I Thought It was Supposed to Help You Stay in the Game

Well Rick Warren and I have more in common than I ever would have guessed. I am sickened and exhausted by his public speaking engagements as well.

This could be serious. Maybe it's the chemicals from the beard dye.

I'm Not an Actor but I play One on TV

Oh my goodness I would loooooove to hear/see the notes on these.
I bet it would look a little something like this... (I'm scratching my chin and looking at the ceiling- cue wavy dissolve)

Okay, but be more terrified.
Can you do immigrant.
All right show me threatened
Okay your a dyke but your with us- got it? Go
No no no just like it's written- no no I don't care what you "actually know". You can read right- so read it- NO -like it's written- Read it like it's written- God what's wrong with you?
Oh, you're no doctor- Give her the parent card.
GRABS CUE-CARD FROM CUE-CARD HOLDER WAVES IT IN ACTOR'S FACE I am a California doctor- a doctor- got it? DoCK- K-K-K Doctor!- Do we have any actors who can read!? What the [expletive deleted] is wrong with you people?
Great great- show me loving homophobia- perfect!
Do it like you hate your son and resent your wife for making him a fag- excellent
Get this [expletive deleted] [expletive deleted] out of my [expletive deleted] face- you're done- no you're done. Get off my set.
Perfect- Did the rest of you see this? That's how you sell paranoia-


This is so the MAN's version of rainbow coalition.

I'll do it.
I'll do it.
I'll do it.
I'll do it.
I'll do it.

If We'd Only Recognize The Things That Make for Peace

I think I've seen enough of me and others to know that we often harp loudest about that with which we struggle most. I mean I was raised in a pretty aggressive and violent environment. I was in a lot of fights and often didn't think twice about hurting others. In many ways, violence was the primary language and often a ready solution throughout my upbringing. So I understand that what I see as a spiritual commitment to nonviolence can be attributed to some reactionary motive. Fine, it may be I'm a big peace baby because I'm struggling to overcome my own violent tendencies.

So it's no surprise to me when someone who makes gross efforts to monitor and control the sexual behaviors of others that they are finally outed as doing things that make all their preaching a punchline.

And so I wonder, is that what's going on with THE GAY? I mean think of all the teachings, all the dos and do not dos, all the commands, and moral assumptions that could make up Christian sexual ethics but don't. Think of every potential resource in the Bible and the broad field of possibility in what we call Church History that is left alone because we say it has no bearing on us. Think of all that is passed over, ignored, rationalized and explained away in one way or another. And THE GAY, a concept I don't see in the texts that make up the Bible, remains. What's going on here?

I'm reluctant to universally apply my experience (or reduce to Freudian silliness what I see as a deep commitment), but is this of the same reactive substance as my nonviolence? Are you building walls to keep yourself safe?

I remember reading Robert Gagnon's The Bible and Homosexual Practice and uncharitably saying to myself, "Good Lord, this guy is a closet case." I can charitably say the book's imprecision, imbalance, and, general dependence on what we now call truthiness seem the result of some kind of blinding rage or panic. It's horribly clear that he has decided that homoeroticism and what we broadly call homosexuality is "inherently" awful (whatever inherently does to qualify awful) and so grasps at anything that may fit the bill. But are incest, rape, anal penetration, "uncovering nakedness", consensual intercourse, etc... homosexual practices? Are they homosexual practices any more than they are heterosexual practices? Does either phrase mean anything outside of a sense of the phrase as dehumanizing euphemism?

Really. Help me out here. I guess I'm a Kinseyan 0 so don't find the protection all that necessary. But others of you? Is same-sex attraction more prevalent among men than I can realize? Did I miss out on some haunting but seminal rites of male passage by not joining a fraternity, and now you all are making up for it? Do the belittling jokes and comments about women suggest you prefer the company of men in a deeper way than I first thought? (And I focus on men here because "man" is the status that has currency for these negotiations.)

Or is there something else? Is this confusion and frustration evidence of a larger confusion- a confusion about who and what we might be for? Does y/our need to read Leviticus 18.22 (for example) as having anything to do with homosexuality demonstrate y/our loyalty to an illegitimate power?

You've probably read my allusions to the idea that something like "enhanced interrogation" can only make sense if you're willing to accept and be determined by certain things- things that make a claim on you, things that hold you, things that blind you. That "thing" makes us slaves. Sometimes happy house slaves, but we are slaves nonetheless, and we take whatever mark or brand is necessary to get along and do business with that master. How does homosexuality make sense to us? How does heterosexuality? What has us bound for that to work?

Drag. If only there was something that freed us...

Oh hey! Wait a minute.

Look, your king comes riding on a donkey. Triumphant, but humble on a donkey...

Oh wait no...

I guess that doesn't have anything to do with this.

Thanks, Billy.

Now...?

I just can't stay away.

I tried. Oh how I tried, but nothing could fill the void. Religion, family, booze? Nothing could fill the blog-shaped hole in my heart...

So here my netlog waited. Reliable. Unwavering. Good and faithful little diary. Of course I couldn't leave you forever.

And you, dear, little lambs. Was I gone too long? Had I left you wondering if there was something you had done to keep me away? You might've, but I'm so gracious I won't bring it up now. Let's just savor the sweetness of this reunion and get to what matters, no?

And what matters? You do.

I have something for you. Well, maybe not all of you- those of you for whom my harping about nonsense like torture and war seemed like... harping- I want to share something that will wipe the scales from your eyes.

For some of you it may now seem natural to oppose the occupation of Iraq and escalation in Afghanistan. CIA kidnappings are newly awful to you. Torture is suddenly torture. It is no longer un-American to challenge and question US policy.

