Signs, Sounds, & Thoughts From My Experience At The Women’s March in Washington D.C.

One Man’s Story: Why I Marched With Women on Trump’s First Day
By: Dan Beckmann/Orlando Sentinel
25 January 2017 

Last week, rather excitedly, I posted, what I thought was a fairly innocuous tweet; “Heading to D.C. for the March!”  I wrote.  So, I was surprised to read the first response.  Not because it arrived so quickly, I have nearly 10,000 followers.  Rather, because it came from a friend with an ambiguous quip. “Last I checked you were a man…is there something you’re not telling me?”  She wrote.  Surely my well-educated friend could not be so confused to think a Y chromosome would be a disqualification for taking part in a Women’s March?  Nonetheless, there it was.  That comment…hanging like a piñata, just waiting for me to crack it with a great big stick.

So, to my friend who wrote, what I’m sure she thought was a comment in jest, I guess there are some things I haven’t thought to tell you.  Allow me to fill you in on a few of them.

For 15-years, as a cameraman, writer, and producer with NBC News, I sat on the front line of many struggles.  This was the first time I would be at the epicenter of something of this magnitude as a participant.  I knew why I was marching because I had the checked boxes all filled out in my head; women’s rights, minority issues, climate change, education.  All the big ones.  But it wasn’t until I was nestled amongst a sea of pink hats and humanity that I realized why I was really there.  By the way, there were quite a few disqualified Y chromosome people marching with me.

Women, and those with minority voices, have always played crucial roles in my success.  They are too often underrepresented, undermined, and undervalued.  So, from what some might call my “privileged” seat in society, I felt it was even more important for me to walk out my allegiance to them.

I marched because Donald Trump promised to serve all people.  And so far, his immediate circle of influence lacks the diversity to make that possible.  Having him hear our voices from his new home on his first day in office was a great start. Not everyone who needed to be heard could be there, so I was marching for them…and for all the people who’ve made a difference in my life.

I marched for my mom, who as a single parent took odd jobs teaching tennis lessons, tending bar, and fixing lawnmowers.  Always making less than the guy next to her who did the exact same job.  My mom never failed to take a college course and never got a failing grade.  Receiving her doctorate 35 years after taking her first class.

I marched for, and alongside, my friends Kent and Caanan.  Showing up with my support to protect their right to stay married.

I marched for my daughter Lauren, and my friend Tiffany.  Each survivors of sexual assault who now must watch a man who’s bragged about assaulting women lead our country for the next four years.

I marched for those so confused that they now believe in “alternative facts.”

I marched for my friends who lost all hope, and got suckered by a manipulative liar who placed a large bet on their fears and won bigly.

I marched as a reminder to those “who won” that they cannot ignore those who didn’t.  And I marched as a reminder to our representatives in Washington that they are bound by an oath to represent all those in their districts.

I marched to promote a global community of diverse members. The outcry of values and priorities aren’t solely “American issues” with isolated consequences.  Millions of others, on all 7 continents, took part in over 670 solidarity events. Our leader may say, “America First”, but we cannot claim to be “America Only”.

And I marched for that friend of mine, the Twitter commenter.  Apparently, there were some things I didn’t tell you.  I’m glad I told you about them now so we can put down our phones and get to the business of building a brighter future for us all.  And that’s something worth tweeting and re-tweeting about.

img_1508

Food & Wine Unite To Support Pulse & Orlando LGBT

A group of popular Orlando chefs and hospitality leaders decided to Just DO Something…Anything! by joining together for a barbecue to benefit The LGBT Center of Central Florida (www.thecenterorlando.org). Over 500 people came out to enjoy great food, live music, and a butterfly release and remembrance ceremony in the courtyard. There was no ticket price to attend the event, which ran from 4-8pm at East End Market (eastendmkt.com).

