Texas Highway Patrol To Begin Gunboat Patrols Of Rio Grande

           

            The State of Texas is getting into the business of maritime border security with the introduction of six, thirty-four foot Texas Highway Patrol gunboats outfitted with bulletproof hulls and machine guns.  These gunboats are slated to begin patrolling the Rio Grande soon in an effort to assist the US Customs and Border Patrol in stopping smugglers. 

            

           Though this move may draw the ire of several of my fellow left leaning friends who are leery of state intervention following the Arizona immigration debacle, I support this move by the State of Texas.  Border States have been complaining about crime problems related to our porous borders for some time.  Despite some of the ridiculous measures some of these states and their local municipalities have taken, they have very real concerns. Several of these states have passed laws they think will help, however, thus far each state that has taken steps they think will help have been bigoted at best.  Arizona famously passed a law that encouraged its police officers to question the immigration status of anyone suspected to be in the country illegally, i.e. Hispanic Arizonans.  Several other states such as Alabama have attempted or passed similar initiatives that would, among other things, make it a felony to give an illegal alien a ride to work, school or church.  These initiatives completely undermine and usurp Federal authority to enforce immigration and customs laws and have largely served only to harass Americans of emerging ethnic minority backgrounds.

            

           What Texas is doing appears to be an honest effort at helping instead of hindering the Federal Government, by securing its own state boundary from smugglers and the cartel violence that so often spills across the border.  It has been estimated that since the Mexican Government crackdown on drug cartels began a few years ago, upwards of 40,000 Mexicans have lost their lives to drug violence along the US Border.  Many Americans have also lost their lives to the violence associated with cartels vying to fill the vacuum created by the Mexican crackdown.  One of the most notable cases occurred just over a year ago when an American skier on Falcon Lake near Laredo, Texas, was killed by cartel gunmen.

What Texas is not doing is taking the approach of the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Department who under the leadership of Sheriff Joe Arpaio, pulled over a disproportionately high number of Hispanic motorists over a hundred miles from the border.  Texas is taking a common sense approach to border security by actually securing the border and leaving the Federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement to enforce Federal immigration laws in the interior.  Under this approach the Texas Department of Public Safety can be assured that those whom they stop illegally crossing the river in either direction are actually in the act of violating Texas, US, or Mexican laws. Additionally, Texas Highway Patrol officers can be proud in knowing the job they do will serve to protect US and Mexican citizens instead of making life difficult for those of Latino descent.

What Texas is doing is promising and if properly implemented, could lead to a new era in Federal and State cooperation on an issue that is clearly of importance to both the Federal and State governments.

Santorum's Hypocrisy

Rick Santorum has made some waves in the news lately. Apparently Mr. Santorum had some complaints about President Obama while speaking at a church in Georgia. What I find particularly hilarious are not the complaints in and of themselves, but rather the source of the complaints, and the logic behind them.

Santorum announced that his administration would

“defend the church, defend the family, defend the nonprofit community, defend them from a government that wants to weaken them.”

Now, I find this an interesting statement. Isn’t this man running for the office of President of a country that is founded on freedom? Did Mr. Santorum forget the part of the First Amendment of the Constitution? Correct me if I’m wrong, but doesn’t that Amendment clearly state that:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

Am I missing something here? Certainly, I am not one to withhold Mr. Santorum’s freedom of speech, but it strikes me as horribly hypocritical to run on a platform of “Defense of the Christian Fath” (like it really needs defending) when one of the founding precepts of this country is “we’re not going to tell you what to believe.”

Santorum continued his tirade:

“It is saying government knows better. It is imposing his ideology on a group of people expressing their theology – their moral code – and saying government will force you to do what your faith says is gravely wrong,”

Wait. Wait just a second here…

I have a question for Mr. Santorum. A few, actually.

