In Defense of Gay Marriage

Over the past few years, a great demoney al of has been spent, efforts put forth, attention given, words spoken, words yelled, words cursed, and pain suffered in the debate of gay marriage. It passed, then it didn’t, then it sort of did but in limited run, but then it was taken back again. Make it federal, leave it in the hands of states, it was ping pong. I don’t know if all gays are for it, nor do I know the percentage of heterosexuals against it. What I do know is that I am one heterosexual in favor of it. I arrived at my conclusion through logic and reasoning, which have no place in a political debate, but this is a personal issue, not political.

Before I can explain my logic, I must set some definitions. When I use the name of God, it really includes both God and Nature in order to allow room for the Atheists, the Agnostics, and the Unimpressed. Also, God is easier to type and commands more attention from those against gay marriage. If someone says, “May Nature strike me dead,” we know it’s going to take about forty years longer than if God is called to the plate. My logic simply traces two roads, one each created by God and Man. One, however, has better landscaping and sewers.

First, we must examine the Man-made elements of the debate. They include law, marriage, the Bible, and/or any other supernatural reference material such as the Koran, the Torah, and a few chapters of Dianetics. Let’s admit that Man really wrote the Bible. God holds the copyright and may have edited some. God probably wrote the The Honeymooners, but Man is responsible for any The Three Stooges episode that includes Shemp.

Man created laws to protect innocent or uninvolved people from harm. Laws were not made to stop you from having fun, but a few sections of Philadelphia are definitely not as much fun as they used to be. Hunting laws protect us not by eliminating hunting but by keeping hunters at a distance so you can have a cookout without bullets ripping through the umbrella, or mother-in-law, that covers your deck. Laws don’t eliminate alcohol consumption but regulate it so you have to be either 21-years old or have parents who allow you to refer to them by their first names. Long before we created laws and marriage, we were doing a fine job of hetero-sexing it up enough to go forth and multiply for thousands of years without the existence of marriage. But you broke it, so you bought it.

What has been made by God? Man, woman, the conditions of hetero and homosexuality, sexual reproduction, and Play-Doh. There is one clear difference between what was made by Man and God. What was made by man can be changed by Man. What was made by God cannot be changed by Man, except for Joan Rivers. Whether Christians like it or not, God made homosexuals just as he/she/it made you and me. However, it was a mistake. Ouch. Sorry, but homosexuals must face the fact that being gay was not part of intelligent, Darwinian, nor any other design. Well, maybe ergonomic design, but only if they shave their body hair. Millions of people are born with various errors such as blindness, cerebral dysfunctions, muscular issues, and throwing like a girl. We must also count gay as one of those errors, but please let me explain before you hit me.

Similar to the explanation in Jurassic Park, all humans are female at conception, even Italians. At about three months into development, there are internal fireworks that release hormones throughout the body. If that body is supposed to be male and not female, there are hormones that alter both the body and the brain, sending them into a rather masculine direction. We know the male and female brains are different, and these hormones are responsible. A high school phys. ed. class might be involved too, but it’s only a theory. Anyway, if that body is supposed to be female, then the hormonal shower doesn’t take place, and the brain and body of that growing life form remain female.

The human body and other mammals have an immense lineup of organs, cells, and assorted parts and parts of other parts. Too often, the growth and development of these parts isn’t always on target. Sometimes the hormones that change the body from female to male are successful, but the hormones designed to make the brain male miss their cue. The result is a male body with a female brain. Female brains are designed to seek a male partner. A male body seeking a male partner would be a gay male. The other option would be when hormones successfully change the brain to male but the body remains female. A male brain seeks a female as a partner, thus producing a gay female and possibly an excellent college softball player. This happens to roughly 8% of all forms of life: humans, dogs, birds, monkeys, gymnasts, everything.

Man did not make homosexuality or homosexuals, which means we can’t change them. Man did make laws, which means man can change laws, even those written by our Founding Fathers. We’ve shown them great respect by treading lightly upon what they’ve given us, but we have made changes when necessary. Usually, action is needed to protect any one of their most vital gifts, “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” Legislation has banished slavery, given women the right to vote, and provided equal access for the physically challenged. We’ve cut down barriers to provide equal education and, right or wrong yet to be determined, we’ve taken Affirmative Action. We’ve done and undone a ban on alcohol, so clearly we can change our minds and change them back again, establishing that nothing is permanent. Compared to these other Constitutional changes, allowing gay marriage seems rather simple and unobtrusive, until you ask someone’s opinion.

