, , , , , , , , , ,

So today while I was at work, SCOTUS declared in a 5/4 that not only are states allowed to legalize gay marriage, but that those states who have banned it have violated the law and must allow for gay marriage.

I don’t have the complete statements from the SCOTUS. I’ve tried looking, and I cannot tell you how much that upsets me. I want to read these things damn it. And it would help with this, but instead you get the “off the cuff” based on what I’ve been able to put together.

On the one hand, I’m not surprised that this happened. I’ve long held that there was nothing in the Constitution that actually banned Gay Marriage. I’ve also held that the oaths of free peoples should be recognized, regardless of gender, for this is a matter of honor. And lets face it, the court system has gotten very progressive about things lately so there wasn’t much that was going to stand in the way here. Not with all the public pressure and downright horrid vitriol that the Gay community would have put out had they been denied.

Because while I support the Gay community in their desire and pursuit of equal rights, I cannot deny that they have been some very hateful mother fuckers about it along the way.

Which brings me to the after effects  of this decision, and where it goes from here.

One of the overriding concerns that has been running through the religious side of the discussion is “what happens to us after they legalize it.” Because, and I do believe nearly anyone can admit this, we’ve reached a point in the US where often enough descent is equivalent to hatred, and where if you do not support something like homosexuality you are nothing more than a homophobic bigot practicing hate speech, regardless of one’s reasons for opposition.

Had the SCOTUS merely held themselves to the ruling of the case before them, the following discussion might have been difficult enough, but they went further and unilaterally legalized Gay Marriage across the US, removing the rights of states to decide for themselves what is or is not lawful. It also enshrined Gay Marriage as a constitutional right, which no doubt many will see as a good thing.

But here in lies the problem, which was recognized in the dissenting opinion of the SCOTUS. We have now legally said that “you either stand for this, or you are the enemy.” Now, anyone who descents with gay marriage is standing in opposition to the very founding document of this country, even though that ruling was made without the will of the people expressed in a vote, but decided by what is essentially an unelected body.

So now, any faith based organization who stand against gay marriage could be viewed as breaking the law at a minimum. Certainly any church or temple that refuses to perform gay marriages could be construed as breaking the law. At a minimum, they all now face loosing tax exempt and other governmental exclusions on the basis that they are practicing “Hate Speech.”

And I find this very troubling. For a few reasons.

1) SCOTUS basically has said that democracy and dissent have no place in this discussion and that the discussion is over.

The whole idea of Legalizing Gay marriage is barely over a decade old, at least in the public consciousness. While I am sure that among the homosexual community has wanted it for much longer than that, as far as the public goes it wasn’t part of the concerns. I think if it had been, Gays would not have the present level of equality that they do, had they started out with the “we want to fundamentally change marriage” thing that has been gay marriage.

Let’s face it, even through the 90’s if that had been on the table they’d have been kicked back into the closet with an Apollo Rocket.

Hel, the idea that Gays should have equal rights is pretty damn new when you think about it. The whole situation has changed in just my lifetime, going from “Gays are Eww and wrong,” to “Gays deserve equal rights, etc.” So it really isn’t surprising to me that there has been the resistance there has been. I mean, we’re talking about fundamentally changing the landscape of society here and what is socially acceptable. Generally, that takes time, and when it is rush it often has violent side effects as people become polarized over the issue.

And that’s what we’ve done here. We’ve not just been driving the speed limit, we slammed down the pedal, activated a couple rocket boosters, and drove a truck full of fireworks into a china shop. And we’ve screamed at anyone crying about the broken china that they’re a hateful bigot who needs to shut the fuck up and embrace the gay lovin’.

But something this big really should be discussed. I read that a recent census showed that only 2% of the US population is gay/bisexual. The US presently has a population of about 318 million people. So that means we have a gay population of about 6,360,000 people. That’s quite a lot of people. But the population number of Christians alone who likely do not support gay marriage (I’m just gonna say a third of Christians, it could be higher) would be about 76,320,000.

Now, by no means should a majority have the right to outlaw a minority, but at the same time having a minority dictate how the majority should live is an act of oligarchical tyranny. Especially if that rule is done without a discussion between the two. Now, the numbers of support for both sides of this argument are higher, but it still stands. The argument should have happened, and it was happening on a state by state basis. Or at least on the federal basis. That was democracy, and even if some people didn’t like the outcome, they should have at least had the decency to respect it, because often enough democracy works on one’s favor as against it.

One of the Justices at an earlier point said that if the Court did legalize marriage now, before the discussion was settled, it would not breed a peaceful solution, but rather etch the argument’s lines in stone. Much like Roe v. Wade did with abortion. Legalization didn’t stop the argument about abortion, which was also drawn on religious vs non-religious lines. By ending the debate, SCOTUS has damned the nation to an endless cycle of hateful arguments as both sides now fight to change the law to their view or suppress those attempting to change the law.

2) SCOTUS basically has said that a person’s right to fuck who they please and then marry that person takes a greater prerogative over thousands of years of tradition or the moral teachings of at least 80+% of the planet and for all of human history.

I am, for all purposes, a highly religious man.* My religions shape my world view, my morality, what I think is good and what I think is wrong. I draw from the Gods in their words, their deeds, and the examples they have set forth in to what is a good way to live my life, and what ways I should not live my life.

Because of this, there is a hierarchy in my mind of moral reasons to do an action or that would make an action acceptable.

And as much as I support the free and equal rights of homosexuals, I frankly have to admit that as far as justifications go for any actions or so forth, that they frankly have the weakest one I’ve ever heard.

“Who I Fuck.”

Now, before anyone starts, I phrased it that way for a reason. The gay community likes to say “you can’t help who you love or who you’re attracted to.” And that’s very true. But Love does not equal the act of Sex. There is a very long list of models, celebrities, and even just people on the street to whom I have been very attracted and very much wanted to have a relationship with and sleep with.

Oh sweet sexy Kat....

Oh sweet sexy Kat….

But you know what? I haven’t slept with them. You can be attracted to someone and love someone and never sleep with them. Many, many men know this agony. I suspect at lot of women do too. In fact, I’m pretty sure there are people in the gay community who have experienced this fact. So, as unpleasant as it would be, gay people could still be gay and never sleep with another gay person. What you do or don’t do doesn’t change who you are, even if Who you are can strongly influence what you do.

So when it comes down to it, homosexual equality advocates really are standing on the moral foundation of “I want to fuck, who I want to fuck, and I want equal rights because my identity is based on who I am fucking.”

During all this fuss there was the story of a gay man who disowned his entire family because his Father viewed homosexuality as at least wrong, if not evil. And this man was being lauded as a hero who suffered greatly, but was so strong to do this. Frankly, I thought he was a ghastly asshole about it. In Heathenism, the entire foundation of the religion is family. Family is the most important thing, and what this guy did was basically say “Dad, I know you love me, you want what you think is best for me, you think I’m doing something stupid and wrong that will only hurt me and you’re trying to protect me from myself…but fuck you dad, taking it in the ass is more important to me than all the years of love and support, shelter, food, education, and everything else you did for me.”

And let’s face this squarely. The entire discussion about homosexuality is a Moral Issue. Some believe it is morally wrong. Some believe it is morally acceptable.

Those who believe it is morally acceptable by all accounts stand on the ground of “love is good, and you should be with the one you love (or at least desire strongly enough). And that’s not a bad argument, love is indeed often good (but we as a society already do limit what kinds of love are acceptable, so it’s hard to argue for one and then argue against another, more on that later).

On the opposition side, you have at least two major religions who view homosexuality as wrong. Now, the primary motivation for this is “God Said So.” Which a lot of people like to laugh at today because we live in an atheistic society that mocks the ideas of God and Religion. But those holding to this line do deeply (as I do) believe in the existence of their God and seek to obey him. Given that nearly every religious text in existence is filled with what divine wrath happens when a Gods’ will is not listened to, and the apparently rather heinous punishments in store for those who violate those laws. I find them to be on a stronger moral ground.

