It's exciting!

Got back, checked my e-mail. WeHoNews headline excitedly proclaims CA Supreme Court makes decision on same-sex marriage. It was really funny. It was only a headline; it didn't reveal victory or defeat, but it was almost as if the headline was very excited. It couldn't wait for me to click it so it could be first to tell me that gay people finally get to marry! It's a wonderful day for Social Justice.

Here's what Justice Marvin Baxster, one of the dissenters, said, as taken off the LA Times: "The court majority 'does not have the right to erase, then recast, the age-old definition of marriage, as virtually all societies have understood it, in order to satisfy its own contemporary notions of equality and justice.' I think about it, it's such a breakthrough day. But it's funny how marriage, something so culturally-made, so unnatural (in the sense that it doesn't happen in Mother Nature), gets to have so much meaning. "Age-old definition of marriage, as virtually all societies have understood it." I think that's a very crappy way of calling Marriage. The marriage in question and in controversy now, is the Legal definition. Not the definition "as virtually all societies have understood it." Because a lot of people have supported the social ideal of allowing everyone to get married. It's just that the books have not. So I disagree with Baxter.

And sometimes--I'm going on record for saying this: I am a mental hypocrite--It's the funniest idea that the concept of Marriage has become so revered. (Not in Hollywood though, in Hollywood, Divorce has become the sacred phenomena) What if gay people got married but called it something else. Like Garried. or Harried. or Sarried. That's a novel idea, ain't it? But it's that society has gotten so stuck on this rigid definition of Marriage, that anything that isn't called properly called Marriage, just isn't Marriage. Most of the time, things that have an own unique nature are called a specific name. We are all people, but there are Men and Women. There are children and adults. There are infants and newborns. There are fetuses and embryos. Same difference? All human? Matrimony is the broad term. One is marriage, other is called something else--equal counterparts. Catch my drift?

But conversely, coming back down to the Real World, where Reality is rigid, and Philosophy is imagined and formless, social justice will demand that same-sex couple have Marriage under that name--Marriage.

But anyways, my existential dilemma in the third paragraph, SANCTIONING with FULL RIGHTS same-sex marriage and giving it its own name, could never have happened anyway, because the idea of a same-sex couple as a long-term, monogamous couple is absolutely unfathomable to some people who make decisions in Politics, and also they would never have allowed any other form of "Marriage" by any other name to occur between a man/man and woman/woman. Geesh. So since they don't want gay couples to remain permanently, monogamously together, does that mean that they want gay couples to be promiscuous and couple with more than one partner. Be polygamous? This is the type of ignorant thinking--just because we don't sanction it, it'll be okay--that led to AIDS spreading. This is the kind of thinking that could also apply to drugs. Just because we outlaw it, nobody will have access, nobody will do it...Right? Politicians, I fully trusted your collective brains when I voted for you. When I pay taxes to support you. And you enact policy with the naivete of a three year old?

FOR THE RECORD, I am excited for same-sex couples. And I have nothing wrong with calling gay marriage by the name Marriage. I was just noting the thought that society as a whole has gotten so clingily attached to an unnatural cultural notion, so much so that it becomes and Institution. Kind of like Religion if you think about it.

Call that creator God--not by anything else.

Call monogamous long-term relationships Marriage--not by anything else.

Therese M. Stewart told the court that "the name 'marriage' matters." But Justice Ming W. Chin chided: "Doesn't that place rhetoric over reality?"

I am so irritated by that stupid chide. "Doesn't that place rhetoric over reality?"
Well, if you, Mr. Chin, think so lowly of rhetoric, what difference does it make if Gay-unions were legally called Gay-marriages? I hate this kind of silly reasoning that religious people have of reasoning. It's not reasoning at all. God exists because the Bible said it does? Geez.

Let's listen to Bill O'Reilly. He had a tough time understanding how the Universe came to be. Incredible, he thought. No way could something come out of nothing. (I have repeated many times in this blog, I do not intend to even try to understand where the Universe comes from, that is beyond me.) But O'Reilly has the freaking nerve to say God created everything. He can believe that. He can believe it because he was taught that since he was young. In other words, he was brainwashed by the Church. He is a cult follower. Duh, that is what Religion is. So can he answer, with reason not Religion, where God came from?

That's what I thought.


p.s.this.is.from.the.la.times.