A common mistake is made when choosing sides in this debate. People ask themselves, “Would I enjoy a gay marriage?” More than 90% of the population should say “no,” but that’s the wrong question because nobody is asking voters to be in such a marriage. What people should be asking themselves is, “Would I be negatively affected if gays were allowed to marry?” Probably not.

Let’s look at your co-worker Christine, or we’ll say Chris instead. Chris has a boyfriend also named Chris who lives about ten miles away. They each maintain one-bedroom apartments because neither can afford a mortgage payment. They’ve been a happy couple for five years, but the subject of marriage has been little more than a hint. They both have good jobs with health coverage, and they enjoy looking for antiques, travel, movies, and finding new street-side cafés in the city.

Unfortunately, their respective families do not like the other Chris, and neither Chris is welcome in the other’s family home. On Thanksgiving, Christmas, and Easter, they must decide whether to spend a solemn day together or listen to unasked questions as relatives and family attempt to include each Chris in a conversation before suddenly needing a refill. Together or apart, holidays are bittersweet and emotionally searing.

Chris A’s job and co-workers lean on him increasingly. When Chris B goes out with friends, they usually try to set him up on a date, but his disinterest feeds suspicion until they no longer invite him along. His isolation has manifested in excessive drinking and suicidal thoughts. Chris A occasionally finds him on the couch with empty bottles on the floor. Their relationship exists only because Chris A worries about what will happen if they don’t have each other because they were both alone for twice as many years as they’ve been together.

But what if they were married? They would proudly live together instead of coming and going at late hours to avoid prying eyes. They would combine incomes, easily afford a three-bedroom home and property taxes, support a nice suburb, and commute to the city together. Pooling two incomes means shopping in bulk to save a few bucks to spend elsewhere in a struggling economy. Two people on one car insurance policy, combined with a homeowner’s policy from the same company, brings a discount that saves more than $1,000 a year that Chris could put towards his master’s degree or spend at the Mom and Pop antique shop that might have otherwise closed.

Many companies offer an insurance “opt out” program in which an employee can decline health coverage and use the coverage of his or her spouse. The $10,000 that an employer spends for each policy is split, thus putting $5,000 back in the boss’s pocket and giving the other $5,000 to Chris. That’s a new car every three years or maybe part of an investment towards a small condo at the beach. Imagine more couples like Chris and Chris getting married, and more employers saving $5,000 for each couple. That also means more bonus $5,000 checks to Chris and others each year that would go a long way to stem the tide of layoffs and boost a weakened economy.

From what I can see, gay marriage shows only positives. It can help the economy and make for happier, more productive employees who drive their new car home or maybe to the beach on weekends. Most important, above the new cars and beach home, comes the peace and the acceptance among friends and family. Then Chris A and B can sit together with brothers, sisters, and parents to hold homo and hetero hands around the Thanksgiving table.

Up! Go! Now!

i don't have time to write much, but PLEASE go see disney's Up as soon as possible. i haven't had this much fun in a movie in years. be aware that there is some sadness and even death to deal with, and kids might get a little confused, and you are going to cry for sure, but it's well worth it. laughing tears, crying tears, it was all there. and the dogs! oh, were they damn funny!

save your money. don't bother with the 3D version. it's about $4 more, but you won't see the brilliant colors as much because of the polarization of the 3D glasses. just see the regular version.

don't wait! go go go!

book review! - angels and demons, by dan brown

In the beginning of Angels and Demons, by Dan Brown of The Da Vinci Code, super-duper “code breaker” (because symbologist just doesn’t sufficiently cover his mad skills) Robert Langdon’s phone rings in the middle of the night. A voice introducing itself as Maximilian Kohler tells Langdon to come to his lab immediately. Langdon hangs up and goes back to sleep. Then an image comes through Langdon’s fax machine that shows a dead body with what appears to be the word “Illuminati” branded across the chest. Illuminati is a historically clandestine organization that has a particular belief about religion v. science and evolution v. Creationism. Legendarily and violently, the Illuminati has promoted the conflict between science and religion. Langdon, recognizing the name, immediately hops on a plane and does what the voice tells him. Two things are certain: fax machines do not have the greatest picture quality, and only an idiot would accept that image as a fact without considering that the photograph might not be genuine. (see: Photoshop, Miss California)

Kohler is confined to a motorized wheelchair with more gadgets than a Rolls Royce and runs a lab called CERN, a nuclear research facility in Geneva, Switzerland. Within CERN is a private laboratory to which only two people have access: the recently murdered Leonardo Vetra and his daughter Vittoria. When Leonardo is found not just dead but missing an eye in his suite at CERN, Kohler calls not the police but Langdon and Vittoria instead. What follows is over 400 pages of setups and prefab-coincidences that happen so regularly that any competent reader will quickly get annoyed. Only the father and daughter Vetra team have access to their private lab, thanks to a retina scanner for identification and entry. When Kohler leads Langdon and Miss Vetra to their lab door following the murder, Langdon sees an eyeball on the floor near the door. Kohler tells Miss Vetra that he has already searched their lab. She quietly opens the lab and without noticing either the eye on the floor nor the statement by Kohler that he has been in the Vetra’s private lab. Did she forget that only she and her father had access to the lab? Shouldn’t she have said, “Yo, buddy, how’d you manage to get in? Perhaps you pulled out my father’s eyeball for the retina scan, the very eyeball that happens to be here on the floor.” Go, Sherlock, go.

Missing from the private Vetra lab is a canister that contains antimatter, a theoretical nuclear material that is suspended in a vacuum container, similar to the canisters that you send through the pneumatic system of a drive-thru bank. In order to keep the material suspended, Father and Daughter Vetra created a electro-magnetic field inside the canister. It has a little clock to indicate the time that the power will run out after it has been removed from the charging system. If the battery dies and the antimatter collides with the container, it will wipe out life within a mile radius.

Meanwhile, the recent pope has died, and the Vatican is in “conclave,” their process of selecting a new pope. Roman Catholic bigshots from far and wide gather at the Vatican to vote for a new pope, kind of like Miss Universe but without the swimsuit competition. Unfortunately, something else is also at the Vatican. The antimatter thief has managed to smuggle and hide the canister in the Vatican with the intent to wipe out the global leaders of the Catholic Church, now that they’re all conveniently behind the walls of Vatican City. What a merry coincidence. The guts of the movie involves Langdon and Vittoria following a trail of clues not left behind by the villain but assumed by Langdon after gaining access to the Vatican top super secret super library, which he has unsuccessfully attempted to visit numerous times in recent years.

Angels and Demons has too many contrivances and conveniences, which disallows the acceptance of the dramatic attempt. After only the first three pages, it is already clear that suspending belief would not be enough. It would have to be sold on E-bay. Dan Brown has created too many incidents in which the reader must look the other way and pretend not to see the obvious flaws that exist only as a convenience for a plot to continue. For example, the nuclear antimatter canister can only be a threat if someone knows that it’s hidden in the Vatican. The Illuminati didn’t make a YouTube video, so how does Langdon even know to look for it? It just so happens that the Vatican police, also known as the Swiss Guard, spotted someone walking into the Vatican with a canister that had a little digital clock on it. Naturally, that means the Illuminati smuggled antimatter inside. How could anyone possibly draw any other conclusion? Nobody in the world other than Father and Daughter Vetra even knows that these canisters exist, yet somehow the Swiss Guard knew to call Max Kohler at the CERN laboratory because a digital clock was on the surveillance tape. That leads to another question. When one smuggles an explosive device into the Vatican, would one allow it to appear on a surveillance tape? Wouldn’t one hide it in a Sponge Bob lunch box or camera bag? Wouldn’t one draw a little attention carrying a canister with a clock in the midst of a countdown?

Brown also spends a lot of time setting up a situation but holding back one piece of the puzzle, leading you to an “obvious” conclusion that is clearly not possible with only semi-careful reading. Such situations make you feel either like a genius for having figured something out or insulted that Brown would think he’s fooled you. Max Kohler immediately seems like the bad guy for having broken into the Vetra lab and not calling the police. Commander Olivetti of the Swiss Guard seems to have rogue tendencies, such as locking Langdon and Miss Vetra in his office and preventing them from talking to the Camerlengo. A cardinal is found dead where there should have been guards, but there weren’t any. Of course Olivetti must be responsible for pulling guards from their post. But don’t turn your back on the Camerlengo, assistant to the pope. They’re all bad guys, which means they aren’t all bad guys. In one scene, Kohler, in his motorized wheelchair, gets the Camerlengo behind a locked door. Then the Camerlengo screams as he is hit in the chest with a red-hot brandiron. Of course Kohler couldn’t have done it, and it’s insulting that Brown expects anyone to believe so. The red herring is way too red but not very herring.

There were also occasions of silliness. Miss Vetra was restrained, beaten, semi-conscious, and unable to open her eyes. However, just as the villain is about to knock Langdon off a balcony, Vetra somehow musters the strength to escape her bonds and save Langdon from certain death. The villain also possesses a legendary box of six brands used in torture by the Illuminati. As the villain chases him around a table in his secret lair, Langdon, who should be in fear of his life, notices there are only five brands in the box and demands that the villain tell him where the sixth brand is. Langdon at that point should only care about inhaling, exhaling, and his heartbeat, not demanding the location of a chunk of metal. After Langdon and Vetra escape from that villian, they take a secret tunnel into the Vatican but run into a locked door, as it has been for, oh, maybe a century. Oh good fortune abounds as the keys are waiting in the lock on the other side, thus allowing a curious guard to permit access to Langdon and Vetra. Don’t even ask about the camera woman and reporter who are able to stroll anywhere within the Vatican to film dead bodies without being stopped. Worse is when Langdon leaps from a helicopter more than a mile in the air by making a hanglider from one of those windshield screens that keeps the sun out of your car.

It’s possible to have a poor story but great narration, like some of Stephen King’s work, but that doesn’t exist either. The word “instinct” was scattered like dandelions to describe almost any physical movement by Langdon. Apparently he doesn’t know much of anything but can still do everything by instinct. Hearing the phrase “the hunter became the hunted” was cringe-worthy. An occasional mixed metaphor can be entertaining, such as “taking a back burner,” a hybrid of “taking a back seat” and being “put on the back burner.” A “pyre of flame” seemed redundant. The ending was worse than a soap opera because Langdon and Vetra have known each other for less than a full day, but that doesn’t stop them from passionately enjoying each other for breakfast. Speaking of breakfast, Angels and Demons lays an egg, but it doesn’t go over easy.

gay marriage and miss california

please believe two things:
1. i didn't want to watch the miss usa pageant
2. i wish i hadn't watched it. however, i can change neither, and now i have to write this. i don't want to write it, but i have to.

miss california may have lost the title, may have landed in second place, because of this statement in response to a question about whether more states should legalize gay marriage:

"Well, I think it's great that Americans are able to choose one or the other. We live in a land where you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite marriage. And you know what? In my country, in my family, I think that I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman. No offense to anybody out there, but that's how I was raised and that's how I think it should be, between a man and a woman. Thank you very much."

it's not fair to ask if she was wrong because there is no wrong answer. it's an opinion question. she's allowed to speak against gay marriage, just as someone else is allowed to speak in favor of that or abortion or any other controversial issue. she said, "in my family, i think that i believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman." literally, that means she prefers to marry a man. she did not say that all marriages must be that way. she only said that she prefers her marriage, her family, to be that way.

she knew who was asking the question, and she knew which answer he wanted to hear. regardless, she spoke truthfully but not hatefully. i don't agree with her, but i do congratulate her. she said exactly the right thing. she said that it's great that americans have the ability to make that choice if she wants it, and she said that she doesn't want it. do we all have to be gay now because there are pseudo-media types like perez hilton who have bolted out of the closet and insist the rest of the gay community do the same before he "outs" them? i hesitate to refer to him as part of the media because he is barely more in the media than i am. we don't have to like gays. we don't have to vote for their equal marriage rights. however, we do have to respect them as equal people - provided that they also treat us equally. according to hilton, miss california is not worthy of the miss usa title because she believes that there is no place for a gay marriage in her family. that issue lies between miss california and her family, not between miss california and hilton, and not between miss california and the miss usa title.