Because when the options are get struck by plague or get my rocks off, self preservation is a rather sensible choice.

Now, we are all free to wonder why it is that YHVH and Allah do not want homosexuality to happen and deem it a sin (and honestly that’s probably a discussion to have), but the fact is that they did, and their followers would very much like to not burn in Hell for eternity (which they believe is an actual option for their fate).

But regardless of the “why it is wrong,” argument, to me as a faithful person, obeying the will of whatever Gods you pray too is a very strong moral foundation for me. After all, pretty much every God out there said “thou shalt not murder wily nilly,” and I don’t see anyone complaining about that moral judgement.

And sure, killing people is a lot more harmful than two men making sweet, sweaty love to each other. But they are still both Moral decisions. And even Rome and Greece, which openly practiced homosexuality, never let gay people get married.

So when it comes down to Gay people basically saying “fuck our families, fuck society, fuck historical and religious traditions, I wanna fuck who I wanna fuck and fuck you for trying to stop my fucking” all on the basis of “who they fuck,” Well, I call weak-sauce.

Because honestly, I don’t get the right to fuck who I want. I have the right to sleep with someone willing, but last time I checked I didn’t just get to sleep with whoever I wanted to. And that’s for “moral reasons.”

3) SCOTUS basically has said that those who disagree with the view that gay marriage must be legal are acting as “Enemies of Human Decency,” and should not be afforded legal protection for their views.

No Bakeries, No Peace.

In this country, we like to believe that discrimination is wrong. Funnily enough, who is being discriminated against is always up for debate, and it is perfectly acceptable to “discriminate” against a “Discriminator.” As many a Christian shop has learned when they tried to live by their morality and not take part in Gay rituals which violated the tenants of their religion.

I used to laugh at Christians who cried that they were being discriminated against. After all, as a Heathen and Cultor Deorum, my religions were effectively silenced. But it is really hard to argue with them when a simple baker can lose everything simply because he didn’t want to make a cake.

And that’s where we come to with this discussion, no just for Christians, Muslims, and Jews, but for all religious peoples. By the traditions of Rome, there is no gay marriage in the Cultus Deorum. This was Roman Law. To engage in a gay marriage under the auspices of my Roman Religion would be to violate that religion, however welcoming the Cultis is to homosexually (which is pretty welcoming).

Which, now, makes me guilty of hate speech and worthy of losing what legal protections my religion as a Cultor Deorum was legally entitled to under US law. Because I will not fully support an action, even though I am not even hostile to it, I have no rights in this regard.

And the Cultus Deorum is a small religion. We honestly do not have that much to loose. Our temples (since there are none) cannot be seized. Our assets (what few there are) cannot be taken away. But for the majority of Religious institutions (Namely Christian and Jewish) who might face the fallout of such a change in state, the fallout is huge. Churches, schools, day-cares, health centers, foreign aid offices, etc, could all find themselves stripped of the ability to run, to own property, to even exist. Those organizations given tax exempt status (which they often need to run as non-profit organizations) could suddenly find themselves paying the same massive costs corporations do…without all the little loopholes corporations have to get out of paying those taxes. Not only that, their religious and administrative leaders could find themselves paying massive fines and even being jailed for “hate speech.” Members of various churches and organizations could find themselves on the same lists as the KKK, Nation of Islam, and other hate groups. They could lose their jobs, their homes, everything, simply because of what they believed and who they believed it with.

And that is terrifying. Truly, fucking, terrifying.

Before anyone tries to say “oh, that won’t happen,” stop. Every single baker and flower vendor and photographer who has tried to not service a gay wedding has been put out of business and face heavy economic penalties. And that was before gay marriage was legal. Let me state again, they were completely destroyed for refusing to do something that was not even legal at the time.