Good?

Maybe your conversion is a bit like showing up at AA meetings to get dates*, but who knows where the wind may blow?

For others though, some vestigial principle stands in the way. After securing your salvation with secret prisons all over the globe, torture, and the sacrificial murders of Afghan taxi drivers you're too committed to your dhimmitude. Perhaps, you've surrendered so much of your soul to make sense of euphemisms like "enhanced interrogation", "extraordinary rendition", and "detainee", you're unsure how to proceed in a world where those are nonsense.

I am here for you. Actually, this is here for you:

"The Bush White House vehemently objected to provisions of the law dealing with rape by instrumentality. When House negotiators pressed to know why, they were met first with silence and then an embarrassed acknowledgement that a key part of the Bush program included invasion of the bodies of prisoners in a way that might be deemed rape by instrumentality under existing federal and state criminal statutes."

In case you missed it "the Bush program included invasion of the bodies of prisoners in a way that might be deemed rape by instrumentality". That means sticking things in people's butts.

No I know you're one not likely to make sharp distinctions about homosexual practices. In fact, you're probably someone for whom the phrase "homosexual practices" means something and as such distinctions aren't a part of the calculus. The upshot is this probably counts as gay.

There you go. You can augment your commitment to torture with the fear of the love that dare not speak its name. Never mind that it's not love- it's probably gay enough for you.

Now, with news that the Obama administration is maintaining Bush administration practices and that Binyam Mohammed was tortured in Guantanamo as recently as a month ago you can shake the dust from your outrage (out of practice outrage is still outrage, little lamb) and put it to use.

Apply sexual assault and violence and I'm sure whatever truth or sense of decency has been hindering you will magically melt away.

You're welcome.

* See? I could have written "laid". I am so kind to your delicate sensibilities.

We're All Mormon Now

Long-time readers of my series-of-tubes-log risk developing hemorrhoids but may also remember I've mentioned the silliness of Protestant, specifically Evangelical, notions of scriptural authority as stated in most Evangelical statements of faith.

As a Christian, I don't disagree with the idea of the Bible's authority, but as I've said before, the insistence upon a capital W "word" seems blasphemous in those statements of faith. And I've said before, it seems a bit odd to claim the Bible to be more authoritative than it ever does itself, let alone thinking that it is the kind of text that "makes claims". And it's silly the way the whole thing is often conceived and practiced with a wink. Sure there are better and worse ways of doing the bit- it can be sophisticated, responsible, thoughtful, and honest to varying degrees. To wit, someone has a concern, imagines there is a single word that deals with said concern, finds every instance of the Bible mentioning that concern and then creates a prescription for it from the pile of verses gathered. Something like that would be of the least degree. I know, I know, the horse isn't getting any deader, but I mention this as background and intro to where we are now.

"Where is that?" you ask.

Well, I'm glad you asked, but once I tell you, you may be unhappy.

We are now under the auspices of the Mormon Magisterium- or whatever the interpretive authority among LDS is called.

What?!

It's true. I bet you didn't think that would happen, but it did.

I'm guessing folks who think the Bible says something about homosexuality and marriage and that something is "gay folks can't get married" did not think through one of the more troubling implications of voting to eliminate that right. In their eagerness to make the state (in their minds "the world" as a whole) correspond to the world they imagine ought to exist in relation to some metaphysical template they find in scripture, they decided to traipse along with a Mormon and Christian Reconstructionist understanding of the world vis-a-vis scripture.

Huh?

The matter of same sex marriage is hardly settled among Christians- even among Bible believing Evangelical Christians. Of course for some, that one is not particularly settled on it belies one being a Bible believing Evangelical Christian. Whatever- the point is, it's not settled. Churches ostensibly decided what counted as marriage, who could get married, what criteria had to be met, etc... A pastor didn't think a Buddhist and Christian should get married, they didn't marry them. One partner was a member the other wasn't? No church marriage for them. A divorced partner and a first-timer? No way. Same sex marriage was a similar matter- subject to the criteria of a given congregational context. You like the stability, cohesiveness, commitment to love, discerning a life in community, togetherness, and loyalty marriage requires and fosters but not if it means banging sticks? Great, you don't allow same sex marriage.

I'm sure some of us think we dodged a bullet; the state addressed the issue so we don't have to. Our minds were nagged- even as some denominations formally settled the matter. We knew that while one body of Christians prohibiting same sex marriage existed side by side with another that received it, it could not rest. And what's church for if not settling into easy and familiar ruts? I think we thought this could lock us easily into those grooves.

So what does this have to do with being subject to scriptural authority and LDS?

Well, back in the day, when there was just one church (we'll pretend that actually was the case), that one church was the authority. We would all settle where the church said we ought to settle. But those were dark times and we're Protestants now. We say, "The church doesn't tell us how to think or understand things, only the Bible can do that, and when we read the Bible we all think the same thing we've always thunk". I know, that's silly, but we're ham-handed. So we say it's the Bible alone and ignore all whatever else that goes into our saying what we say the Bible says about what we do.

The larger point is that we're trying to say the matter is finally settled by virtue of some authority and what we've shown that authority to be is the state wielding power for a Mormon or Christian Reconstructionist understanding of the world.

It's not just troubling (to those who are troubled) that some unnamed gay person wants to love and marry some other gay person. The scarier concern (for those who are scared) is the confusion that churches reading the same Bible walking such different paths causes. Thankfully (for those who are thankful),the state offers security. Mormons have shown themselves willing to step up and be the point of stability we've been asking for.