her answer was not the better answer, nor does her answer agree with mine. however, she was not asked for the better answer. she was asked for her opinion. she gave it. if hilton was not willing to listen to and tolerate an opposing opinion, then he should not have asked the question.

book review! - the big bam, by leigh montville

As previously stated in another book review, I love baseball and the Yankees. Therefore, it was a no brainer why I’d read The Big Bam, a richly detailed biography about George Herman “Babe” Ruth, by Leigh Montville. It was filled with things I both appreciated and didn’t want to read. I’ve always had a very high regard for Ruth because he single-handedly saved baseball when it was almost forgotten. He did save baseball, and he turned a game for boys into a respectable (until recently) industry. He grew so famous that he became a question on a test to check if someone really was an American trying to re-enter the country.

I knew that before Ruth started pounding the ball over the fence, people didn’t really care about homeruns. Fans actually were disappointed by roundtrippers because the homerun was considered a cheap run and not very strategic. Most fans then, but very few now, were more excited to see a run manufactured with a single, a stolen base, a ground ball to second, and a flyout to left center. What I didn’t know was how much of a creep Ruth was. He grew from an abandoned, penniless boy in an orphanage to a wealthy man who abandoned his wife and child. He should have been more grateful and humble, but then he wouldn’t have been Babe Ruth.

There’s no telling how many times a biographer takes liberties with the truth, especially when there’s no way for anyone to disprove what he or she has written. In this book, however, Montville often makes a specific effort to point out that the tale he’s telling might be true, but it might not be true. Either way, he’s going to tell the most commonly known legend and leave it to the individual to either stand with that legend or just let it go.

This approach is most evident from start to finish. The book opens with Ruth’s father bringing little George on a bus ride to a home for “incorrigible,” orphaned, and other unfortunate children. Montville is sure to let the reader know that his description might not be the truth, but it is the best version that he can find through his many interviews. Just like the story about Ruth telling a sick boy how he’d hit a homerun for the lad or the called shot in the World Series against the Cubs, there just aren’t any facts, only a lot of speculation and foggy memories passed on and on.

Montville doesn’t shy away or play anything safely. Ruth was a generous tipper and spread the wealth whenever it felt right. However, he also showed his fangs, as when he challenged an umpire to a fight on the field or stood on the dugout, screaming at fans who were treating him with less respect than he believed he deserved. Although he wasn’t African-American, he was regularly called names because of his large lips, olive skin, and flat nose.

Yankee Stadium was built because of him, so I didn’t realize that it literally was The House that Ruth Built. Yankee fans may have wondered why the grandstands didn’t make a complete circuit of the stadium. Instead, there's a single level of bleachers running from right to left field. It’s explained in the book, and it's because of Ruth. The New York Daily News was created because of Ruth, so I guess it should be called The Paper that Ruth Wrote.

If you’re a baseball fan, you should read The Big Bam. If you’re a Yankee fan, you must read it. You owe it to the legacy of The Team that Ruth Built.

another small step for publishing

they did it again. pikerpress has another of my short stories on their website this week. it's a two-part story called "the accident." the second part will be there on or about monday, april 20.

i like titles like that, but i think i already wrote that on a previous post. anyway, here are two links to the first and second halves of the story.

let me know what you think.

this link gets you to part one (1) (not won)

http://www.pikerpress.com/article.php?aID=3512

this link gets you to part two (2) (not too, nor to, nor tieu)

http://www.pikerpress.com/article.php?aID=3513

one small step for publishing

hey, i'm finally published - sort of. it's an "e-zine," an online magazine called Piker Press, and a literary one at that.

my story, "the sweeper," which can be found elsewhere on this blog, will be the march 16 cover story. about a month after that, another short story of mine will appear as a two-part short story. it's called "the accident." i like titles that are "the ________." i don't like titles that are either plays on words or trite expressions that we've heard a million times.

anyway, here's the link to my story, which was their "cover story" of that issue:

http://www.pikerpress.com/article.php?aID=3483

also, click on the "authors" link on the left side of the site and you'll see a short bio about me and a link to the story.

thanks, and good night.