The benefit, Food and Wine Unite Orlando (foodandwineuniteorlando.myevent.com), was organized by chefs Kevin Fonzo of K Restaurant and Jamie McFadden of Cuisiniers Catered Cuisine & Events. After the Pulse Nightclub attack, chefs Kevin and Jamie wanted to give back to the “The Center,” which has helped so many victims’ families and survivors.

100% of the proceeds were donated to The LGBT Center of Central Florida for assistance in rebuilding resources.

Participating Orlando-area restaurants included; Smiling Bison, Hawkers, Swine & Sons, The Rusty Spoon, Chef Tim Keating and Wild Ocean Market, Se7en Bites, The Courtesy Bar, and all of the merchants at East End Market.

Wines were provided by Craft & Estate: a member of The Winebow Group, Tim’s Wine Market, Stacole Fine Wines, Winesellers, LTD., Augustan Wine Imports, and Breakthru Beverage Group.  Sponsors for the event included K Restaurant, Cuisiniers Catering, East End Market, The Boathouse at Disney Springs, Quantum Leap Winery, Breakthru Beverage Group, Overeasy Events, Platinum Parking, Orlando Wedding & Party Rentals, and Linens By the Sea.

 

Sam is a Ram! St. Louis Rams Just DO Something in NFL Draft

Rams Pick Michael Sam, First Openly Gay Player Drafted In NFL

A Life With “Out” Limits: Growing Up Hindu and Homosexual

by Arati M. Jambotkar

Sometimes I have dreams about my future wedding day.  I hold hands with my Indian husband – an engineer maybe, or a doctor – as we circle the ceremonial fire in traditional Indian garb, flanked by gold jewelry and extravagant ornaments.  We are filled with the certainty that we will be bound together in harmony for life, and everything is perfect – just the way it’s supposed to be…
There’s only one problem: I’m not straight.  But it took me a long time to realize that it’s not a problem.
I grew up in a small town forty miles west of New Orleans, the younger of two daughters of immigrants.  My parents are the most self-sacrificing people I know.  My dad was raised in a tiny village in India with no electricity or running water, oftentimes studying by candlelight during his childhood and eating nothing but a boiled egg a day.  In contrast, I was raised in America with things that far surpassed mere necessities.  Although I felt grateful for these luxuries, along with that gratitude came an equally strong sense of guilt over being spoiled.  The combination of that gratitude and guilt sparked a self-imposed pressure to succeed and to live up to the ideals of the culture.
Being born into a family of devout Hindus, I frequently visited the local temple as a child.  I recall sitting on the hard linoleum floor amongst a throng of worshippers, surrounded by statues – idols adorned with silk and flowers and grains of rice.  I was obedient and quiet as chants were muttered in tongues I did not understand, to which I could not connect to  emotionally.  I found myself detached from my religion, from spirituality altogether.  Such was the case for many years.
I started noticing girls shortly after my sixteenth birthday.  During the summer before my junior year, I attended a club conference in Texas with a group of young women from several Louisiana parishes.  On the bus ride there, I chatted with a girl who –I kid you not – was the spitting image of Alicia Silverstone.  Sigh.  I recall sitting alone with “Miss Silverstone” at a table in Planet Hollywood in downtown Dallas two days later as she complained for three and a half hours about her boyfriend’s indiscretions.  As she spoke, all I could think about was how magnificent she was, how pleasant her voice sounded, her warm and endearing personality, the insanity of the boyfriend, and how odd it felt to be overcome with extreme nervousness.  It was the kind of anxiety that is blissful, surreal, and simultaneously shocks the core.  Basically, these were butterflies that only a crush can bring.  I never saw her again, but I’ll never forget her.
From that point until the age of eighteen, I experienced the most agonizing torment I’ve ever gone through in my life: the questioning period.  I was plagued by incessant thoughts about the true nature of my sanity – second-guessing whether my emotions were part of the reality I had always known, or whether they were part of some alternate universe where delusions were actually reality.  I chastised and berated myself constantly.  It was my own version of self-imposed electroshock therapy.  My feelings towards my inclinations and urges went beyond guilt to a dark place of shame about who I was and what I feared I would become: a second-class family member, an ostracized Hindu, a spiritual failure.  This daily self-lashing lasted two years.
When I turned eighteen, I decided to come out to my parents.  And I chose the morning of December 25 to do it.  I didn’t select it for shock value.  Christmas, although a Christian holiday, was always celebrated in our household as our favorite day of the year – a time when the familial bond that we always valued became something that was renewed and strengthened time and time again.  I remember sitting at the kitchen table with my mother, post-wrapping paper cleanup, post-dishwasher loading, and pre-trying to figure out how these words were going to somehow magically form themselves into sentences that I could verbalize.  But sometimes, anxiety prompts a person to act on impulse before the mind can object and before the body can resist.  I blurted out the three words, not even stuttering on “l.” All I remember after was the unsurprised look on my mother’s face as she said, “It’s just a phase.”  And suddenly, I felt like a kid who had woken up on Christmas morning with all the anticipation and hope in the world, only to find that the one thing she had wished for that year wasn’t under the tree.  I was that kid, and I was crushed.
From that moment on, I experienced an emotional distancing from my family that filled me with some of the greatest emptiness I have ever known.  It was like trekking through a tundra, surrounded by nomads, but blindfolded and feeling like no one else was there.  I tried to wash away that emptiness with a series of failed relationships, including the horribly violent one about which I wrote a few weeks ago.  I didn’t want to face rejection, abandonment, and judgment by the people whom I had always considered to be closest to me, by this spiritual being.
Out of desperation, I went to a temple in Houston one weekend, about fifteen years after I had last been inside of a religious establishment.  People oftentimes describe spiritual experiences as monumental, dramatic events that are blissful, surreal, and simultaneously shock the core.  Mine was ordinary, I suppose.  But in crossing that threshold, I felt a transformation, one from a lifetime of feeling displacement to just one moment of feeling balance, peace, and belonging.  That’s when I realized that this puzzle of life is only complete when the last piece of it stops struggling.  When I accept that the puzzle maker truly wants me to stop fighting the puzzle itself and just “be,” only then can I accept myself as the piece that fits.
Today I am grateful that I am that piece, that I have the capacity to enact change in this world based on who I am, based on just “being” – on just being me.  And since I’ve come to that place of self-acceptance, of self-nurturing, I have been blessed with the ability to embrace that puzzle instead of shunning it, to feel compassion for the other pieces and to love myself regardless of whether they are in acceptance of me, or even of themselves.  My family doesn’t exactly welcome my homosexuality today, but they don’t reject it either.  They love me for just being, and I love them in the same way.  I thank that spiritual someone, that threshold in Houston, for giving me the power to truly know that.
So these days, I still sometimes have dreams about my future wedding day.  I hold hands with my wife – whoever she may be – as we circle the ceremonial fire in traditional Indian garb, flanked by gold jewelry and extravagant ornaments.  We are filled with the certainty that we will be bound together in harmony for life, but everything isn’t perfect.  Instead, it’s just the way it’s supposed to be.

DOMA Is The End Of Scalia’s Gay (Happy) Reign

Image

Josh Gad is USA TODAY’s newest, and perhaps most unusual, columnist. Filing whenever he can – or whenever the “news muse” strikes!

 

By Josh Gad – USA Today 

Today, as many are celebrating the historic Supreme Court ruling in favor of gay marriage rights, there is one victim left in the dust. His name is Antonin Scalia. You may know him. He’s the judge whose face looks like a Panic Pete squeeze toy when he gets angry. He’s offended because he did not get his way. That’s right. Justice Kennedy and his four conspirators cheapened the law of the land by giving these “gays” the right to have equal benefits. Scalia and his marriage crusaders (including the divorced Justice Clarence Thomas, who chewed gum like an angry bovine as the decision was read) saw their precious straight-people-only utopia go up in flames. (Pun intended.)