Isn't that great?

The Really Good Parts of Heaven Are Reserved for Male Virgins

We don't buy into this do we?

If you see a lady you like among your enemy, bring her home, rape her, and she's yours. If you later decide you don't like her after all, you can get rid of her, but you can't sell her because you made her dirty. (Deut. 21:10-14)

If a man rapes an unengaged young woman, he must compensate her father and then marry her. (Deut. 22:28)

If a young engaged women is raped in town and she doesn't cry out loudly enough to get help, she should be killed. (Deut. 22:23-24)

Men should not "go to worship" with damaged genitalia. (Deut. 23:1)

As you're speaking with your child, telling her about the ins and outs of physical intimacy, teaching her about what love means to us, what she should do, what she ought not do, what she might expect, how to treat others, you teach her this don't you? Of course if you do, you're already violating the sense of the law since it was written for men. See you in hell, dummy (from heaven).

But your son, you tell your son to keep his penis intact so that he can go to church, right? You tell him to make sure he only rapes a woman he can afford, don't you? Of course you... oh you don't? Oh well, see you in hell, too.

***
I should offer a tip of the hat to students with whom I first shared these verses, who remind us these "translations" have me read "seizing a woman" as rape rather than something a man gets to do to a woman by virtue of his being a man. That is, my use of "rape" may not be appropriate since it carries with it a meaning for us that may not be present for the audience who could not imagine certain types of forced sexual intercourse as something wrong. But that remains a part of my point, which is, we generally* don't say this has a direct "do and do not do" bearing on our lives even though we say the Bible has a direct "do and do not do" bearing on our lives.

We can say that because there is something that comes before the do and do not do (and it's not the "New Covenant"), though it's not likely that we see it. It's hard, if not disorienting, to see the things through which we see. Imagine if you were aware that you see your eyeball lens as you see through it.

Cosmic, man.

No wonder we don't question the Late Capitalist Agenda, or even know to look for its influence on how we imagine and approach everything. (Sure, but we can imagine something like the Gay Agenda can exist- as if people excluded from the "mainstream" have the type of position in the world to create an agenda). No wonder it seems silly for me to identify something called Late Capitalism and suggest it has an influence on us. Did I say influence? That's not nearly strong enough. What would you call the activity of a power that completely dominates your being, binds you to itself so the whole of your life is determined to serve it? Maybe in-fluence is the perfect word.

I only mention this because we reject the Gospel for our lives, so we are determined to imagine something we call homosexuality is treated by the Bible. Yeah that's what I'm saying: if you think the Bible addresses what we call homosexuality and from that you say something like "It's wrong for a man to be physically attracted to a man, blah blah blah", you need Jesus to save you from that. But don't feel bad, we all need Jesus. So, you know, whatever.

*I say generally because I am sure there are those who would love for this to be the basis of social order. I'm looking at you, "Yes On 8" financial backers.

When I Hear Gay Agenda, I Think of This
Waiting for The Bus- Violent Femmes
It's Oh So Quiet- Björk
Novacane- Beck
Jumpin' at the Woodside- Duke Ellington
Myxomatosis- Radiohead
Tangled Up In Blue- Bob Dylan
When The Levee Breaks- Led Zeppelin
Livin' Thing- ELO

Someday You'll Thank Me For All This Scary Love

We like to say our thoughts on sex, or more accurately our rules regulating sexual behaviors, are rooted squarely and surely in scripture. I think, as Christians of a certain type anyway, we like to say that about everything, but these days, sex especially.

I don't happen to think Christianity is about regulating behaviors, but let's say for a moment it is, and let's then say that the Bible is the source for those regulations.

We know what to do and not do based on what the Bible says (not what we say the Bible says), and there are things that the Bible says we ought to do or not do and those things are tied to whether one gets to be a Christian and from that whether one gets to go to heaven. This is important to remember.

It's easy to make those opposed to THE GAY into a God Hates Fags caricature. Of course it's made all that much easier because of a tendency to see the complexities of desire and attraction as an absurd simplification called gay or straight, but let's resist the tendency to both caricaturizations. Could that be any less clear? Point being, it's easy to forget that those who imagine there is some thing called GAY and oppose it however it is manifest may do so out of a sincere desire to offer what is best for the one who is gay.

If I supremely care for the condition of your soul- read "I don't want you to go to hell", then I would want to make sure you are not being or doing something that may send you to hell. Forget for a moment that that set up depends on a way of knowing the world at odds with a Gospel narrative, but if I say being and doing gay, whatever that may be, is something that will send you to hell, then the idea of putting up barriers around the possibility of gayness makes sense. Good sense.

It's not hate, at least not the kind of hate that rolls up to campus with a Confederate Nazi flag (seriously- what was up with that guy?). It's a kind of love- a kind of distorted, crazy, self-serving love, but a try at love. That's something, no? And to my more delicate readers I apologize for putting the words but and love so close together.

So it's not hate, not always anyway. But being a distorted, crazy, self-serving love doesn't make it good. Maybe sympathetic, to a degree, maybe understandable, but not good. It is something that ought to be exposed to light, overcome, and redeemed, at least if one buys into being a Christian.

Monster Machine and I Were Briefly Discussing Whether Slipknot Was More Motorhead or The Misfits for Its Attachment to a Certain Comic Teen Aesthetic. What say You?
Sister I'm a Poet- Morrisey
We Are 138- The Misfits
Cosmopolitan- Nine Black Alps
No New Tale to Tell- Love and Rockets
Mr. Hurricane- Beast (If Jamiroquai and The White Stripes had a baby, it would cry like this)
Brazil- Pink Martini
Cut Your Hair- Pavement
Think- Aretha Franklin
Suzie- Boy Kill Boy

Our God Has Given Our Enemy Into Our Hand

Three things.

First.
I'm guessing if the No on 8 folks had early on clearly identified what and who was behind the Yes push- Mormon and Ahmanson money- it would not have passed. Consider that the present constitutional revision passed by a much narrower margin than the 2000 ballot measure that proved unconstitutional, though it was organized and well funded. We could say it's just a matter of a few more decades before these remaining folks are dead or at least outnumbered and a referendum is put to voters. Or we could recognize that the No campaign, a campaign that did not call out the kooks behind Prop 8, a campaign that let distortion and misrepresentation stand, a campaign that didn't make this about real people, and had to deal with Gavin Newsom's boorish soundbite, did as well as it did. Not that that is a great consolation, but if it had countered or done those things earlier, I think it would have passed- especially if the whole theocratic agenda of the financiers was clearly laid out. When most "straight folks" realize this is as much about their protection under the law, they will be less inclined to slouch along with Mormons and Christian Reconstructionists. Unless of course I'm wrong about that, and the vast majority of Californians would actually like to live in a Rushdoonian Mormon Bible-based paradise in which we wear magic underwear while stoning homosexuals* and adulterers.

Two.
Since passing Prop 8 was the great ecclesial call of this generation, since we successfully averted the flood they said was a'comin', could we as the church now maybe do one or two of the things Jesus actually talked about as recorded in the gospels? We could even say, "It's about the children" if we must, but how about 100 days of prayer and 40 days of fasting for something actually attributable to Jesus Christ if one is going to call one's self a follower of the guy? At least as a show of sincerity- "No hard feelings, homos, we take everything this seriously. High five? C'mon, sport, don't leave us hanging."

And D.
Now that THE CHURCH, at least in California, is safely ensconced in the security of the state, thoroughly protected by the power of legislation from any threats of strangeness or difference, insulated from any thing that may threaten its self-certainty, I wonder what will become of folks like me who seemed so suited to ministry until it was learned we didn't know how to properly read the Bible. Are we now bound with the bronze fetters of the law and so may be safely put to the wheel?

* As if the Bible says anything about homosexuality.

It's Nothing Personal

So there you have it, fags. TRADITIONAL VALUES... well Mormon values anyway, cut the legs out from your homosexual agenda. Decent, righteous upstanding Californians were able to tell queers they don't know that they can't marry.

Oh, and of course I don't mean "fag" or "queer" in any disparaging way. Just like no one means anything disparaging by saying you are inherently incapable of doing or being what is necessary to marry. You're fine, really. This was always all about THE CHILDREN. And since this was always about what marriage means for kids, it's only a matter of time until we make minimum income and education requirements before allowing people to have children. We won't allow divorcées with children to remarry because that really screws up a kid. We'll probably reconsider interracial marriage as well- that just seems like it's inviting problems. What else... who knows? I mean, there's all kinds of things we need to do for THE CHILDREN now that we've got this ball rolling.

And as far as THE CHURCH's responsibilities in the matter, we can show how seriously we do take marriage by telling straight couples that we won't allow them to get married because they don't meet some random serious and consequential set of criteria. We can have church committees monitor the sex lives of congregants to make sure they're not doing anything to violate nature or tradition. Ministers will no longer hire themselves out to "perform" weddings. In fact, we could probably go to some type of arranged marriage system- all in all, that just makes sense.

So in short, no hard feelings, right homos? We just really really love marriage... and children. Don't forget to think of THE CHILDREN.

Think of The Children, Indeed

Cue Shelves Being Knocked Over and the Elderly Storekeep Being Punched in The Gut

Youze gots yourself a nice little shop here. It would be a shame if anything wuz to happen to it.

Why Doesn't He Just Start His Own Church?

"A week ago, Father Geoffrey Farrow stood before his Roman Catholic parishioners in Fresno and delivered a sermon that placed him squarely at odds with his church over gay marriage.

With Proposition 8 on the November ballot, and his own bishop urging Central Valley priests to support its definition of traditional marriage, Farrow told congregants he felt obligated to break 'a numbing silence' about church prejudice against homosexuals."

LA Times

First we should say, "What a fool, putting his livelihood on the line for the sake of conscience?"

That's the think thing about being Catholic, you kinda' have to live as if your theological convictions matter.

Crazy, no?

Also kind of sits in a weird opposition to the previous post.

ed.-Idiot. Thing! Thing!

When Students Do It It's Called Cheating

Did you know that Augustine's thoughts on sexuality were nuts? No? That's okay, a lot of people don't know what Augustine wrote about matters of sex. Even a lot of Christians, who assume certain things about the history of their tradition don't know what Augustine wrote about matters of sex. That's not a big deal, why should they know?

I mean I could think of good reasons to know what Augustine wrote- actual good theological reasons to be familiar with his writings. Even though he said stuff like an erection "rises up against the soul's decision in disorderly and ugly movements," and that men and women cannot have sex without lust (therefore sin) entering the picture, stuff that just doesn't make sense, his work as a testimony of the transformative power of God in a person's actual existence is amazing. The submission of his intellect to the Word (not word) of God is humbling and inspiring. His intense personal struggle to conform his life to what he understood as a divine measure is beyond... Well it's just beyond.

His disregard for women and sex is a problem but whatever, he was a 4th century Western man, give him a break.

You know what doesn't deserve a break? Our misappropriating his work. How dare we take what he said and use it as an ideological club? Who do we think we are? I mean pretending we can universally apply his historically localized and specific thoughts, that's absurd.

Ah- I'm just kidding, that's what his work is for. I mean what else would we do with it? And so it's perfect that we don't familiarize ourselves with what he actually wrote. It's easier to misapply what was never said in the first place.

It's easier to misapply what was never said in the first place... ?

I just blew my mind man.

Of course it doesn't really make sense to take some 4th century North African Latin dude's thoughts and pretend that they exist as a matter of fact or universal application. I mean that would be like finding the rules to Hungry Hungry Hippos and imagining you could use them to understand and play some other game you came across.

It doesn't make sense but let's do it anyway. And again, when we do it, let's not do it in a well-informed manner. Let's try to be mostly ignorant of what he, and others, let's include others too, let's be mostly ignorant of what they all said and wrote, but pretend it's all part of some cohesive whole, so that when we try to craft some statement about this or that, we can invoke their names, and since their real old, it'll carry their weight.

Maybe.

During my Recording process I suggested that our Faith & Practice's counsel on the issue of sexuality left a lot to be desired. It is generally unclear and buys into some categories and concepts that I think we ought not buy into if we are the people we like to say we are- namely the church.

I still think it is problematic, but at least, it was our statement. I mean, as unclear as it is, one can make the case that it came from our Yearly Meeting, so even if it is unclear and mistaken- it is our lack of clarity and mistake to own. I'm only being a little silly with that last bit. It really is a good thing to make your own mistakes.

But, now we might as well be a subsidiary of the Family Research Council or Exodus International. I mean, judging by the information that keeps finding its way to my inbox and the Gay Panic I've seen, I'd put money on the next F&P counsel on sexuality ('cos I'm sure we'll insist it be there) being a copy and paste job from some Focus on the Family pamphlets.

Is there a "World of At Leasts" part of this? No, or it's hard to see it right now if there is. I mean, I've recently had people try to toss Augustine in my face as a demonstration of the church's consistent teaching on the Dos and Do Not Dos of sex, and I've been told Exodus International is a ministerial resource we ought to use... like it's all one big pile of proof or authority.

I guess I'd just like us to be faithful enough to make our own mistakes.

Or Sometimes Pretending To Be Prepared
Myxomatosis- Radiohead
Gigantic- Pixies
Army of Me- Bjork
All I Ever Wanted- POE Soundtrack
La Danza De Los Viejitos- Mariachi Folklorico
Pure Denizen of the Citizens Band- Frank Black
La Costilla Michoacana- Mariachi Nuevo de Mexico
Won't Get Fooled Again- The Who
Mean Mr. Mustard- The Beatles
This Is The New Shit- Marilyn Manson

White People Go to the Bathroom Like This...

There is a lazy, lazy, lazy, lazy, lazy way of doing sermons, self-help books, relational counseling, legislation, and who knows what else. It involves using facile and sloppy generalizations about categories of people to make facile and sloppy points that apply to no one anywhere but feed an abstract sense of identity that is irrelevant to actual people and so leads to their eager interest in more facile and sloppy sermons, self-help books, relational counseling, and legislation.

It happens to no end, especially in churches, in matters of men and women relating to each other.

Guys you know what I'm talking about, right? Right? And all the ladies are just looking at me, "What? What does he even mean?"

There are entire careers built on convincing men and women in relationships that women need someone to translate their words to men.

Ladies you say: I had a rough day with my boss today.
He hears: Tell me how to fix this problem I have.
The problem is, women are oriented about relationships whereas men, by their nature, need to fix things. He hears the world through his blue earphones.

I suppose, in the world of at leasts, it could be good for people who have submitted to a certain ideological conception of their existence to use the tools of their oppressors to build themselves some sense of relief. I guess if you're a man who has internalized the idea that men are universally barely more than retarded taciturn baboons, incapable of any kind of verbal expression, then it could be helpful if someone came along and offered you a means of communication as the imbecile you are.

I dunno. It seems like giving someone something to drink while they're hanging on a cross. Doesn't quite seem honest, and I'm not sure it's better than nothing. I think if I tried to relate to The Qweenbean as an abstract concept, or the idea of a woman, rather than who she is... well, that would be hell for both of us.

This would be a good intro to a skit about me relating to my wife that way, I would say, "I bet it would look a little something like this..." Then we would dissolve to some scene of domestic hilarity that skewers, skewers, I say, the ideas of men and women by applying the ideas to real situations.

And me, well I'm no better. We always carry some chains. I'm only different from, not necessarily better than, the mouth-breathing ape of a man that refuses to say "I love you". But that's only a bit here or there.

I'm convinced this is part of the reason THE CHURCH panics so much about teh Gay. We're not really interested in how people actually relate to each other- even in what we call heterosexuality. How could we possibly then address the actual complexity and diversity of human interactions that do not fit easily into our simplified categories? MAN and WOMAN as complementary binary already doesn't work, don't ask us to think about the possibility of gender as multiplicity even if that's what it really looks like in existence.

Anyway what got me thinking about this was a reference to research that shows men and women actually hold the remote about the same amount of time when watching TV.

So next time your pastor, family counsellor, camp speaker, or self-help guru says something about how men channel surf and women stay put, you'll know you're being lied to. Just like with that bit about men and women using a different average amount of words in a day. And isn't that what everyone wants?

It Just Makes Sense

I've heard that having a child and buying a home are two things that tend to make a person more politically conservative.* I don't know about the latter, but having a child has certainly made me more fond of the idea of traditional marriage. Of course by traditional marriage I don't mean the modern conception of marriage with which we are all familiar. That's the result of militant feminism and the homosexual agenda-** hardly traditional in the big picture and largely worthless to me given my present needs.

