DEEP THROAT THOUGHTS
(1).
Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin has recently advanced, in
light of Supreme Court rulings on same-sex marriage (note that the justices
specifically said SAME-SEX MARRIAGE could not be banned without violating the
Constitution), that there be church marriages for opposite-sex couples and
civil unions for common law situations (I assume he feels exactly the same way
for opposite-sex common law couples, and will apply the laws exactly the same
way (which they are not right now, I might add…)). Now, even though this country’s legal system has already defied
Church law (oh, the irony) in the 70s by turning to the dictionary (now there’s
a document reflecting living language use and culture…) and saying that, even
though tradition (you know, tradition…that wonderful thing that should never be
fucked with…) states that, should the banns be read three times without
objection, a couple is able to get married, a same-sex union could not be
licenced under that process (the law, then and now, mentions NO GENDER…),
should this not be left up to the churches – you know, just like it is now
under the proposed law that the government seems to want to weasel out of? I mean, being a good Catholic and all,
surely Paulie would not want to suggest that the Church is fallible in
matters of religious doctrine and autonomy (though I think that the Church
Eternal prefers its homosexuals to be mobile, lawyered up and closeted, and its
individual parishes to be outsourced in just such a manner, so it might not be
enthusiastic about offering belonging or support to its gay sheep…and, of
course, it is too busy defending family values by means of hush money,
blackmail and ugly threats worthy of a group of men who have never advanced
beyond schoolyard bully tactics to recognize human dignity…).
On a similar level, the government has already
decided it will appeal a ruling that it pay old age pensions to surviving same
sex partners, saying its main concern is with the Court telling it when it has
to start doing this. Yeah, right – and
when the Red Cross was seeking delays in court cases around tainted blood
transfusions, it was not in any way hoping that all those involved would DIE
before they saw a penny. Now, forgive
me for reverting to my teen years – of course, as a homosexual, I am caught in
a state of eternal adolescence – but, if I pay for something and share my life
with a given person, should I not be able to pass it on to that person as any
breeder could do in a similar circumstance (and, yes, it does include
common-law spouses)? As I would say back then, as a good liberal (though even then I was beginning to
suspect that the rule of law was at the State’s convenience, not ours), if I don’t
get to play by the same rules, I’m not playing your game, and I’m going to use
my equipment as I see fit, even to break YOURS. So, if you want to avoid getting kneed in the shower, maybe you
should pass me the soap instead of dropping it…though I also think you’d better
use some of it yourself ‘cause you stink - and not in a nice, sexy, salty,
sweaty arm-pit kind of way, either…
Oh, and news flash! Bring up ‘taxpayer’ rhetoric,
and I’ll point out that the vast majority of sodomites and bulldaggers also
cough up the capital that keeps your system’s brown nose above the water so it
can sniff the buttocks of Mammon, so don’t try it. There are things I think dubious for the citizenry to support
(oh, like hockey teams, private jets for PMs, the salaries of MPs who are often
wealthy lawyers when they get to Parliament, etc.), but perhaps they might
serve some purpose – just like civil servants had a function for many years,
and now should not freeze in the dark because the Government is hurt that the
legal branch did not allow it to sit by while death and misery increased…(am I
hoping too much when I say that the Government should not consist of sulky men
who are angry at Mama Justice for making them behave humanely?).
(2).
Apropos of nothing, in Texas, where the Defence of Marriage Act is in place
(to protect that natural state to which everyone aspires, and which should
require no bolstering, as it is imprinted on DNA…), the law is more generous,
and also not referring to gender in the statute I will cite (though the DOMA
defines marriage as between a man and woman).
It doesn’t even require that the stated intention to marry occur in a
church – upon saying three times that you are going to marry someone, you have
created a legal union. Now, wouldn’t it
be fun to test that one in light
of W’s recent rants and raves (and more or less on his home turf, to boot)? RANDOM OBSERVATIONS FROM A FRECKLE-ARMED "CANADIAN"
*There’s a lot of talk lately about ‘following orders’. I don’t suppose one should expect knowledge of history from people who confuse dissent with treason, but need one point out the example of Nuremburg? I credit more cleverness than that to my enemies, though, and anticipate a charge of being extreme. Okay—how about My Lai and Lieutenant Calley, 1968? Recent—American— acts of mayhem and death against alleged terrorists—parallel enough?
*It’s moot now, given that the sodomy laws have been overturned in Texas (they were still in place when I visited last year, which made it fun...I LIKE committing crimes against ‘nature’…), but, given that the police who raided a Texas home and charged a couple with violating the statutes (resulting in the ‘Supreme’ Court ruling one had no right to engage in consensual sex in one’s home) had no warrant, could the pair have shot the home invaders with impunity? Just wondering…
*In light of the great success of “Queer Eye For The Straight Guy”, how about the reverse? There could be DISADVANTAGES— gay men might practice misogyny more directly than fish jokes or women’s footwear. However, ADVANTAGES would include better musical taste, a natural dress style and ACTUAL self-love, not a self-conscious parody. (note: double-blind-testing irony in effect)
*Continuing on the theme of terrorism and a shocking lack of historical perspective, I now risk censure by waxing on the Nicholas Berg incident. One of the problems with such an examination is that one leaves oneself open to charges of insensitivity or consorting with ‘the enemy’. Leaving aside for the moment various conspiracy theories about faked video or it being done by the US itself (both of which I have heard, but I have not seen the footage), consider the following: there was a war going on. In a war, bad things happen to civilians. Innocent people get hurt—that is a consequence of property disputes. This is not to say it is not sad what happened to him, or that it should have occurred at all. However, when a war is waged, these things befall bystanders— be aware… And, furthermore, the “let’s turn the desert to glass” attitude that seems to prevail among the leadership, in addition to being immature schoolyard rhetoric and/or bullying, will increase the probability of such events, I think...