Now what kind of scorched earth policy do you think the gay community is going to have against anyone who tries to speak out against this Law, much less actively not obey it. They will burn everything to the ground, because that is what they have done and now they have no reason whatsoever to change tactics. And they will not care who they hurt in the process, as many a Pagan learned as the Gay community attacked the very RFA laws that help Pagans gain their legal rights.

4) SCOTUS basically has opened the door to polygamy, pedophilia, and other “unacceptable” relationships.

As I have said repeatedly, homosexuality is a moral issue.

One side says it is morally right, one side says it is morally wrong. Those who have said it is wrong have typically held to a very strict, narrow definition of what is morally acceptable in terms of sexual/romantic relationships. And while I do not by any means agree with all of it, I will state that it is certainly an easily understood and defended position to take.

This ruling has shattered all of that.

By basically saying “right to fuck,” is the supreme law of the land and redefined the nature of marriage, SCOTUS has opened the floodgates.

Think an old man shouldn’t have sex with an underage boy or girl? You’re a fucking pedophobe, you bigot. Love knows no age!

Try coming up with a moral argument against it? Oh God said it was wrong? Fuck your God. “It’s bad for the child?” Give it a few years, there will be psychologist and people from those relationships talking about how healthy it is to share one’s formative sexual years with a trusted, older, more knowledgeable person.

Think that can’t happen? Remember, homosexuality was diagnosed as mental disorder for centuries. Till prevailing attitudes changed and forced science to adapt to their beliefs. It will happen again.

How about Polygamy? Think a man shouldn’t have more than one wife, or a wife more than two husbands. (The gay community believes this, largely, based on sociology papers I studied in college). Fuck you, you polyphobe, fucking bigot. Love knows now number!!!!

“But it’s exploitative of women?” Fuck you, multiple wives means it’s easier for every wife. Many hands make light work. After all, then some wives can go work (full time even) while others stay home and tend the house and kids. (I’ve seen this argument already used). And in the other case, why shouldn’t a woman have as many husbands as she pleases? Certainly her life is only improved by having so many men to support her, you must hate women you misogynist pig!

Ect. Ect. Ect.

Any “deviant” relationship now has the perfect argument for getting every right they want, regardless of society’s views. “You gave it to the Gay people, you fucking bigots, now give it to us!” NAMBLA will march in the streets for the right to fuck underage kids, and NAWGLA will march with them, and every combination of desires out there.

And there will be no moral ground to stop them. No traditional ground. There will be no ground to object whatsoever, and anyone who tries will face the same kind of backlash that anyone who fights homosexuals will.

There are no more rules, so let anarchy reign in the sheets and the streets.

In conclusion, I still support equal rights for gay people, and part of me is happy that SCOTUS did legalize it. But a large part of me thinks that we should have continued having this discussion, for as many years as it too, in order for it to have ended peacefully. Even if it was merely having votes in each state until each state legalized it. Yes, it would have take years, but those would be precious years to open minds and hearts, to find a peaceful balance where everyone was respected, regardless of their views.

The fact that the first reaction of many conservatives was to start drafting laws to protect priests and other religious institutions from being legally attacked for their views says a lot, not only about the debate over gay marriage but how the gay community has managed to make itself viewed by those who have stood not against gay rights as a whole, but in defense of what their viewed as a religious practice on moral grounds. Roughly 2% of the population has now dictated unconditional terms of surrender to the rest of the population, regardless of if that population supported it or not, and the attempt to enforce that “Surrender” are going to be long and bloody and violent in many different ways.

SCOTUS has done the right thing, but I have to agree with the dissenting view, they have gone about it in much the wrong way. Democracy did not exist today, instead we have imposed a tyranny. And it is a tyranny that will open many unintended floodgates. While no doubt a great many will view the coming destruction and reshaping of society as a good thing, I do not share their same hope. The battle lines are now drawn in stone, there will be no prisoners and no quarter, and many innocents shall be burned in the flames of war.




*well, man/demon/god/spirit/whatevertheheliamthisweek. Long time readers will know my struggle with what exactly I am.