Obviously by traditional I mean the Judeo-Christian tradition (and don't give me any nonsense about Jews and Christians by virtue of their being Jews or Christians not sharing a tradition). I mean the tradition one finds in the Bible, and not the Jew Bible, which isn't a Bible, I mean the tradition found in Jesus' Bible, that Judeo-Christian tradition.

So I'm making dinner last night and it occurs to me, "I'm making dinner a lot these days." I like to cook and I do it pretty well, but lately I have to make dinner and I think "I don't want to have to make dinner." And then I think, "I'm a man, should I be making dinner... ever?"*** No. That's what a woman does. It's what she's supposed to do, it's what she's good at. Nature itself shows us women are food providers- they have boobs.

So I wonder, "How do we fix this?" "This" being the problem that I have to cook. And I say to myself, "I dunno, but it sure would be nice to take a break." And then I realize, "Hey, what if I just make my wife do it?" And that makes sense to me.

It's a lot of work of course and I don't know exactly how a woman is supposed to get everything done, I mean feed me and the baby along with everything else- it's something to do with her ovaries, or uterus, or her smaller brain I'm sure. The point is: a woman is supposed to cook. That's what she does, that's what she likes to do. It's what ought to happen.

But then I'm confronted with reality.

There's just not enough time in a day for a woman to take care of my baby and me. But then I realize there's an answer as plain as anything.

Obviously, a day is just as long as God made it. That's not the problem. My taking on the roles of a woman by cooking is clearly wrong. A man cooking for his family is probably an abomination; that's no good, I gotta stop that. The solution, as always, is returning to a sense of tradition, in this case traditional marriage. Adding another wife to the mix would solve a lot of problems. It's brilliant- but it's probably not necessary to say that. It's God's way after all.

If I had an additional wife, she could do the cooking and I could spend my day among the elders at the city gate, just like I'm supposed to.

And then the sex. If I may be vulnerable here for a moment. We still really like the idea of sex, but who has the time or energy when there's a baby around? How does anyone get around to making more than one baby? Fill the earth and subdue it, indeed. How can I when I only have one wife? Nature seems to require that I have more than one wife. Obviously by nature I mean, my wanting to have sex and our need for more babies.

With at least one more wife around, the opportunity for sex increases as does the chance for making more babies. And it also allows them to share responsibilities. I get to act like a man again, and their womanly jobs are spread among more workers. It seems like the perfect solution because it is.

So to these people invading our churches with their "think of the children", "save civilization," arguments about traditional marriage I say, "One man and one woman, indeed." Where do you get that from? Certainly not the Bible, certainly not from nature or what is practical. If we're not going to base our reasoning and decisions on what's in the Bible, what nature requires, and on plain old just what works, then what do we have? I'll tell you what, this topsy turvy world where I'm stuck cooking dinner all the time.

So in conclusion... in conclusion have more wives. That's all.

* That, and depriving the brain oxygen.
** Actually, it was largely borne by the rise of capitalism and urbanization. Still, not traditional if one wants traditional to mean "authoritative by virtue of its affirming what I like". But, whatever.
*** Granted I make a good dinner. I made a variation of pasta caprisi (with homegrown tomatoes), garlic and rosemary (which I grew) potatoes, sauteed mushrooms and spinach salad with a home made balsamic dressing. The Qweenbean is so lazy these days we'd probably eat macaroni and cheese or hot dogs every night if it was up to her. G'uh.

NEW CONTEST NEW CONTEST

Long time readers of my globe spanning net diary are probably mushy about the middle but also likely know that I have contests- real contests with real prizes. Here's another:

Craft a more empty applause line than the following:
"But I can't wait to introduce her to Washington DC, when the big spenders and the old boy network, the pork barrelers, the earmarkers, the business as usual, the country-second, me first bureaucrats in Washington and the special interest, she'll take them on like she did in Alaska and we'll return this government back to the people of this country."

It has everything:* grammatical errors, empty symbols, ironic self-reference/glaring self-"un"awareness. How can you beat that? I don't know, but you can try.

Of course you can be petty and pick an Obama line, but that's not crafting one of your own, so I'd have to send Obama the prize if he wins. And unlike politicians, their speechwriters, or production interns tasked with finding images of Walter Reed to go with their convention, I know how to use the Googles.

I've already got a prize in mind for this one, and, boy, is it great.

Submit your entry in the comments. Winners of previous contests are perfectly free to win again.

* Wow, so many colons so close to each other. Is that too graphic?

Victory Is In Your Hands

I don't know if your marriage has yet fallen apart because gay people are getting married. If it has thus far survived the contemporary assault on THE FAMILY, beware. There is another force acting against the family in a sort of Pincer movement that will certainly destroy it without stalwart defense. Last week the House passed the Federal Employees Paid Parental Leave Act to increase parental leave (it includes fathers- good lord, they hate families).

Thankfully, President Jesus, in order to defend families, has said he will veto it. What are you doing?

Of course, in the intro, I've assumed you are married. If you're not, all I can say to that is, "Why do you hate THE FAMILY so much?"

If a Tree Falls in a Forest...

Did you see Dennis Kucinich present the articles of impeachment against President Jesus yesterday? No? Oh. Well, it happened.

How about American Gladiators or that American Idol with Emo Ray Cyrus? That's cool.

Anyway, in his statement he said:
George W. Bush, in violation of his Constitutional oath to faithfully execute the office of President of the United States and to the best of his ability, preserve protect and defend the Constitution of the United States and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be safely executed has committed the following abuses of power...

But he's short- look at him. He looks like an elf. Or, no, not an elf- a pixie- those are girlier. He looks like a pixie.

Article I: Creating a secret propaganda campaign to manufacture a false case for war against Iraq...

I mean look at him, he's all little and wrinkly- like a white raisin with ears.

...has both personally and acting through his agents and subordinates, together with the Vice-President, illegally spent public dollars on a secret propaganda campaign to manufacture a false cause for war against Iraq. The Department of Defense has engaged in a years long secret domestic propaganda campaign...

Did you know he's a vegetarian? What a fruitcake. I mean he'd probably want it to be illegal for us to eat meat- am I right? A vegetarian- seriously, that's crazy.

... The program illegally involved, "Attempts to change opinion through the use of third parties. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld recruited 75 retired military officers and gave them talking points to deliver on CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, and MSNBC"...

I heard someone somewhere say he believes in ufos. Cuckoo!

... According to the Pentagon's own internal document, the military analysts were considered, "Message-force multipliers," as surrogates to deliver administration themes and messages to millions of americans in the form of their own opinions. In fact they did deliver the themes and messages but did not reveal the Pentagon had provided them with their talking points. Robert S. Bevelaqua, a retired Green Beret and Fox News analyst, described this as follows: he said, "It was them say, 'we need to stick our hands up your back and move your mouth for you.'" Congress has restricted annual appropriations bills since 1951 with this language, and I quote, "No part of any appropriation contained in this or any other act shall be used for publicity or propaganda purposes within the United States"...

What's this guy even talking about? He's crazy right? What a little jerk, he's probably just angry because he always gets pushed around and knocked over because he's so little. He's like a chihuahua that's been sat on too many times- he's barking and shaking at everything. Just look at him, how can you listen to anything he says? Seriously, I have no idea what he's talking about it.

But did you see how the audience all had Hulk fists and Titan was painted all green? That was cool.

Your Old Road is Rapidly Aging

Perhaps today you felt a tug and a tear somewhere not quite inside but clearly within you. At first it was a subtle and ineffable drift. Some part of your being was drawn sensibly but invisibly away. Eventually, you stifled a whimper as something was pulled from your core- as if your awareness of your self- the you that is inside your hands but is not your hands- the you that draws you beyond the horizon of you- was gently but surely gripped and coerced from your soles, from your chest, your arms, your face. And finally like a breath that would not return or as if sight were reversed, it emptied your being with a final tear as delicate as it was painful.

But rather than empty and unaware, you are left with a heavy oblivion that can not carry itself.

You are your phantom limb.

Why did this happen?

Because, today, California's Supreme Court destroyed marriage.

While this may be a day of unspeakable joy for some, for others it's a sign of the apocalypse... mostly those who believe in an apocalypse.

Remember when I wrote this? Really? Don't you have anything else to do?

Anyway, the decision is in. The question was: "The question we must address is [I just said that] whether, under these circumstances, the failure to designate the official relationship of same-sex couples as marriage violates the California Constitution."

The decision is: "... upon review of the numerous California decisions that have examined the underlying bases and significance of the constitutional right to marry (and that illuminate why this right has been recognized as one of the basic, inalienable civil rights guaranteed to an individual by the California Constitution), we conclude that, under this state’s Constitution, the constitutionally based right to marry properly must be understood to encompass the core set of basic substantive legal rights and attributes traditionally associated with marriage that are so integral to an individual’s liberty and personal autonomy that they may not be eliminated or abrogated by the Legislature or by the electorate through the statutory initiative process. These core substantive rights include, most fundamentally, the opportunity of an individual to establish — with the person with whom the individual has chosen to share his or her life — an officially recognized and protected family possessing mutual rights and responsibilities and entitled to the same respect and dignity accorded a union traditionally designated as marriage. As past cases establish, the substantive right of two adults who share a loving relationship to join together to establish an officially recognized family of their own — and, if the couple chooses, to raise children within that family — constitutes a vitally important attribute of the fundamental interest in liberty and personal autonomy that the California Constitution secures to all persons for the benefit of both the individual and society.
Furthermore, in contrast to earlier times, our state now recognizes that an individual’s capacity to establish a loving and long-term committed relationship with another person and responsibly to care for and raise children does not depend upon the individual’s sexual orientation, and, more generally, that an individual’s sexual orientation — like a person’s race or gender— does not constitute a legitimate basis upon which to deny or withhold legal rights. We therefore conclude that in view of the substance and significance of the fundamental constitutional right to form a family relationship, the California Constitution properly must be interpreted to guarantee this basic civil right to all Californians, whether gay or heterosexual, and to same-sex couples as well as to opposite-sex couples."

If you're not afraid of catching The Gay, you can download all 172 pages of the decision here.

Now before your inbox is filled with all manner of alerts and battle cries (read: requests for money), realize this is not judicial activism- though that dog whistle will be blown. This is, understand clearly, a plain, conservative reading of the state constitution and legal precedent. It is not a decision based on what the Republican appointed judges think policy ought to be because of personal preference or inclination. It is not a twisting of definitions to suit their own agenda. It is based on what they understand to be the rights guaranteed and protected by our constitution. So, disagree with it if you must, but don't disagree with it as a dummy.

That said, I can understand if you feel that, today, the very foundations of being have been destroyed. How will we go on? How will my marriage survive? How will I not be forced to marry my shoes? How will the way we say things ought to be remain if we don't believe in them real hard and force others to do the same?

Coincidentally, providentially, serendipitously, by cosmic accident- whatever your sensibilities allow- this week I had to find my and the Qweenbean's marriage license to verify to an insurance company we were married and it got me a'thinkin'. It's a strange thing that the state has any business in saying that we are allowed to have the type of relationship we have agreed to try out. She said it's a good thing there is because I would have married my cat to make a point. Whether that's the case, I think that will be an out for some churches. Marrying cats? No, I mean after they've exhausted themselves with initiatives that will ultimately prove unconstitutional, churches will have to decide if they want to continue being agents of the state- more concerned with producing good citizens than people who have no place to lay their heads.

To me this is a good thing, not least of all because all of this head resting has made for lazy brains.

A Title Should Go Here

Ken Hutcherson is a lunatic or a jerk. Yikes, that's rough.

Maybe I'll make it more palatable by invoking CS Lewis. I hear, as wrong as he may ever be, he's magic. So, a la Lewisian rhetorical constructs: Ken Hutcherson is a lunatic, jerk, or savior.

In case you're a decent human being, Ken Hutcherson is one of those athlete turned religious guru phenoms and lords it over a mega church in Kirkland, Washington. His specialty is gay-panic.

He claims to have been appointed as a Special Envoy to Latvia by the Bush Administration to discuss the crises homosexuals are instigating throughout Eastern Europe and what role The Gays had in instigating the Holocaust. That's delusional. Delusional is crazy. Oh sure, Latvia exists, and he has built a number of ties, ironically enough, with Eastern European proto-fascist Christians but the Bush administration denies he has ever been given the official status of "Special Envoy" or undertaken diplomatic missions on behalf of our country.

That sounds like something a lunatic would say.

...

Well, now I find myself in the strange position of having to believe something out of the Bush administration. I find myself like an inverted Ignatius of Loyola; should the Bush Administration say black is black, I would have to disagree for the sake of my soul.

Now I should say that bit of evidence may be suspect. I guess it's not entirely beyond the pale to imagine a former linebacker with a Bible college degree and no training in diplomacy would be given an appointment by this administration. Though if it was consistent with their MO (modus operandi, not the horrid state Missouri*), given his credentials he would be appointed to the Supreme Court.

He may also be delusional because he sees the threat of homosexuality everywhere. I don't mean that he sees gay people everywhere; we all do that (yes even you Snoqualmie, WA). I mean he sees the threat of homosexuality as a strategically orchestrated campaign to make people gay or even subjugate the world to the rule of some Gay Illuminati perpetrated by the highest levels of the corporate and political world. That sounds delusional as well, or maybe more symptomatic of some sort of paranoia or antisocial pathology. I think we can make the case that he is paranoid though it would be tough to make the case that his paranoia is a disorder. It hardly interferes with his life or causes him harm; in fact it has become his bread and butter. He is all about successfully converting the generalized antipathy towards some idea of gay into a direct and pointed malevolence... and a paycheck. He's built himself quite an empire on the backs of gay people. Now if I were interested in working blue I would connect all of this gay-panic on Hutcherson's part to the "backs of gay people" line in a perfectly played punchline suggesting he's just another tragic closet-case.

Not this time. There are more important concerns.

Which brings us to the second possibility, Ken Hutcherson may be a jerk. He is currently taking credit for leading a protest against the "Day of Silence" activities at Mt. Si High School wherein a number of students walked out to show their disapproval of and opposition to the Day of Silence, or more specifically, their opposition to saying it's not okay for students to call each other fag, dyke, pussy, ho, and all the other not so subtle ways young people make life hell for each other. This is what The Day of Silence is about: essentially calling out the high school culture and the powers/adults that support it. What it's calling out is that adolescent culture that is really just a non-perfected adult culture. Of course adults aren't as ham-fisted with the name calling and hate because we've had years of practice and place-putting to set things right. If you've ever witnessed a group of teenage boys call each other "fag" or "woman" as putdowns, you see they are still learning how to get all that bigotry just right. It's cute in the way that maggots must be cute because they're baby flies. Babies are always cute.

Anyway, that's what the Day of Silence is for, saying that brand of becoming an adult is not okay.

Look, I get it, you're convinced the Bible says something about some thing we call homosexuality. It's a do not do. You're absolutely positive it says that. Great. Hooray for you. You have to be a dick about it?

Ken Hutcherson supported a group of students who walked out of school and led a demonstration for the right to harass and bully and he's happy about it.

Really. It's a success for him to get 600+ high school students (85 athletes**) to defend their right to call other kids fag. That sounds like a jerk to me (it also doesn't sound like all that much of a challenge).

But wait, isn't the Day of Silence all about tolerance and diversity? How can you say you are tolerant if you won't tolerate my intolerance? That just makes you a hypocrite.

Well first let me say, "Who keeps letting you in here?" Second, "You're an idiot." You don't really mean to ask anything; you're looking for a way to pardon your fascism as necessary for dialogue and democracy. I could respond that their is no tolerance qua tolerance and that the use of it as necessary in an open democracy precludes your understanding of it in light of your desire to dominate, but you would just blink a couple of times and call me a fag. So, let me be clear. I think it is right for someone who thinks there is something wrong with some such and such to say so and Ken Hutcherson should be allowed to be as dumb as he wants to be in doing that. But it is possible that a tolerant people could not tolerate the existence of an intolerant in the same way a body that values growth would not rightly value a cancer.

Anyway, someone should point out that he's being dumb. Hey, that someone is me.


*To be fair, I only say Missouri is horrid because of the horrid experiences I had there.
**That's right, I said it.