In his scathing dissent, Scalia wrote: “It is one thing for a society to elect change; it is another for a court of law to impose change by adjudging those who oppose it hostis humani generis, enemies of the human race.” Going further, Scalia accused the majority of “declaring anyone opposed to same-sex marriage an enemy of human decency … In the majority’s telling, this story is black-and-white: Hate your neighbor or come along with us.” And how right he is! He even has the Latin language to back him up. The original dissent went further to say Gayus Manus Makum me Sickus. Fearing a backlash, however, the last part was redacted.

You see, as Scalia fights for the rights of people to not have rights (i.e.: yesterday’s brave decision to strike down a civil rights law providing protection against voter discrimination), moments such as the DOMA reversal are a dangerous impediment to Scalia’s legacy: that of being the Senator Palpatine of his generation. It’s unfair to call him unbending. Just because he doesn’t recognize homosexuals as individuals does not mean he has no heart. For example, his staunch defense of corporations as individuals was a fearless reminder that General Electric and Koch Industries have feelings just like you and me.

I remember the first time I saw General Electric crying on a street corner after he had his lunch stolen by Comcast. I was like, “Man, I hope the Supreme Court gives him the same rights as me one day.” And indeed, Scalia paved the way for corporations to provide unlimited funds toward elections without having to disclose anything. Now that’s brave. That’s a legacy.

You see, Scalia understands that laws are laws. It doesn’t matter that, in the words of Kennedy, “DOMA instructs all federal officials, and indeed all persons with whom same-sex couples interact, including their own children, that their marriage is less worthy than the marriages of others.” Who cares? Now, we’re just dealing with feelings. Under the nuance of Scalia’s wrath, we must remember that laws do not account for moral justice.

You see, it matters not if Frank and Bob, both crippled by the burden of not being able to share simple things like health and financial benefits, are subject to discrimination and are, in the eyes of their children, not as “worthy” as their friends’ parents. Forget that if moral equality weren’t adjudicated, women would still not have the right to vote and interracial marriage would still be outlawed.

According to the laws of Scalia’s land, we cannot judge on right or wrong or on conscience. Because the consequences of that might very well be…universal happiness. I shudder at the thought. After all, a happy gay is a dangerous gay. Pretty soon, we’ll all be drowning in a sea of confetti and satin. Now we must continue to abide by the LAW, not to be “interpreted,” not to be mettled with. After all, I’m positive there was no clause in the decision to make corporations individuals. There couldn’t have been. No.

That would be, to use a Scalia-approved Latin term, hypocrisy.

 

From NPR – Why Both Sides Want Gay Marriage Settled By The States

ALAN GREENBLATT

 
Anti-gay marriage protesters (left) try to persuade same-sex marriage supporters to get out of the way of their march in front of the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court may rule on gay marriage this week. Advocates both for and against are glad the issue didn’t reach the court any sooner.

They didn’t want a repeat of the abortion issue. With its landmark decision in Roe v. Wade, the high court stepped in and guaranteed a right to abortion but also triggered a backlash that has lasted for 40 years.

With same-sex marriage, by contrast, legislators and voters in nearly every state had the chance to make their feelings known before the Supreme Court weighs in.

People forget that durable rights don’t come from courts, they come from consensus and strong support from society,” says Jonathan Rauch, author of Denial, a recent memoir about growing up gay. “We are winning the right to marriage in a bigger, deeper way by winning it in the court of public opinion.”

After losing political battles in a majority of states, gay marriage supporters have won a number of legislative victories and ballot measures in recent years. Sensing momentum is in their favor, it may not be surprising that they’re glad they’ve had time to make their case to the public.

A Pew Research Center poll this month found that 72 percent of Americans believe universal gay marriage rights are “inevitable,” including 59 percent of those opposed to the idea.

But supporters of traditional marriage definitions also say that they’re pleased the court has waited to rule on this issue. The number of states blocking gay marriage still outnumber those allowing same-sex marriage by 3 to 1.

If states originate marriage laws, then state legislatures should legislate them,” says Sam Schulman, a journalist who has written a number of articles critical of gay marriage. “To let the courts decide feels just as wrong as letting opinion polls decide.

How Things Have Changed

In 2004, Rauch, a guest scholar at the Brookings Institution, wrote a book advocating gay marriage. That same year, Massachusetts saw its first legal same-sex marriages following the state Supreme Court’s ruling in Goodridge v. Dept. of Public Health.

The issue became central to the presidential campaign that year. On Election Day in 2004, voters in 11 states approved measures defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

If it had been the U.S. Supreme Court that issued a ruling back then, Rauch says, resistance would have been even more fierce.

States where opposition to gay marriage was strongest would have been angry not only about having had this issued decided for them in a way they didn’t approve, but about federal intrusion as well.

Gay marriage would be a legal reality, but it would have been in the crosshairs of massive resistance for two generations,” Rauch says.

Lowering The Stakes

Thanks to federalism, each state has been able to decide for itself. Last month, Minnesota granted gay couples marriage rights, joining 11 other states and the District of Columbia.

Four other states allow civil unions. All the rest block gay marriage, although there’s still some debate about the law in New Mexico.

If Goodridge had gone to the U.S. Supreme Court, we would not have been ready,” says Fred Sainz, vice president for communication and marketing for the gay rights group Human Rights Campaign, referring to the Massachusetts case.

But opponents of gay marriage are also glad this issue has played out in states.

Who has the constitutional authority in our regime to make marriage policy?” asks Ryan T. Anderson, a fellow at the Heritage Foundation who has written extensively in favor of traditional marriage. “It’s not the unelected officials who sit on the federal bench.

Having this issue continue to play out politically gives opponents a fighting chance, he says.

Obviously, it’s very important that the majority of Americans do still support the description of marriage as between a man and a woman,” says Caitlin Seery, director of programs at the Love and Fidelity Network, referring not to poll numbers, but to the laws enacted in most states.

Where We Go From Here

Sainz is hoping the Supreme Court will find that there’s a constitutional right to same-sex marriage. “There is absolutely no doubt that the best possible outcome is a finding by the court that there is a fundamental right to marry nationwide,” he says.

Most observers don’t expect that outcome. More likely, they say, justices will offer a split decision, striking down the Defense of Marriage Act, which blocks federal recognition of same-sex marriages, but not creating a universal right to such marriages.

Rauch says that may be for the best. He argues it would still be better to let states continue to handle the issue.

He can understand the impatience of those who want marriage rights to be sanctified nationwide. He works in a jurisdiction in which his own marriage is legal — Washington, D.C. — but lives in Virginia, where it is not.

Rauch says Loving v. Virginia, not Roe v. Wade, may be the more apt comparison.

In its 1967 ruling in Loving, the Supreme Court struck down bans on interracial marriage. But that decision came 19 years after a similar ruling by the California Supreme Court, during which time a number of states had decided to remove such bans themselves.

There may well come a time, maybe not all that long from now, when the Supreme Court will be recognizing rather than imposing socially recognized marriage equality,” Rauch says. “It’s a much bigger deal doing that at the front end, before there’s a national consensus, and at the back end when you’re basically cleaning up.

Where do you stand?

Gay Athlete in the NBA? Yea…It’s a BIG Deal!

Image

I’m not really into sports. By birth I’m a Cardinal’s fan. St. Louis bequeaths that to anyone born within a twenty-mile radius of Busch Stadium. Growing up, I played soccer and tennis, and was a better-than-average baseball player. So much so, I tried out for the Cardinals when I was 17. I’m a writer today, so that tells you just how well that whole “baseball thing” turned out for me.

The fact I don’t play fantasy sports, or lose my mind when my team doesn’t win, doesn’t mean I’m bitter about not having played in the major leagues. I’m more than alright with having never stared down a 90 mph fastball. Life moves fast enough for me these days. I do find occasional enjoyment in sports. Mostly, it’s by reading about the abysmal performances of over-paid athletes. Athletes, who promise a salivating fan-base their intentions are always driven by “love of the game” as opposed to monetary gain. Tiger falling apart on the back-nine will keep me glued to an otherwise stodgy game of golf. And I always feel a bit of satisfaction when I see how poorly Albert Pujols is performing in an Angel’s uniform. I’ve never met Mr. Pujols. I hear he’s a nice guy. But since he left St. Louis for the west coast, as a Cardinal’s fan, I think I’m supposed to dislike him. Maybe just a little bit.

Even with my lack of athletic knowledge, I recognize when a sports figure lands on the front page of the news cycle something important just happened. More often than not, the player in question just died in a tragic accident, or signed another contract that would double the GDP of most countries. But a few weeks ago a sports figure caused some “breaking news” and it had nothing to do with money or police involvement. The story was about a basketball player who decided to come out as a gay man.

I’m a 34-year-old NBA center. I’m black. And I’m gay.” writes Jason Collins in an article for Sports Illustrated. And with those words, Collins shook up the world of sports and popular culture. That admission makes him the first male athlete in the history of American sports to come out while still being an active player. And while many wondered why this was even news…I wondered why it took so long. 

I think the answer can be found in some of the backlash Collins has received.

Chris Broussard, an ESPN analyst from Outside the Lines was outside the lines of sanity after telling an interviewer Collins can’t be a “real Christian” because of his sexual orientation. To Broussard’s credit, he recently wrote that the NBA is “ready” for the first out player. But in that same essay, he said he’d be, “a little uncomfortable” to shower with a gay teammate.

A guy from Nebraska, on an NPR call-in show, brought up the issue of gay athletes in the shower, too. Claiming he, “wouldn’t feel comfortable showering next to a gay man, either.”

Why is it when a straight person talks about a gay athlete the conversation always comes back to the shower? And why is it they always assume that person would look at them? A little optimistic, I’d say. Couldn’t they just be looking for the shampoo?

Leroy Butler, formerly of the Green Bay Packers, tweeted four little words, “Congrats to Jason Collins.” And that Tweet cost him an $8,500 speaking engagement at a Wisconsin church. The church, telling him he was in violation of the “moral clause” in their contract.

While some may vilify Jason Collins for his coming out. I welcome it. And as a straight man, I have no problem welcoming it with open arms. Minnesota Vikings punter, Chris Kluwe did. He’s been an outspoken proponent of gay rights for sometime now. Kobe Bryant supported Jason Collins. So did Bill Clinton and President Obama.

But cyberspace and the locker room are two very different places. Jason Collins knows this. He also knows that silence is a holdout against progress. Minorities have always had to fight for equality. Women’s suffrage and Civil Rights. But we have a black president now. And women can not only vote, they continue to shatter glass ceilings while stomping on the shards. And we are all better off because of it.

Don’t like any of this? That’s ok. There’s a bubble you can escape to to shield yourself from the uncomfortable prejudice that justifies your existence. It’s called your home. But I have to warn you, gay people are everywhere. It’s not just fashion designers and Hollywood actors.  It’s everyday people in every sector of our population.  Maybe…just maybe…there might be one living next door to you.  But don’t worry.  They have their own showers.  

I read…it MUST have been in a GOP publication of some kind…that homosexuals not only have suggestive mind control over heterosexuals in warm shower water, they also produce a highly sophisticated telekinetic hypnotic power that changes ones musical tastes. That’s how they get you, you know. They start with Cher – harmless and innocent. Then it’s on to the Village People and Barry Manilow. Once you’ve memorized the moves to YMCA and the lyrics to Oh, Mandy, there’s no turning back. You may as well just get that mani-pedi, curl up in a papasan with a good book, and learn to knit.

So was it justifiable for the media to have lavished such attention on Jason Collins for merely being gay? Yes. Absolutely. Why? Because this story goes beyond the basketball court. Being the first male athlete to come out as a gay man isn’t something that should be relegated to a Trivial Pursuit question. It’s a big, damn deal. Because somewhere, in some town, there’s some kid who’s not only gay, but has more athletic talent than I ever had. And he’s watching what’s happening with all of this. Wondering if the proponents are right…that is does, really get better. I may not know much about sports. But I do know Jason Collins is saying to that kid – and others like him – that it does. And that just saved some lives.

