Eclectifying

I talk about things I find interesting. I find a lot of things interesting…

Wedding Fears, Creative Edition

by Ken Arnold on Wed 1 July 2015

People are so creative. Some people create wonderful works of art, others amazing technology, and so on The human race is endlessly inventive, dontcha know.

But some of the most loving, complex creations are paranoid fantasies. And they are so contagious. It’s just amazing, but frankly baffling, why people put so much effort and inventiveness into scaring the ever-lovin’ shit out of themselves.

“Orthodox Christians Must Now Learn To Live as Exiles in Our Own Country” says the Time magazine column. Really? And this is one of the saner pieces of its ilk, it actually accepts that the nation overall agrees that marriage is for everyone. But now, sadly, they have to hide in the hills. From what?

A whole mess o’ stuff they’ve made up.

“The next goal of activists will be a long-term campaign to remove tax-exempt status from dissenting religious institutions.” Oh? Religious racists still have their tax exemptions, lo, these many years after race rules were removed from marriage. This isn’t even subject to debate, court cases, anything, and never was. You can believe anything, even bigoted tripe, and still be a tax exempt religious group. Just a dumb one. So this is a truly creative paranoia.

“It has been widely and correctly observed that heterosexuals began to devalue marriage long before same-sex marriage became an issue.” Devalued it so much that LGBTQ fought a long, hard, difficult legal battle to be allowed in. Peace is war, ignorance is strength, wanting to be married means you devalue marriage. Brilliance, in a twisted way, isn’t it?

I will save your appetite, dear reader, by stopping here, but what continues to smack my gob is that it takes a lot of effort, I would think, to work yourself up into a lather over such transparently wrong things.

The one thing he gets right is this: “The more immediate goal will be the shunning and persecution of dissenters within civil society.” Well, sure, people aren’t very fond of bigots usually, but that’s their right. You get to be a bigot, they get to disapprove. Welcome to free speech, it’s sort of nice here, although sometimes a bit rough. Even if the decision had gone the other way, you would still be a bigot that some would shun, but that’s not part of the law. (Anyway, who was in charge when shunning was part of the law?)

The wrap up is this:

This isn’t the view of wild-eyed prophets wearing animal skins and shouting in the desert. It is the view of four Supreme Court justices…

Um, it turns out those two things aren’t as mutually exclusive as you think. And certainly not as much as it ought to be. Remember “judicial temperament”? Wouldn’t that be nice?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *