I Am A Visionary

While recognizing that my proposal for how to fix marriage is "absurd," the Washington Defense of Marriage Alliance clearly reads my blog and they've presented a watered-down version to the Washington State Legislature. I don't mind my ideas being used for such ends, I just wish they'd given proper attribution.

And you said I wasn't ahead of my time. At this rate, I expect to be jailed for political reasons within eight months.

Straight Pride

It’s gay pride month all over the nation, and that means controversy. Probably this year more than many others, gay pride is disgusting, offensive, and a threat to children and the American way of life.

So what I want to ask is this: Why not do something about it? Show your side! Have a Straight Pride Parade!

I have said for years that heterosexuals should get their own parade, too. Despite everything they say in the media, there’s nothing shameful about gettin it on with a member of the opposite sex. You were born to love the way you do, and you should be proud of your opposite-sex attraction. So have a parade!

Gay pride parades are a little shocking to suburban dads and church ladies, and I understand why. For one, the gayness gets on their nerves. Boys kissing boys like they mean it – well, that’s not something they see on tv. But then heap upon that the topless women, the nearly bottomless boys, the dancing, the displays of bizarre fetishism, and the politicians, and it’s all just too much for even God to witness.

So I say have a straight pride parade. Set up a nonprofit, get sponsors, file for a license, and get those volunteers working. We need floats for soccer moms, the PTA, the Southern Baptists, and Republican gubernatorial candidates.

Sound boring? Well, of course it would be. There’s nothing there to shock you. That’s why, in order for the straight pride parade to be a success, you’d have to welcome all interested groups from all facets of the heterosexual spectrum.

Bring in the shock value.

Bring in the swingers, the National Order of The Dominatrix, furries, bondage fetishists, and a huge float of a woman’s foot with two dozen guys licking it. The Polyamory Society could enter a huge free love exhibition on wheels, and just think how much the children would love to see that. Strip clubs could have floats with scantily clad dancers on poles, and the local sex workers union could hand out flyers on why prostitution should be decriminalized.

Now that’s a parade I would go to. All straight, all the time, and plenty to see.

But that’s why there’s no straight pride parade. If they held a straight pride parade, it would be too boring to see, or too titillating not to, and nobody who’d organize one wants either of those. Because each of us is just as obsessed with strange sex as the next demographic, and straight pride parades would show that once and for all. They’d show how multifaceted heterosexual sexuality is, and that’s not good for the party line.

Even if it might be good for humanity.

Do Something, Something Small

From: Why, the Pastry Chef, of course!
To: sales@honoluluford.com
Subject: Not Visiting Ford Dealers
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="----=_Part_19521_24179854.1134070088953"

Just wanted to leave a short note with you.

I drive two aging vehicles that will be replaced over the next two years. Due to Ford Motor Company's negotiation with the American Family Association and Ford's resulting new anti-gay policies, I will not be visiting lots that sell Ford Motor Company brands. I have too many other choices that support American values to drive a vehicle made by companies associated with hate and bigotry.

It hurts me to know that local people have to suffer for the bigotry of your headquarters, but I cannot in good conscience patronize Ford Motor Company with its current policies in place.

With Regrets,

Why, The Pastry Chef, of course!
Pauoa, O`ahu.

Sodomite Companies Want Your Children!

The lovely, witty, dirty-minded Wonkette posted today regarding an article at the World Net Daily website about corporate America’s pro-homosexual cuddling.

The World Net Daily is what is increasingly called wingnut, or extreme right-wing. For those of you who wish to know what the opposite of that would be, that’s moonbat. I have no idea what moonbat comes from or what it implies, but wingnut seems pretty obvious.

Although I don’t recommend anyone else do this, I actually took at look at their related reader poll and a handful of linked articles.

As I said, I don’t recommend it for the faint of heart. I am a calloused, jaded homosexual and reading vitriol about people like myself doesn’t shock or dismay me the way it might someone who were simply a friend of equality, say. Think of this as your “Do not attempt. Professional driver on closed course” warning.

One thing I noticed, however, was the repeated use of the term pro-homosexual. Now don’t get me wrong, I definitely advocate for my fellow sexual outlaws. I loves me my homo homies. However, I wouldn’t even describe myself as pro-homosexual, let alone America’s Fortune 100.

To me, pro-homosexual is a lot like the term you used to hear for reproductive choice advocates. Back when, they were “pro-abortion.” But saying someone is pro-abortion is like saying they advocate for abortion in all instances of pregnancy, which is clearly absurd and very misleading.

Similarly, I would expect a company that takes a pro-homosexual stance to be holding classes on homosexuality to teach people the upside of being gay, and discouraging heterosexuality. They could perhaps have a same-sex mentoring program where women taught each other proper cunnilingus techniques, and gag reflex suppression sessions during lunchtime for the boys. They might feature an article in their company newsletter that talks about the diseases you can get from heterosexual intercourse and the horrors of child bearing/rearing, noting that people who date same sex partners need not worry their pretty little heads.

And then, of course, they could throw separate company parties for women and men. The boys would be treated to a white-party styled dance, and they could give out ecstacy and condoms and make sure there’s a back room lit by a dim red light. I don’t know what would be the equivalent for lesbians. Maybe an Indigo Girls concert.

Now that’s what I call a pro-homosexual company. Down with all the trappings of heterosexuality, up with sodomites!

No, instead all we have are these rich firms who simply acknowledge that homosexuals work for them, and promise not to treat them any differently than straights. Although that’s really quite kind of them, it’s hardly what I would call pro-homosexual.

But oh well.

Someone Truly Remarkable

What a lot of thoughtful, amusing, absurd, and delightful fiddle-dee-dee!

We do so miss the Boulanger in all her prickly pearishdom.

Help John Mayer Find A Boyfriend

I guess he’s a really 00’s man, that John Mayer. His song “Daughters” is a touching lesson on how important it is to treat daughters well. Because the wrongs parents impose on their girls scar them forever.

And isn’t it true? Really? I mean, think of the stories you know. We can all tell one.

But John Mayer is overexposed. On local Hawai`ian (and Utahan) pop radio, “Daughters” has been on a twenty minute rotation for weeks and weeks. And weeks.

At first, I loved the song. I sang along with the lyrics I knew and enjoyed the warm fuzzy I got. Then it became a little too common. And then I heard this lyric:

Boys, you can break
You'll find out how much they can take
Boys will be strong
And boys soldier on
But boys would be gone without warmth from
A woman's good, good heart

And now I’ve had quite enough. Boys, you can break!?

John Mayer has clearly never dated one of those boys who’s been broken. Just like girls, John, they stay broken. And they hurt people – their daughters included. The best wo/man’s good, good heart does nothing to fix them.

So ladies and gentlemen, let’s all help John find a boyfriend who’s been broken to help shake him out of his anachronistic mindset. Shall we?

Fixing Marriage Once And For All

Just about everybody seems to agree that marriage is broken. Progressives see it as discriminatory by design, inappropriately regulated by the government, or too limiting to encompass the full spectrum of loving commitment between people. Conservatives see it as plagued by divorce born of temptation and vice, under siege by sinners who wish to disgrace it, and not defended or supported ardently enough by governmental bodies. Just about everybody seems to have an opinion.

One of the key assertions currently being used by conservatives to argue their perspective in the media, courts, and legislatures, is that marriage is a sacred institution designed to create children. That the one man, one woman tradition and federal and state recognition, protections, and responsibilities they wish to have exclusive access to are justified by the Nation’s interest in promoting the rearing of new generations.

Frankly, I don’t have any way to dispute this. But I was raised thinking that marriage was about love, not procreation. As such, I feel that the contemporary function of marriage is to bond with a chosen mate for life more than it is to rear offspring. However, I recognize that the health of economies is tied closely to population growth rates. And so beyond my own personal belief that marriage’s function is for acknowledging love rather than creating a support structure for child rearing, I can’t really argue against conservatives on that particular point.

(Of course, I also think that birth rates in the US might actually go up if marriage were abolished. While the quality of child rearing might also drop, I imagine the value to our economy of a population surge would outweigh any dip in deficits in child upbringing.)

Despite this, I still feel that current marriage laws unfairly discriminate against gays and lesbians. Nowhere in marriage laws does it state that marriage is defined for purposes of raising children. Furthermore, lots of heterosexual couples get married with absolutely no intent of birthing or adopting a single child. Not one. So where’s the equity there? Marriage is for raising children, but people who never intend to have kids can reap the benefits? Aren’t they abusing a loophole in the system, in that case? They’re taking advantage of benefits designed to support those raising children without contributing to society as expected, and this puts an undue burden on legitimately married people, singles, and couples that cannot be married.

My thinking on this matter has brought me to the point at which I feel I can propose a reasonable solution:

Marriage is defined as a union of no more than two persons who are primarily responsible for the rearing of at least one child, for the duration that children are dependent, and no longer. All marriages performed prior to the conception, adoption, or other acquisition of a child for rearing are void. All marriages persisting past the termination of child dependency are also terminated. This law is retroactively effective on all current marriages one year from its passage and all those henceforth.

That may be harsh but it’s totally fair. If marriage and all benefits of marriage are for the purpose of raising children, then this protects all couples raising children, regardless of whom they are, for the duration of the dependency of the children. This means that both John and Mary and John and Mark can get married if they’re raising a child, and they are assured of all the protections of marriage for the duration of their parenting.

And yes, this means that both couples’ marriages terminate when the bouncing babies grow up (unless they’re dependent for life due to various factors) or die. Remember, the benefits of marriage are there for supporting the rearing of children. Love alone is not justification for government benefits, and 18 years worth of tax breaks, hiring preferences, and special treatment aught to be enough reward. Thank you for your service, Parents, but your service is complete.

Not only does this ensure that marriage is conferred only on those who really need it, it prevents the abuses of the system that are currently rampant. Childless couples – even those who are infertile through no fault of their own, unfortunately – do not deserve the assistance of the government that couples with children have earned.

Of course, we could always set up civil unions for childless couples, but those would be mostly for feel-good purposes and the assignment of power of attorney in medical and financial matters associated with death or disability. Childless couples don’t deserve any more protection than that, and they shouldn’t have it.

Unless, of course, everybody can get in on the action.

Enforcing Religious Pluralism

I’m all for Freedom Of Religion. Truly. It seems to me that if I want to be a Buddhist, Taoist, Muslim, Scientologist, Atheist, or Christian, that I should be able to do so freely, and without restraint. I should not be punished for my beliefs, and I should not be forced to suffer discrimination by governmental agencies that prefer a particular belief structure over the one I hold.

This is pretty simple, I think. Freedom of religion is about honoring all beliefs that we variously call religion, spirituality, or lack thereof. It’s about respecting every individual’s means of explaining their existence in terms of that great Other and answering those questions about Why and How.

It baffles me that some people don’t understand this respect, and feel that their particular set of beliefs should be enshrined in law and displayed everywhere in public at the expense of others. This strikes me as being an example of lessons from childhood that were not well learned.

Sharing, see, is important. Not just in pre-school, and not just on the playground. We teach children how to share because sharing is vital to the operation and survival of communities. Without individuals who can share, communities become conflicted and fail.

Separations of church and state as well as freedom of religion are about equal access and freedom to practice our religion, even if that religion is complete rejection of everything outside of our corporeal existence. But the concept of separation of church and state enforces that freedom by acknowledging that there are many religions, and that they cannot all be reasonably represented everywhere. As a result, all religion is banned from promotion via public funds because to promote one religion would be unfair to those who practice any other. It’s a tactic that has angered a lot of Christians for decades.

It wouldn’t have to be that way, of course. But for it to work, individuals and communities would have to be willing to share their space, time, and resources with others who may not practice their particular canon. And that sharing works both ways, because in some places in this country, Christians are the minority, not the majority. Freedom of religion is a concept created to allow them to practice without discrimination or fear.

When the Alabama Supreme Court forced a judge to take down a tablet of the Ten Commandments from public property, there was an incredible uproar. During that time, I watched a video of a man completely overcome, yelling and screaming, “Put it back! Put it back” till he could hardly stand.

I remember watching the video, listening to him repeat himself over and over, and thinking to myself, “Poor guy.” The man was so overwrought that even his fellow protesters were asking him to calm down, but he was so aggrieved as to be inconsolable. He swayed on his feet like he was about to lose consciousness due to blood loss.

But I would not have put the tablets back. However, I would have offered to share. All I ask is for equal representation. Indeed, if the Ten Commandments belong on public property, so do the guiding principles of every single faith in the country. So had I been in a position to bargain with the man who was overcome by the loss of the Ten Commandments, I would have proposed the following rule:

When concepts of faith, religion, or spirituality of any sort are described, displayed, taught, or are otherwise made available using Federal, State, or other public funds, equal representation of all other faiths practiced within the community serviced by the entity must also be present, in an order determined by audited, witnessed lottery.

In addition, entities that engage in any faith-related activities using public funds must publicly designate and maintain personnel responsible for support of faith presentation, and these personnel must be readily available to accept public input. If any two individuals residing within the community (regardless of relation) request the addition of the guiding principles of their belief system, the entity must make all accommodations necessary to complete equal presentation of the requestors’ faith within one calendar year of the written request’s submission.

Entities must fund adjustments to faith presentations through their own budgets, and are authorized to request voter-approved taxation, including taxation of community churches, to support the maintenance of religious presentation.

For the purpose of ensuring fairness in faith representation, the Federal Government will establish the National Bureau Of Equitable Religion And Faith Presentation and will designate personnel in all postal offices who will accept public comment for oversight of local faith presentation. The Bureau will act in an administrative function to support the direction of community complaints to the National Faith Presentation Review Court, comprised of a single representative of each major religion and faith nationwide. Funding for this Bureau will be provided by a national sales tax on items of religious or spiritual nature. This tax will be implemented and enforced by the Internal Revenue Service.

Complaints regarding unequal representation of community beliefs may be submitted jointly or separately by any two individuals within the community (regardless of relation). Entities that fail to provide equal representation of faith in placement, content, and accessibility in the judgment of the Court are required to remove all representation within three months of a guilty verdict. No exceptions are made for space, time, or funding constraints. All entities that fail to comply will be subject to withdrawal of federal funds during the following quarter, Bureau intervention and subsequent presentation removal, or both.

I doubt that the man screaming to Put It Back would have agreed to my compromise. But it would address many issues with the current situation. Yes, it would eliminate some of the aspects of the separation of church and state, but it would encourage the celebration of freedom of religion, rather than prohibiting religious expression altogether. In addition, it would clarify that Atheism, so derided as “freedom from religion” is also a fully valid religion, too. Whether they were the majority or minority, every religion with unique practices could be ensured equal time and validation in schools, parks, public buildings, and any public venue that used public resources to discuss faith. Furthermore, funding for all of this is borne by the religious community as a whole, sharing the burden of protecting freedom of religion equally.

If my proposal is adopted, Christian beliefs can be placed on display in courts, schools, and agencies of all types and Christians can know that their beliefs are protected and guaranteed fair representation, just like Muslim, Wiccan, Hindu, Atheist, Rajneesh, and Satanic principles are. When this proposal is implemented, separation of church and state, while still important for legislative matters, will no longer impose limits upon the public display and practice of faith in America.