Monday, October 06, 2008

Only the Privileged Need Apply

(originally published by OpEdNews)

Debatable Opinions; Letters to the Editor

In 2000, a majority of the citizens of the great state of California flexed their muscles, at least those who voted in the November elections. By way of the ballot box, these fine neighbors told certain members of society that they had no right to marry. In 2000, the citizens of California voted to exclude same sex couples from the super special marriage club.

Despite what the citizens said, in 2004, San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsome decided on his own that marriage is a right that those who wish to marry should have. I imagine that Mayor Newsome knows that the dictionary definition of marriage is, “The legal relation of a man and woman as husband and wife.”

My guess is that Mayor Newsome also realizes that definitions of words change throughout time. As words pick up or drop certain meanings, dictionaries are modified to keep up with the times. That’s right, it doesn’t work the other way around. The dictionary is not a Bible of definitions.

Even the word gay meant “happy” until the beginning of the twentieth century. It was at that time that the word “gay” began to refer to sexual orientation. Dictionary meanings for words change in accordance to how the words are used.

Those who were outraged at what Mayor Newsome was doing brought suit against the Mayor and the California Supreme Court upheld the citizens’ right to take away the rights of others.

First, the Supreme Court decided that, as the marriage managers spoke in 2000, Newsome was out of line and The Court ordered him to stop hurting the feelings of heterosexual married folk.

However, in May of this year, 2008, the very same The Court had a change of heart and, by a 4-3 vote, decided that people have the right to marry – period. The gender of any perspective spouse would not be a reason to take that right away, even if it meant that the genders of both perspective spouses in any one instance are the same.

Enter the appearance of Proposition 8 on the November, 2008 ballot. Those protectors of marriage are determined that it is their place to choose marriage or bachelorhood for others. Vote “yes” on Proposition 8 and you’ve helped to make other peoples’ minds up for them.

Enter, consequently, the writer of a letter to The Contra Costa Times. The title of the letter is “Marriage is a privilege”. Let’s face it, it’s a different approach. He doesn’t quote The Bible in his letter. Maybe this is one person that realizes that gay atheists, gay Hindus, gay Muslims (I don’t thinks so) don’t necessarily abide by what’s written in the Judeo-Christian “holy book” (minus the New Testament which doesn’t address homosexuality).

The writer doesn’t even claim that extending the right of marriage to same sex couples will marginalize marriage for heterosexual couples. Is it possible that this writer understands that, quite frankly, heterosexual couples have cornered the market on marginalizing marriage?

No, this writer takes a refreshingly new approach. The writer claims that, “As with the driver’s license, marriage is a privilege, not a right”.

It’s really too bad, too, because it was sort of cathartic for me to point out the writer’s steering away from a book of laws that doesn’t pertain to everyone and steering away from the illogical conclusion that homosexuals, who are not legally allowed to marry in most corners of the world, should be blamed for marginalizing marriage.

Let’s look at his argument. Further, let’s use the comparison between the privilege of obtaining a driver’s license and marriage.

The writer is spot on in that, in order to legally drive in The Former United States of America, one has to obtain a license. Likewise, in order to get married, one has to obtain a license.

Unfortunately, that’s where the comparison stops. Other than a blood test required by some states, a waiting period and a minimum age law, there are no legally required tests that a couple needs to pass before being issued a marriage license.

If I remember correctly, my sight was not tested. Of course this worked in my favor as my wife’s sight was not tested either.

We didn’t have to take each other out for a spin in the presence of a marriage counselor, either. We were, and still are too shy for that.

The writer brought one thought to mind, however. If marriage is, indeed, a privilege, then, as with a driver’s license, if the privilege is abused, then I supposed the license should be revoked. Or do we pay a fine first? And if a fine is to be levied, how does the government learn about the abuse? Does a marriage cop sit in the corner of your home, out of site, with a marriage abuse radar gun?

Why do I get the idea that the writer is a Conservative? I suppose there are so called “liberals” who oppose same sex marriage? Just look at those leftist, Marxist Senators Barrack Obama and Joe Biden. They don’t believe in same sex marriage.

I have to admit that I’ve read previous letters to the editor from this very same writer. There’s no doubt the man is a Conservative. He holds that admirable Conservative ideal that government should not be involved in the lives of the citizens. He believes in personal responsibility and living with the consequences of one’s own actions. I agree. I know that many same sex couples agree with him as well.

To friendship,
Michael

“Truth is on the march, and nothing will stop it.” - Emile Zola


World Conditions and Action Items
CDs
I Can Hear You

2 comments:

Anonymous said...

“She Demon”, Snarls Venom, Slithering, in coiling Power, over American Citizens, as Secretary of State

Anti-Christ could be a Woman?

Under Clinton Administration Hillary, induced & manipulated, revamp of Military health care, penetrating, like a slithering viper ”IT” swallowed D.O.D. as if, minion in command of an attacking Army. Focused on defeat, Injecting poison into the ranks, turning payroll, into a competitive accounting scheme, eliminating equality in Ranks, giving bonuses to higher command, undermining “Patriotism”, “Every Soldier, Active and Retired is being scammed.”
______________________________________________________________________________________
Our Country “Quivers in forceful squeeze”

Induced by, associations, agreements, legislations, pay to play, manipulations induced thru the Democratic & Republican party, election fraud; all the way back beyond X- Senator Dan Rostenkowski, after all what are a few favors among friends.
Memory of individuals as opposed to, Witten history may very well exist, in camouflaged conflict, as to actuality of what has and continues to go on. Under the cover of casual communications, friendships, associations, acquaintances, select group casual chatter, Efforts to pass information, which is detrimental to the security, of the CONSTITUTION of “The United States of America”.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
These terms and terminology are expressions of tactics, orchestrated by an Aristocracy geared to undermine individual rights, propelled by GREED, with intent to gain power over populations of the World, using agreements, contracts, authority achieving force against, Private Citizens, Property with motion of extracting monetary value, for the purpose of Power and Entertainment.

As “ARISTOCRACY” of Past, induces “encompassing” processes before the eyes without being seen a “CHILD” was born and its name is “CORPORACRACY”.

In laymen terms “PURE EVIL”.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Every American should consider
“CHINA OWN$ AMERICA”, Just check the debt ratio, and WHO owe$ WHO? Our current accumulated DEBT amounts to $175,000.00 dollars plus per person, increasing every second, this is what every breathing Citizen OWE$, above and beyond each individuals personal debt.

Greed is instrumentality of Americas “Aggressors”.
Departure with a Question,

Of all the Politicians Ever, in America, WHO has Accepted more Money, from Communists Associated Sources?

MichaelBN said...

I don't know who you are. I publish most of your posts although I'm not certain of your point. It appears as though you agree with me and, if that's true, thanks.

However, your writing form is "interesting", to say the least. Possibly if you wrote less cryptically, more people would understand.

Again, I'll publish most of what you say. If you say something different, it's sure to be published. After all, considering the number of comments I receive, I can't be too fussy, can I?

To friendship,
Michael