Saturday, June 25, 2011

New York, New York

I'm ba-a-ack.
There's been some trouble with google now owning blogspot, I think—anyway I couldn't even get to my own blog for a while, and that's why I have been bottling up my curmudgeonly gripings lately.

Tonight tho I start off with a joy, tempered by a realization of how far there is yet to go.
Today the New York State Senate approved a bill allowing same-sex marriage. In a senate led by Republicans. Holy  mackerel! It's been a struggle but the goal is finally achieved.

This is a big disappointment to the Catholic Church and many other conservative Christians. They are so hung up on believing that the Bible is the actual teaching of God, rather than the attempts of an early society to protect itself and make sense of the world. There was an older translation of the bible in my church which said that eating the flesh of the pig was an abomination and later said that a man having sex with a man was an abomination—and I liked to bludgeon those who were against homosexuality with the thought that eating a BLT was a bad as a man sleeping with another man.
Had a BLT lately?
The NRSV bible, alas, only says that eating the flesh of a pig is unclean. Doesn't have the same punch. New translations are not always better.
In Leviticus, women aren't considered in same sex relations, being pretty much second-class citizens so who cares. It is only in the letters of Paul (my minister says it is in there somewhere but i forget where and I'm too lazy right now to go looking) that women sleeping with women is given equal condemnation as men sleeping with men. That's progress for the status of women, kinda, I guess.

Anyway, I'm happy that NY State has finally decided to enter the 21st century. And kudos to Governor Cuomo  for pushing this to victory. I'm having a vision of "Cuomo for President in 2016" placards right about now.
Obama better hope it's not "Cuomo in 2012." Obama was in NYC telling gays that he was against any kind of discrimination. But I'm not sure that he came out in favor of actual marriage. Someone, one of my two actual readers, can correct me on this if they have the energy.
He does belong to a UCC church and should know better. The UCC is a church which says that "God is still speaking" and that means that what was understood by the ancients is not the end and is not necessarily apropos today.
The world and humanity is still growing and evolving. It ain't over yet, folks.
I think Obama, and the Democrats in general, should consider speaking their minds and openly and aggressively fighting for their goals, instead of weaseling  around worrying about 2012, and also achieving consensus—and those goals are not necessarily compatible.

Goodnight all.


Scruffy said...

I am so proud to be a New Yorker! Some versions of the bible say that anything in the waters (oceans etc.) that do not have scales and fins are an abomination. But that never stopped bigots from going to Red Lobster. Guess God made lots and lots of abominations.......(mis)interpretations and all, what it boils down to is Love. And there is precious little of that commodity in the world today. Tom and I have been together for nearly 23 years and since cancer has been a very unwelcome guest in our lives these past 2 years, we realize only all too well how that love can be snatched away. What a treat and what a joy to actually be able to now say "I do".

AngryJim said...

I seem to recall from reading long ago about the origins of marriage as it is today (for some of the world, anyway...) is as follows:

For almost all of civilized history, marriages were either arranged at birth or when very young, by parents, worldwide - and that those marriages were the extent of it. Those, especially women, who refused to fulfill the family commitment were granted equality with equal sized rocks being thrown at them until they were dead (or being abandoned in a desert, or burning, or some other such treatment that should only be applied upon DIVORCE!)

Another aspect was, of course, the "chattel" arrangement - where the dowry was required, and the parents literally sold off the daughter to a deserving (and with luck, the son of someone with some nobility or chance of nobility or had at least run a gauntlet or did SOMETHING -- in order to justify a large dowry.

(see next post - this is continued)

AngryJim said...

The others? They were either spinsters/old maids, or their equally ranking (and RANK smelling) social matches were adequately compensated with goat or some such impressive piece of property.

Why do I mention this? Because it is, again, if I recall correctly, that "Marriage" for "LOVE" and "CHOICE" became differentiated in the homosexual community of the WAY "B.C." times -- (I figure if the Romans rose around 2000 years prior, then the Greeks had their run for about 2000 years prior to that - which basically takes us back 6000 years or more.

And that THIS GROUP (for simplicity, I'll call them "The Stylish") were the ones who married without these parental arrangements, without exchanges of chattel and/or cattle, had no dowry requirements - and instead, professed their commitment by way of a thing called "Marriage" - and provided rings to each other to symbolize the eternity of their "feelings" by the eternal nature of going around in circles.

I don't know much about Egyptians except they liked their bricks REALLY BIG - and with them they made pyramids, used lots of slaves, and were running things back around 5000 BC.

(continued below)

AngryJim said...

Go one step further - and look at how GOP hopeful, former Arkansas governor Mike Huckleberry (or whatever his name is --- and these people were ashamed of Clinton?!?) - has not only picked up the mantle for the unborn, but has proven his fitness to lead this "Great Nation" by playing his bass while talking to the bass player from Def Leopard, all while simultaneously criticizing such important luminaries in today's global society for their behavior -- among them being Natalie Portman, for being an "unwed mother" - and flaunting it (by being happy? by deciding to not marry the father and end up divorced, but did, indeed keep the child? I think he missed those two points), as well as... well, let me hit return a few times - since there are a few noteworthy ones:

"If a person dresses provocatively, they're calling attention -- maybe not the most desirable kind -- to private parts of their body." --after being asked whether he's against miniskirts


"And the ultimate thing is, I may not be the expert that some people are on foreign policy, but I did stay in a Holiday Inn Express last night."

What do the musings of a political troglodyte have to do with this discussion on marriage? Or "Gay Marriage" as it has been determined to be the proper "issue label?"

Nothing. It does, however, reveal the sad truth about politics in the United States - and that is, that some of the sorriest excuses for "Leadership" can be elected as a state's governor - and be considered by the GOP, as a legitimate candidate for president of the United States.

And THAT is frightening.

So rather than end on a frightening note, we should all at least be able to crack a smile. Therefore, I include this URL - of other things Huckleberry has had to say.

I hope they get him nominated, actually.


You will notice an absence of continuity between posts 2 and 3, and that's because a certain curmudgeon DELETED the entirety of what was originally post #3 of 4 posts.

Since my current seething prevents me from even TRYING to recreate the rush of thoughts that spawned the entire response in the first place, I'll just close with this hope that John one day finds the sheep of his dreams, and posts pics of himself with it on their wedding night.

curmudgeon said...

Really Angry Jim is funny.
When i get this up on my own site in wordpress these problems won't recur. In the meantime I urge him to proofread his posts before sending and those errors which he wants me to fix won't happen.

somewhere over the rainbow said...

holy sheep...."REALLYANGRYJIM" thinks gay marriage is like marrying a farm animal. heard that one alot. yikes. he would probably feel quite entitled to call me an "it" too. not to mention, marriage was failing long before Gays wanted the right to marry. I guess sometimes you've just got to use "..the master's tools..." and finish that dying beast of an institution off for good. Maybe we should just blame the entire equal rights movement if you catch my drift. blacks want rights, women want rights, gays want rights, transgender people want rights, and next thing you know........