A Social Shift For The Good

Image

 

The facts:

– 83% of voters believe same-sex marriage will be legal nationwide within ten years.

– Currently, more than half the country believes in legalizing gay marriage.

– Support for gay marriage has increased 1% a year for the past two decades.

And while facts may tell, stories compel.  Stories like the 40,000 children of gay and lesbian couples in California Justice Kennedy spoke of during recent oral arguments.  “They want their parents to have full recognition and full status,” Kennedy said. “The voice of those children is important in this case, don’t you think?”

Stories like Scott Hamilton and his husband, Wayne Johnson, who moved to Oklahoma after getting married in Connecticut in 2009.  They’ve been together since 1991, but had to come to terms with the fact their marriage was no longer legal according to the laws of their new state. Their taxes are now filed separately, wills have been redrawn, and new trusts have been created to ensure their assets won’t be snarled in red-tape if either of them were to die.  And if Scott or Wayne were ever placed in long-term care, the state of Oklahoma would force them to live in separate rooms.

I recently read an article in a Christian magazine opposing gay marriage. It stated, “Modern secular psychology recognizes that men and women are psychologically and emotionally designed to complement one another.”  But if psychology argues against gay marriage, common sense surely must argue for it. What sense does it make for a man and a women to be married simply because they have opposing chromosomes?  I know plenty of same sex couples who compliment each other quite well.  I also remember a time where “secular psychology” failed to recognize water fountains as being acceptable for all people to drink from.

What is the tradition of marriage, anyway?  Who defines it?  The Bible?  There are many verses addressing homosexuality.  But why can’t you have a Christ-centered relationship and still be gay?  The Bible talks about tax collectors in a negative light.  But aren’t our taxes used for schools, roads and bridges?  Aren’t those good things?  Just because tax collectors in biblical times were corruptible, are we supposed to assume today’s collectors are all evil, too?

“2,000 years of church tradition can’t be wrong!”  I hear people argue.  But the tradition of the church has been wrong many times.  And social pressure prompted the church to change their views.

Today, in the political realm, the GOP defines the boundaries of marriage for us.  According to them, marriage is a contract between God, one man, and one woman.  How then, do they explain Ronald Reagan, the savior of their party who married two women?  Or Newt Gingrich, who walked down the aisle with three.  How about Rush Limbaugh?  He’s on #4.

Marriage isn’t about finding someone of the opposite sex to fall in love with.  It’s about falling in love with the same person over and over again every day, regardless of their chromosomes.

Just as Kennedy’s Camelot was a myth, the white-picket fence with Mom, Dad, and 2.5 kids, is an illusion, as well.  At least in today’s society.  Same sex marriage is prominent on Modern Family, one of the most popular sitcoms on television.  And Ellen Degeneres is the most watched talk show on TV.  Time Magazine is releasing two separate covers with same sex couples kissing, declaring, “Gay Marriage Already Won!”  It isn’t being forced upon us by the so called, liberal media.  It’s being accepted by the entire country.

9 states and counting.

President Obama won the White House twice. And it wasn’t because he had better ground strategies than John McCain or Mitt Romney.  Although, he did.  It was because of women, minorities, and the Latino community.  Those were the voting blocks who not only decided the landscape of two presidential elections, they’re the voting blocks who are currently changing the landscape of this country.

Look at the justices deciding this case.  Never before have we had a court so indicative of what our country looks like: six justices are Catholic. Three are Jewish. There are white conservatives on the bench, a black man, and three women.  One, of which, is Hispanic.  And speaking of that one black man: he’s married to a white woman.  It wasn’t just integrated water fountains “secular psychology” once deemed unacceptable.  Before 1967, in many parts of our country, it would have been his marriage.

%d bloggers like this: