If we care that much about how many things children need to be taught
right, let's start with the truth - there is no scientific basis for
theories of creation, and no scientific rational proof of the
existence of God.

Let's give children the choice to decide if they want to have God or
not in their minds. Let's not abuse them by taking them to church and
enforcing upon them a voodoo like spell, all the while mentioning God
like he is the boss of Santa Claus. If children were to be taught
that sort of "truth", they should hear that their parents are working
for the devil each time they fight, and are definitely carrying out
Satan's orders when they file for divorce. Test tube babies were
certainly not in fashion at the time Christ walked the earth, were
they? So, do those kids have a whole new set of rules to abide by?
Should they worship scientists as Gods? So now, out with the
distraction of trying to tell our children the truth!

About being gay - there is nothing here to believe or think about this
one. It is a natural thing, and even if it is artificial, it is
somebody else's choice and hence, should be respected. (Clearly the
people who do not think so were not taught very much about respect
when they were children). There is absolutely no scientific evidence
that being gay is a choice, and is indeed a very natural biological
orientation. The people who call this "unnatural" are just really
badly informed and should summarily disqualify themselves from this

The campaign to deny gay people the right to marry is multipronged and
very distracting. Why do they talk about enforcing inequality when it
is clearly unconstitutional? What part of the Constitution do they
not understand when it guarantees non-discriminatory application of
the law to all the country's citizens? Why are the emotional aspects
of this issue allowed to gain ground over the clarity of the legal

The greater debates about the separation of church and state, about
the true meaning of the word "marriage" and things of that nature can
wait. What is at stake here is a much more serious issue - one of a
court upholding a verdict that clearly allows violation of the
Constitution. If the Constitution is a fluid document, can it really
be amended to violate one of the fundamental principles it has always
stood for? And is that what the State of California is endorsing?

For all the good that Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has done, he is
certainly not helping us get closer to the resolution to this issue by
saying, politically correctly, that he respects the decision of the
court, but also respects the rights of individuals. It is appreciable
that he does not want his personal opinion to influence the opinion of
the State, but what part of "HUMAN RIGHTS" doesn't he understand?

If America takes joy in "liberating" Afghan women and letting them
play soccer and parading them on Oprah, it needs to look deep within
its soul and ask how liberated its own people really are. Americans
need to understand something very fundamentally here - all that you
don't like is not wrong. We don't even need to go into the other side
of the coin - all that you like is not right. This institution called
marriage is not a club to which entry can be granted or denied. It is
a right for people to exercise however they want, whether it is in a
church, temple, hall, or even while dropping from a plane.

If one fundamental right is rightfully denied to even one person under
the Constitution, the document is hardly worth the paper it is written
on. This is no different from lynching someone without trial, and
very much like the whole country agreeing to send someone to the gas
chamber, just because they don't like his face. It is not YOUR bloody
face, fools.

This is hardly the time to be pussyfooting around the core of the
problem. The core of the problem is being drowned by the noise being
generated by people upon whom this issue has no bearing at all - non
gay, non lesbian, non bisexual and non transgender people. Whether
they decide to marry or not, people of the same gender have to have
the right to make the choice. It is simply not for anybody else to
choose, and it certainly is not a matter of opinion. It is a matter
of rights. It is a matter of correcting the collective wrong the
State of California has committed.

Dogma, beliefs (especially religious ones), convictions, and opinion
have no place and no part to play in what is essentially a matter of
understanding the big picture of a nation's standpoint. Does the USA
want to stand for bigotry, hypocrisy, and discrimination or does it
actually want to stand for the higher ideals upon which the future of
humanity can be envisioned? That is the question, no less.

What is at risk here is the USA's image as a progressive, liberal,
respectful, non-intrusive culture. There are a lot of people in the
USA that are not progressive, not liberal, not respectful of other
people's rights, and definitely uncaring about other people who are
not like them. But these people, even if they were to be in the
majority, are not the engines to drive America's policy. The
Constitution is a set of ideals to hold and cherish in common. It
cannot contain arbitrary clauses that can deny what the USA constantly
fights for in several contexts.

The Gay rights movement has come to the fore at a time in the history
of the USA when there are many questions that need to be answered from
more than one perspective. This is a test of the USA's evolution in
spirit, in the individual and in the collective. If found wanting,
there is no guarantee that the USA will hold its place on the moral
scale. In fact, it is almost guaranteed to be pushed back several
notches if it comes up inadequate in understanding something as
fundamental as this.

This is the time for the USA to act upon this opportunity to reaffirm
its often touted commitments to all the great causes like liberty and
freedom. This is the time for America to shed its stone age
inhibitions and come out in the clear, unambiguous and strong, and to
have the courage to silence its own ill informed rotten apples.

No comments: