Yesterday the Supreme Court ruled that it is unconstitutional for any of the 50 states not to recognize same-sex marriage, this act invalidated same-sex marriage bans. Describing the intricacies in this case is like making a delicate soufflé; if you hit the oven while dancing for joy in your rainbow pants, or get so caught up in your bible study that you leave it in the oven too long, it’s probably going to go flat. I’m planning on writing a few blog posts concerning this subject and its vast details, but for the sake of sanity I’m going to keep this one much shorter than it was when first written.
Before we get to the meat and potatoes, I’d like to offer a pallet cleanser. Eight of my dear friends on Facebook posted similar responses, examples below:
“If you aren’t crying rainbow tears of joy today, you should probably just go ahead and unfriend me.”
“If you didn’t smile every time you saw a rainbow today, you should unfriend me.”
“If your heart is not bursting with rainbows, you should unfriend me.”
First thought: Are you a Care Bear?
Second thought: Since when did I agree to do the work for you? I’m not going to unfriend you. Listen, I have unfriended six people in the last three years, four of them were doing the Argentine Tango with stalking, and the remaining were personal. I get up Monday – Friday and go to work, I drink coffee, I have a glass of wine at night. Respectfully, I have enough age under my belt that your opinions do not have the power to make me so unnerved that I deem it necessary to remove you from a social media page before marching off the playground with my hands on my hips. You’re not capable of driving me to psychotropic medications, nor is your opinion making me lose sleep. Alas, I’m not going to unfriend you. I can enjoy being your friend without agreeing with your every opinion. So why should I be the one to unfriend you? If you can’t respect the opinions of others then you have a choice to make. If you only want those who are close-minded towards opposing arguments in your timeline, then you have a choice to make – not me. I am very open-minded to the opinions of others, and would love for you to remain my Facebook friend.
Moving on –
Twitter proved to be an incredibly educational model of social interaction this week. For example, if you request that someone kill themselves you will more than likely be chastised for being a horrible person, and rightly so. However, if you give such a request under the right circumstances, e.g., use the hashtag “#LoveWins,” it is magically commendable.
Example #1: “Don’t like it? Kill yourself. #LoveWins” (Yes, this was an actual tweet.)
Encouraging suicide = VERY BAD
Encouraging those who disagree with you on same-sex marriage to commit suicide = good
Example #2: “GAY MARRIAGE IS NOW LEGAL IN THE UNITED STATES AND ANY RELIGIOUS, BIGOTED A——S WHO DON’T LIKE IT CAN EAT S—T AND DIE #LoveWins”
I have no words for that one. None.
On top of the ever growing hashtag diplomacy is the fact that corporations and celebrities are cashing in on “love.” Opposing it is now considered an act of war by the masses. It is a sign of oppression of opinion – even if you speak against the ruling for reasons completely unrelated to the Bible – you are automatically labeled a hateful, bigoted ignoramus with absolutely zero wiggle room. There are only two options; the red pill leads to the Westboro Baptist Church, and the blue pill leads to high IQs, Starbucks Lattes, and refrigerators sold by a company that “bravely” added a rainbow filter to their AVI. A Newspaper even released a statement that any opinion piece submitted that expresses objections to the Supreme Court ruling will not be published. This is just the beginning, folks. The militantly colorful have convinced the United States that there are only two sides to this debate, the rational and the irrational, and any thought in-between is a crime against that adorable retired gay couple on the TV right now. Apparently “Hey kid, I have an adorable puppy in my large unmarked black van” is making a comeback, that’s the level of emotional enticement we have going on. And how dare you say, “Wait! I don’t care that you like puppies, but that van contains a lot of stuff that neither of us are going to like.”
*Raises hand* “So, what happens if I don’t pull out Bible verses that speak against your lifestyle, nor care if you get married, but I still have a problem with the ruling? It’s for completely unrelated rea…”
“You can just shut your stupid face.” (Sends you a cartoon mocking flyover states that portray an older you as a fossil holding a picket sign)
“But maybe you could hear me o….”
“No, you bigot!” (Sends photos of same-sex marriage ceremonies)
“That’s nice, but can’t we at least ta…”
“Your argument is irrelevant.” (Sends you a biased study done on a sampling of 100 people that concludes by labeling progressives as the more intelligent humans)
“But you haven’t heard it ye…”
“It doesn’t matter. Why don’t you go back to church and pray to your imaginary friend.”
And this is from the very people that label me close-minded. Irony. Do people not see how horribly hypocritical this is? “Keep your opinions to yourself! Unless of course I like your opinions…” This morning a football player by the name of Benjamin Watson released a beautiful statement on the matter, here’s an excerpt:
“Love truly IS the greatest gift of all. It never fails and covers a multitude of sins. Ultimately Love DOES Win. But Love wins us with compassion, not endorsement.”
His entire post was about loving each other without forcing the other to endorse opposing personal opinions. It didn’t take long before people were comparing him to a slave owner, calling him by atrocious names, and assuming without any evidence – whatsoever – that he is a hateful bigot. This is what we’ve become as a nation. Individuality be damned, you must fall in line and submit yourself to the gods of conformity and mirror the opinions of the rainbow masses holding their tar and feathers, waiting for you to say one word that contradicts their edict.
This hashtag, #LoveWins, has served to combine feeling of revenge into one lovely little location on Twitter, but it has also served to bring together the rejoicing masses under a false pretense. See, a legal marriage has nothing to do with love; it is a legally binding document that unites two parties for tax and benefit purposes. It also makes for entertaining court television, but that’s beside the point. “Love” should never be involved in a legal argument, yet we allowed the opposition to control the argument because we didn’t clarify this earlier on, instead we pulled out verses and tried to use them against those who don’t hold themselves accountable to the very Bible we’re reading from.
Rule of thumb: If you preach directly to those who are non-believers, keep it to the Gospel. They don’t care what your Bible says. It’s similar to when Catholics tell me what the Pope supports and I look at them cross eyed. I respect their right to be a practicing Catholic, but the Pope’s opinions matter about as much to me as Matt Lauer’s opinions. You can have your reasons to believe what you want to believe, and you can act on those beliefs with your votes, but trying to push for blanketed legislation because of what the Bible says is just as bad as leftists pushing for blanketed legislation because of how 2.5% of the nation feels when they look at the same sex. I mean, preach to them until the sun comes up about their sins if you so choose (Thanks, 1st Amendment!), but understand that when they say it should be legalized because they think it’s right, you have no right to counter that argument because you’re doing the same thing. Biblical marriage is between a man, a woman, and God. If that’s what you believe, your issue should not be how the state views it, but that the state is involved in the first place. That is why the argument turned from logic to “Love vs. Hate”… I hear a lot of Christians defend their position by saying, “As Christians we must remember that God defines marriage, not the courts.” Really mull that over. If that’s the case, why would you fight to keep marriage in the courts?
“Love is love” is not anywhere close to a valid, nor rational, argument. It’s not even in the same neighborhood. Like if rational arguments bumped into “love is love” at the grocery store, they wouldn’t even recognize each other. I get it, it gives you all the feels, but it still isn’t a rational argument. See, I want the government to get their dirty little hands out of the marriage industry. It’s a rather simple request: I want everyone to mind their own business. Sure, preach your word, say your opinion, wave your skittleishious flags and your church pamphlets, but at the end of the day, don’t try to use the government as your personal Frank Nitti. See, when you start suing bakeries, suing farmers that don’t let you get married on their property, forcing individuals you know have a different set of moral beliefs to bend to your stance – just out of spite – you’re not minding your own business. The group taking over the internet this week likes to use the tagline, “If you don’t like same-sex marriage, don’t get one.” Thank you, oh obvious ones. The problem is that this militant movement is not demanding acceptance, it is demanding endorsement. “If you don’t like same-sex marriage, don’t get one.” That’s a fine saying, but if we’re being honest it only expresses a small part of the sentiment. The remaining portion is never put on a picket sign: “However, just so we’re clear, I get to be open about my beliefs, you do not. Oh, and I’m going to need you to make my wedding cake, allow me to marry on your property, and indoctrinate your kids. But make sure you keep your nose out of my life! #LoveWins”
“As some of the petitioners in these cases demonstrate, marriage embodies a love that may endure even past death.” – Kennedy
I’m going to go ahead and file that under “Ideological Argument,” and keep it far, far, far, far, far, far, far away from “Legal Justification.”
“14th Amendment, B—–s! #LoveWins” (Once again…real tweet.)
*Taps microphone* “The 14th Amendment was passed in 1868.”
“What of it?”
“Well, there were 37 states in the union at that point, and homosexuality was a felony in every last one of them. So, those who passed it clearly didn’t have your rainbow AVI in mind.”
Now, suddenly those who adore the 14th Amendment start to go back to their old ways of not caring about the Constitution, suddenly it’s outdated again, or we’ve evolved and the 14th Amendment magically protects same-sex marriage. “Yeah, let’s go with the latter!”
Okay… So here’s the fact: The Constitution doesn’t protect same-sex marriage; it provides a way for the people to protect whatever they want. That’s key. If we don’t follow this specific set of rules, then voting becomes a rather large waste of time. If we allow a handful of unelected men and women to vote in accordance with their preference, well, that’s not a republic. The law already treated every person equally. Every person in the United States had the power to enter into a legally binding marriage contract with someone of the opposite sex. The law treated everyone with equal respect, however, it did not treat every personal desire equally, nor should it. See Man/Boy Love Association as a reference. However, the Constitution gives us the power to, through the right steps, make specific changes.
Even as a changed nation in 1920, we still didn’t find that the 14th Amendment awarded women equal rights, so we amended the Constitution through the correct process and put in place the 19th Amendment, a specific amendment. Was it outlandish to think that women should not be allowed to vote? To think that men were of superior intelligence? (Perhaps, if they time traveled to a current day feminist rally.) It was indeed outlandish because they had no logical reason to keep women from voting. Now we look back and think, “Man, whoever was against that was clearly a sexist moron.” Yet we STILL went through the proper legal steps. In 1870 we didn’t sneak racial voting discrimination into the 14th Amendment, no, we passed the 15th Amendment. We make amendments because a vast number of disturbing things can be approved under the 14th Amendment, especially if we make marrying whomever you love a protected privilege. To clarify, if the state wishes to approve same-sex marriage, it’s specific to same-sex marriage, and it’s voted on by the majority. If the United States chooses to amend the Constitution as we’ve done in the past, it is up to the voting majority again to approve same-sex marriage, specifically. See, that’s the cool part of the U.S., we The People get to choose, or at least we did… Loosely translating the 14th Amendment as they did, however, attempts to legislate love. What does all of this mean you ask? I want you to read the 14th Amendment and then give me a reason why the following scenarios aren’t covered under the Supreme Court’s reasoning as well:
“My son is 20, we’re in love. We have just as much of a right to marry as anyone else. Love is love.”
“These are my four husbands, given to me by God, we have just as much right to legally express our love as anyone else. Love is love.”
“I fell in love with my Father, you can’t choose who you love, our rights matter too.”
Are you going to give a moral reason against, say, Cody Brown legally marrying his four wives? That would be hypocritical, who are you to define love?
Well, that’s the door we’ve opened. Polygamists have already begun to speak out saying, “Wait a second, we’re covered under the 14th Amendment too!” See, if we amend the Constitution, or leave it to state choice, that doesn’t happen. Those issues may still arise, but state by state they can be shut down without claims of discrimination. However, now if the Supreme Court turns them down, it’s because the powers that be didn’t like the idea as much as they liked same-sex marriage. Hey, all of us who have a concealed carry license should be covered in states that don’t, according to the 2nd & 14th Amendment, right? Those Mormons that you considered to be religious sex addicts, well, they have a flawless argument under the 14th Amendment. You guys didn’t just vent the can, you yanked the lid off in overwhelming merriment, then you poured a can of Red Bull over all of the slumbering worms. Not going to lie, it’s actually going to be pretty fun to watch you attempt to shove them back into the can.
So when we say that you’ve fundamentally changed America, for the most part it’s not because we are waiting to baptize you in scripture, it’s because you’ve fundamentally changed the way our government works, and it’s going to be negative for both sides. Wait. I must correct myself – “You” did not change America, a handful of biased judges changed America without her people’s consent because it made them feel all fluffy inside. (FYI – You and you alone don’t qualify as majority consent.) The question was not if same-sex marriage was bad, the question was whether it was legally protected in the Constitution. The Supreme Court treated it as though it was the former, and in doing so opened up doors to various fights for legal protection over a lot of questionable things.
So now you’re left with two remaining options:
- Go advocate for all of those worms, or be a flaming hypocrite.
- Just kidding, you really only have one option. I suggest gun rights be the first. I feel bad when I can’t carry my gun in California, because I love my gun, and love is love.