No time to sit on the sidelines
MECHANICSVILLE, Va. – I apologize for not having stuck to my initial plan for filing at least once a week – two weeks ago, I was at a meteorological education conference organized by the American Meteorological Society and held at the National Weather Service Training Center in Kansas City, Mo.
Last Tuesday, I went down to Blacksburg, Va., to visit the geography department at Virginia Tech University. On Thursday and Friday, I participated in the Greater Richmond Challenge, an event organized by the Greater Richmond Chamber of Commerce in which several teams of people from all walks of life spent 36 hours studying and recommending solutions to problems affecting our metropolitan area.
I’m still recovering from the past two weeks, with another big week facing me – next week I’ll go to Seattle to participate in an AMS oceanography education workshop.
Anyway, I feel the need to write something, but I’ll break with plans again. I wasn’t planning to go political on this blog, but I feel compelled to with an issue being taken up by the U.S. Senate this week – debate over S.J. Res. 1, the Marriage Protection Amendment.
I despise the notion that marriage needs to be protected by the federal government – that should tell you how I feel about the amendment (my opinions will be made more clear by the following copy of the letter I sent to my two senators, John Warner and George Allen).
What are the backers of the amendment frightened of? Does Lou Reed’s “Walking on the Wild Side,” make them feel the urge to step too close to the line, much like the Sirens lured sailors to destruction in Greek mythology? Do they feel like they are missing out when two male lovers kiss? Is Richard Shelby (R-Ala.) jealous that Monica got to blow Bill’s sax rather than himself?
I don’t need to be protected. I’d rather be left alone.
Frankly, I am disgusted with the state of political discourse in the United States today. It seems we need someone to hate. The Russians are irrelevant (and alleged allies), much of the former Warsaw Pact is either a member of or seeking to join NATO, the People’s Republic of China is foolishly buying up most of our federal debt (I feel real secure with them holding our paper), the Cubans are market with a lot of potential, and Arabs and Venezuelans feed our need for an oil fix.
We love to yell at and about illegal immigrants – who willingly take the abuse – but we don’t want to yell too loudly or really do anything about them because without them, there would be no one to wash dishes in our restaurants.
We could pick on Islamic terrorists, but they are kicking our ass in places like Afghanistan and Iraq, so the less said about them the better.
So whom do we hate? The fairies, of course! No queer, except maybe bull dykes, are man enough to stand up to Miller (Lite)-drinking, Marlboro (Lite)-smoking, miniature-flag waving, patriotic American manhood. Yes, let’s hate them! Let’s make their relationships illegal, round them up and throw them into concentration camps! (Oh, that was done before, wasn’t it?)
OK, the concentration camp idea is out, but maybe we’ll pass a Marriage Protection Amendment to the Constitution. It brings back the nostalgic days of the founding of the republic when the dark contingent (at least the enslaved ones) only counted as three-fifths of a whole white person. How much should the faggots count? Three-fifths? Two-fifths? One-fifth? Zero? Now THAT’S progress!
Proposals such as the Marriage Protection Act make me ashamed to be an American.
Here is the text of the letter I sent to my two senators:
I am writing to say I am vehemently opposed to S.J. Res. 1, or Marriage Protection Amendment.
If you believe in limited government, as any so-called conservative should, you should act to keep the government from interfering in the most intimate of human relationships. The concept of marriage has survived for thousands of years without U.S. government protection, and will do just fine without said protection for thousands more. If you believe in the Virginian tradition of individual liberty (at least the tradition so often mentioned in tales of the commonwealth’s past), you have to agree that the state – in the generic sense of the state – has no business intruding to such a draconian extent in our private lives.
Make no mistake – a vote in favor of this amendment is a vote in favor of institutionalized hatred. I grew up in the Jim Crow era. I remember the anti-miscegenation laws. My mother and father could not legally marry in many states because of said laws. My father, when he moved back to Louisiana after leaving the Air Force, was told to take his non-white wife and kid and get the hell out of the state. I had hoped our nation had moved past such a disgusting past, but apparently not, given the current resolution.
My parents raised me to manage my personal affairs without relying on the government to make decisions for me. I am raising my two children to do the same. When they reach adulthood, I hope they live in a society where they will feel secure, where they feel free to choose the path that is right for them, and where they know I will love and support them regardless of whom they choose as a partner (even if I disagree with the choice).
Whatever my children choose, it is a matter for me and my family to handle, not the government.
P.S. Please pass the word to your fellow conservatives that if they want to protect something, they should start with the stacks of shipping containers at the Port of Richmond, not with marriage.
Leave a Response
You must be logged in to post a comment.