Mr. Santorum, to quote one of my favorite songs, “how can you say your truth is better than ours?”
Mr. Santorum, what gives you the right to complain about the government imposing ideologies when you are doing the same thing?
Mr. Santorum, doesn’t that mean that you are just forcing others to do what their faith says is gravely wrong?
Mr. Santorum, you say that President Obama’s theology is one that is not found in the Bible, yet he has proposed a health care initiative that allows the poor to seek the care they need. You oppose this measure. Mr. Santorum, doesn’t that mean that your “theology”  is one that is not found in the Bible? Or perhaps my Bible is just missing the part that says “care for the needy.”
Mr. Santorum, you railed against Obama’s new contraceptive policy; one that would require everyone to provide contraceptives to women that wanted it. You said it was a a policy “hostile to faith.” Mr. Santorum, again I ask you, how dare you presume that your faith is superior?
Mr. Santorum, have you thought to ask any women what they think about this?

Mr. Santorum, you have ranted and raved about protecting faith in this country, proposing strong-arm policies that would force the entire nation into following Christian precepts. Perhaps it’s time you go back and looked at that First Amendment again. The part about making no law establishing religion. Maybe you forgot it. I’ll post it agian.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

Before you try telling the American people to vote for you next time, perhaps you would be wise to remember that we don’t all believe the same things that you do, and that it isn’t your job to tell us that we’re wrong. Nor will it ever be, regardless of the outcome of the pending election. The founders made sure of that. All you do is make a mockery of it.

Like what you read? Check out Innocence Jaded's Blog!

New Jersey Senate Votes To Legalize Same-Sex Marriage: Equality Now In The Hands Of GOP Governor Chris Christie

It’s now in Republican New Jersey Governor Chris Christie’s hands whether equality will become the law of the land in the Garden State.  The New Jersey Senate has done the right thing and moved a step closer towards recognizing the equality and human rights of all of New Jersey’s citizens by voting to legalize same sex marriage.

The vote came on February 13, 2012 as the New Jersey Senate passed the bill by a vote of 24-16.  This vote comes after a similar bill legalizing same-sex marriage was defeated in the New Jersey Senate in January of 2010 by a vote of 20-14.

Regardless of the Senate’s good intentions, Republican Governor Chris Christie has already vowed to veto the bill when it reaches his office.  Christie claims that he supports New Jersey’s Civil Union law which grants many of the same protections as marriage but does not grant the right to marriage to LBGT residents of the Garden State.  Christie claims he doesn’t want to redefine marriage but instead would rather the issue be placed in the hands of the voters. 

Placing public policy issues in the hands of the voters is a hallmark of American Democracy, however, there ARE times when the government must step in and do what is right despite the decision being an unpopular one.  The provisions of the Civil Rights Act and racial integration come to mind when we ponder this.  Does anyone think that integration would have ever occurred in Alabama or Mississippi if it were put to a vote in 1964? It took the federal government making an unpopular stand for basic human equality with the passing of the Civil Rights Act and the Brown vs. Board of Education decision nearly a decade earlier to bring about the proper change that was so sorely needed to bring about equality.

I am very pleased with the New Jersey Senate passing this bill and at the same time I am very disappointed with Governor Christie.  The Republican governor has a chance to stand out from his Republican peers and stand in favor of so many of his constituents who have been denied equality for far too long.

Governor Christie, you must not realize that equality is a human right and that legal civil marriage does not mean churches will have to condone same-sex marriage nor does a civil union equal civil marriage.  Furthermore you must realize that if it is a religious church wedding you are thinking of protecting, the LBGT community does not want to tell churches what to do but neither do they wish to be told what to do or be bullied by various churches.  The establishment clause of the US Constitution prohibits you, as a government official, from choosing a religious tenant to codify or uphold as law. 

In the end, same-sex marriage does not affect you or any of New Jersey’s heterosexual residents.  The only people affected are the same-sex couples who are systematically discriminated against by a government that has chosen to ignore its own rules and establish religious doctrine into law.  By vetoing this bill you will have chosen to deny equality to a large fraction of your constituents without a clear and constitutional reason for doing so.  Governor Christie, I implore you to reconsider your vow to veto this bill and to stand up for what is right.  You have been a well respected governor on both sides of the political aisle.  I would hate to see that tarnished by seeing you take such a foolhardy stand on the wrong side of history and human equality.  

Consequences Of The Federal Budget Crisis And One Conservative Congressional District's Resistance To Spending Cuts

Lately there is a lot of buzz in western and northwestern Arkansas about the future of the future of 188^th Fighter Wing of the Arkansas Air National Guard based in Fort Smith.  Some say it may be closed by 2013; the victim of vicious budget cuts in the Department of Defense.  Still others believe its mission will be changed and it’s A-10 Warthogs replaced by drones.  In any event, change is on the horizon for the Air National Guard in Arkansas and there is a very good reason why.

A few years ago, during the midterm elections, the Tea Party was riding a wave of popularity across the nation and conservatives in every corner of America where calling on Republican hopefuls and congressional veterans alike, to stand in the way of President Obama’s agenda at every turn.  The Tea Partiers were very successful in ramping up support for Republicans and the GOP managed to take back the House of Representatives.  The problem was that the new Tea Party backed Republicans did everything they promised to do; they stood in the way of virtually every measure that was important to the Obama administration and the Democrats in general. 

As a result of the Tea Party Republican’s obstructionism, several bills that could have bettered America have been killed.  There have even been attempts to repeal the Patient Protection and Affordable Health Care Act, more famously dubbed by Tea Partiers as “Obamacare,” even before it  goes into effect.  Most recently, the Republican Congress failed to reach a budget compromise and as a result several cuts have now must take place across the board and within the DOD.  How ironic is it that the Republican Bastion, Arkansas’ 3^rd Congressional District, is crying out for the Air Force to spare the 188^th?

Why does the DOD need to be cut?  Well, at a time when the United States makes up nearly half of all global military spending, nearly seven times more than the next biggest spender China, we have to look at cutting the DOD if we are to take the fiscal conservatives seriously in their demands to cut spending.  Furthermore, if the Tea Partiers are so adamant that we not make the rich pay their fair share of the tax burden, then we must make the cuts more substantial.  After all, at a time of economic peril how much sense does it make to spend as much on our military as the rest of the world combined does on theirs?

 The fact is, we are a nation that cannot pay our bills and we have become ever more dependent upon loans from countries such as China; a country that isn’t too interested in helping America retain its position as sole global superpower.  We have to be realistic when it comes to defense spending and we must understand that the Cold War ended over twenty years ago.  Not only do we have to cut spending around the nation by cutting back on units at home such as the 188^th, but we must also look at closing overseas bases.  The Air Force alone still has several functional bases spread throughout Europe that appear to be postured to counter a Soviet threat that no longer exists.

As things stand now, however, the 188^th seems likely to receive a new mission rather than face closure.  It appears the 188^th may be shifting to a drone mission rather than continuing their current A-10 mission.  The new mission, if such a new mission actually comes to fruition, will result in massive personnel cuts within the Fort Smith unit but it will ensure the Fort Smith area has a role to play in the Air Force for several more decades as it plays a role in the Air Forces future rather than its past.  Anyone who has watched the news in the past few years knows that drones are the wave of the future in the Air Force whereas the Air Force has been toying with eliminating the A-10 from its inventory for several years.

In the end there will no doubt be several folks in the Fort Smith area who will lose their jobs as a result of the proposed restructuring.  I hope that the Republican voters of Arkansas’ 3^rd District now see that the obstructionist tactics used by the Tea Party supported Republican Representatives effect real people in their own district.  I hope that they will understand that the fact we have fought two wars while the taxes needed to pay for those wars were cut by then President George W. Bush.  Combined with less government regulation of the banks on Wall Street, these Republican actions led to the economic crises which, as nonsensical as it sounds, spurred the feelings of angst that fueled the Tea Party in the first place. 

Above all, I hope that the 188^th does transition to a new drone mission.  I hope that the silver lining in this mess is that Fort Smith will continue to be home to a unit that has a cutting edge mission, ensuring an Air Force presence there for many generations to come.  Furthermore, I am ecstatic that the 188^th’s proposed new role in the Air Force’s restructuring plan will not only help bring our defense spending under control but also serve ensure further continuance of the community’s proud tradition of military service albeit with less personnel.      

The "Buffet Rule" Bill: How Will The Right Kill Common Sense?

           Senate Democrats have introduced the “Buffet Rule,” a bill that would require the top 1/10^th of 1% of income earners to pay no less and 30% in federal income taxes; a rate similar to that paid by most of the remainder of American taxpayers.  Some Democrats in Congress think there will be too much Republican opposition to the bill and that the voters will have to decide the matter by who they vote for in the current election cycle.

            This leads me to wonder…  What will the 1% say or do in order to get the rest of America to vote against their own interests and in the interest of the mega rich?  After all, the majority of Americans do want the rich to pay at least the same tax rate as the teacher or mail carrier, and in Warren Buffet’s case, the same as his secretary.

            I suspect that before this election cycle is up, we will see some of the 1%’s old antics reappear.  The kind that comes from their puppet organizations who serve to keep the huddled masses divided.  Organizations such as the NRA, who will scare rural voters and gun enthusiast by saying that the Democrats are coming to take their guns away.  It doesn't matter that the 2^nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution prohibits such an act from ever happening.  It doesn’t matter that a new amendment repealing the second would be required and that two thirds of the states would have to ratify such an amendment, thus making it improbable at best.  They'll use it and it will raise millions upon millions of dollars for them and the votes that millions of dollars worth of lobbying and propaganda can buy. 

            Or will it come from the right's radical friends at the American Family Association or some similar religious extremist group that will encourage us all to ignore the establishment clause in the constitution, and codify their religious views; views that would deny equal rights to some Americans.  I’m talking about same sex marriage here.  Yes, there are still an awful lot of Americans who simply don’t understand homosexuality because it has been forced underground for centuries by repressive measures and discrimination, and those Americans who don’t understand it could easily find themselves scared into voting against their own economic interests despite the fact that same sex marriage would in no way affect them.

            Could it be some nation a world away, whose military can barely threaten the nations in their own region, that scares us in voting for their candidates?  Will it be the 1%ers buddies in the defense industry who will convince us all through the corporate media, that such a country poses a grave danger to the United States and that another war in inevitable?  They will say that the left is too soft on defense for wanting to focus on things that matter to Americans rather than starting another war that in reality, will only serve to line the pockets of the rich and their corporations at the expense of the poor of both nations.

           

           This election cycle, I do not want to tell anyone how to vote.  Rather I would encourage everyone to see through the hype that the right uses time and time again to gain the votes of the 99%.  Don’t let the scare tactics of the right stand in the way of an America where economic and social equality can become a reality.  Vote and demand equality in America!   

Opinion: None of my Business

I hate the label "pro-life."

It doesn't make sense to me.

Because of the recent uproar involving the Susan G. Komen decision to pull funding from Planned Parenthood, I have seen a lot of banter back and forth between "pro-life" and "pro-choice" advocates on social media networks. Before I get into that, however, let us look real quick at the what happened this week regarding Planned Parenthood.

Planned Parenthood has received a lot of flak, over the past few years especially, because a few of their locations provide support and assistance for women seeking abortion. Let's make something clear, first: Planned Parenthood is an organization that has done wonders for improving the quality of life for poor Americans. Over five million Americans walk through their doors for treatment every year. Of the five million, 26% (roughly 1.3 million) of those are under the age of 19. Nearly 75% (3.75 million) of those who seek treatment with Planned Parenthood have incomes at or below 150% of the poverty level. To speak more plainly, 75% of of those helped by planned parenthood make at or less than $30,000 a year.

But what about those abortions? Well, turns out Planned Parenthood does a lot more than just abortions. Services provided at locations include contraceptives (birth control); emergency contraception; screening for breast, cervical and testicular cancers; pregnancy testing and pregnancy options counseling; testing and treatment for sexually transmitted diseases; comprehensive sexuality education, menopausetreatments; vasectomies, tubal ligations, and, of course, abortion.

So how many abortions do they actually perform? As demonized as this organization is, you would think it ranks in the millions. Actually, here's a numbers breakdown from 2009:
4,009,549 contraceptive services (35% of total)
3,955,926 sexually transmitted disease services (35% of total)
1,830,811 cancer related services (16% of total)
1,178,369 pregnancy/prenatal/midlife services (10% of total)
332,278 abortion services (3% of total)
76,977 other services (1% of total)
In all, 11,383,900 services
They also annually conduct 1 million screenings for cervical cancer and 830,000 breast exams.

The realm of services provided by Planned Parenthood is astounding, and the fact that Susan G. Komen foundation pulled their funding is ridiculous. All it does is hurt those that need the help, and cannot afford it. Regardless of the abortions provided by Planned Parenthood or not, it was a stupid political stunt.

All this talk, and I have yet to really make my point. There is this label that opponents of abortion have attached to themselves, and it is far from accurate. Because here is the thing: look at those who are vocally "Pro-Life." They are the moral right-wing Conservative, which is laughable. Here is the problem I have with those who wear the label "Pro-Life:"

What about your stance on universal health care?  If you really want to convince me you are Pro-Life, what happens to the millions of Americans without health care? If you value the sanctity of life so highly, how dare you stand against governmental programs that increase the quality of life for millions?

What about the death penalty? You throw a fit about the killing of unborn children, but still push for the execution of others? What gives you the right to pick and choose?

I hear all these arguments, when all it really comes down to is the fact that it isn't your choice. It isn't your body. This isn't your life. Who are you to say that a pregnancy as a product of rape is out of the realm of the victim's freedom? What about those too poor to bring a child into this world? What then? Once that child is born, that life that you fought so hard for is not subject to poverty and dejection, starvation and neglect. Sure, adoption is at times an option, but in reality, it doesn't always work that way. Increasing the amount of children waiting to be adopted by others because you take away the right of abortion doesn't solve any problems either.

Here's my stance, pure and simple:

I don't like abortion. I don't like that we have to resort to it as an option. It pains me to think of it. However, it's not my business. What these women choose has nothing to do with my morals or my preferences. They have the legal right to make this decision, and I will never question that. I will never treat one who has had one, or is considering one, different than any other person. It's a hell of a decision. Painful. And I'll be damned if I ever judge someone because they had to make it. It's none of my business, and frankly, it's none of yours. All of this legislation requiring the pregnant woman to see the ultrasound and hear the heart is probably the most hideous thing I have ever seen. It's torture, and nothing less. How dare we do that to someone?

Someone asked me today: "What if you had been an abortion?" My answer was simple: I wasn't. I'm not going to play a game of what-if's with this. I wasn't, and that's that. If I had been, I wouldn't be here, so why does that matter?

Then they asked me: "What about your son? Would you abort him?" My answer? What about him? Why would I do that? I love him dearly. How dare you question mine and my wife's decisions regarding him? It wasn't a factor, because he was planned? Could I say I wouldn't make a similar decision if it was an unplanned pregnancy? Probably not. I'm not in that situation, and again. It's none of your business. Why are we playing with rhetorical questions when the heart of the matter lies in the fact that it's nobody's business but the woman's.

Like I said earlier: I don't like abortion, but I'm not going to question a woman's right to decide that. I'm Pro-Choice, which has the hideous "baby-killer" sentiment attached to it, but that's not what it means. It means I don't think I should have a say in what a woman does with her body. It means you should get your nose out of their business. I'm Pro-Choice, but I'm also Pro-Its-None-of-my-Damn-Business.

Like what you read? Check out Innocence Jaded's blog!

The Traditional Marriage

Most of you who have read this know I am a professed Christian. Regardless of my religious stance, however, I have always been a major supporter of marriage equality. Perhaps this is contradictory, but I really don’t care. Honestly, it sickens me the way homosexuals are treated in this country. I hate the stereotypes, the bigotry, the fear, and the hatred people – Christian or otherwise – display toward LGBT community. It’s sickening. Too many people stand on their soapbox professing the “evils” of homosexuality, without giving a thought to the people they are demonizing. In fact, a city councilman in rural Arkansas recently went on a tirade against the “abomination” of homosexuality. Think it’s just linked to small-town bible-belt politics? Think again. Look at the popular GOP candidates. They have flip-flopped on homosexual rights several times, but have remained adamantly opposed to gay marriage. One even went so far as to say a child would be better off with a deadbeat father in prison, than they would with a gay parent.

So what’s the fuss? Why are so many Americans against gay marriage? Here’s a look at the common arguments:

If same-sex marriage is legalized, polygamy, and other forms of sexual deviance will follow.
I wish I were joking about this one. I was actually told by a girl – at a formal school debate, no less – that allowing same-sex marriage would ultimately lead to bestiality, and marriage between humans and animals (possibly leading to marriage with inanimate objects). I’m not kidding. So I ask this: how are these two even related? What on earth does homosexuality have to do with any of this? Homosexuality does not promote polygamy, bestiality, or any other sexual deviance out there. It’s still an emotional bond between two people. The only difference between that and a typical intimate relationship is the gender of the individuals involved. The logic behind “this is bad, so it will lead to much worse things” is flawed logic.

If same-sex marriage is legalized, gay couples could adopt children.Oh good grief. Really? Of course they can! Are we that terrified that – once gay marriage is legalized – gays and lesbians all over the nation will be corrupting the minds of our youth? Are we that dense? Here’s a good example: actor Neil Patrick Harris is an openly gay man, and they are raising twins birthed by a surrogate mother. You know how freaking awesome it would be to be raised by NPH!? Can you honestly tell me that they would do  a worse job that any straight parent out there? Have you been in a Wal-Mart lately? Have you seen some of the heterosexual couples in there? The point is this: There is no way you can justify that a homosexual is simply the worst candidate for raising a child. Sure, some homosexuals I may not trust with my child. However, I can name a LOT more straight people that I trust even less. In fact, several gay men I know would be among the first I would allow to watch my child. I think a lot of the problems people have with gay adoption is the horrible stereotype that all homosexuals are also pedophiles. Ignorance. That line of thinking stems from nothing but ignorance.

Marriage is a sacred bond between a man and a woman. Same-sex marriage would destroy the institution of marriage.
This is probably the most religious argument, and it’s complete hogwash. The institution of marriage? Let’s take a look at some of the biblical definitions of marriage:
-  The Nuclear Family (Genesis 2:24 That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh.): One man, one woman. This is  from the creation story, when God brings Adam and Eve together. While this is marriage in it’s most basic and traditional form, there are a few things here that are not mentioned. First and foremost, while this is mentioned as a partnership, man retains dominance over his wife, marriages were often arranged at a young age, and women who could not prove their virginity were often stoned to death. If you disagree, I will find scripture to back up this claim. While this is, indeed, the first instance of marriage, I think we can all agree that times have changed quite a bit since then. Don’t believe me? Really? Was your marriage arranged? How about your parents? Does mom bend knee to dad’s every wish?
- The Levirate Marriage (Genesis 38:6-10 Judah got a wife for Er, his firstborn, and her name was Tamar. ⁷ But Er, Judah’s firstborn, was wicked in the LORD’s sight; so the LORD put him to death. ⁸ Then Judah said to Onan, “Sleep with your brother’s wife and fulfill your duty to her as a brother-in-law to raise up offspring for your brother.”) Wait, what!? Judah arranged a marriage for his son (see there? another arranged marriage), but his son was wicked, so God decided to lay the holy hurt on Er. So then, God himself commanded Er’s brother to sleep with his sister-in-law! There you have it. If your brother is evil and dies, it’s your religious duty to bear children with your brother’s wife.
-  Friends with Benefits (All over scripture) This is a pretty cool one. Not only do you get a wife (arranged, of course), but you’re allowed a few concubines as well! What’s a concubine? Well, “a concubine is generally a woman in an ongoing, marriage-like relationship with a man whom she cannot marry for a specific reason.” Thanks Wikipedia. Think I’m wrong? Let’s look at a few of our biblical heroes. Abraham: 2, Jacob: 1, Gideon: 21, Solomon: 300. Woah! 300!? That’s a lot of girlfriends on the side. Not to mention, look! All of these were men that are synonymous with greatness. Abraham was the father of the Jewish people. Gideon was a hero of early Israel. Jacob was Abraham’s son, and Solomon is still considered one of the wisest men of our existence, and that was given to him by God. So not only did all of these righteous men have wives, they all got to have a few (hundred, in Solomon’s case) girlfriends too, and their wives had to go along with it.
-  Polygamy (All over, again). Wasn’t a previous argument that gay marriage would lead to polygamy, and other horrible atrocities? Have these people ever read their Bible? Really? Remember Solomon, our man of 300 concubines? Guess how many wives he had? 700. That’s right. 700. This man had a thousand women at his beck and call, and people want to argue that the gays will screw everything up. Look at David, often called a man after God’s own heart. He had several wives. Heck, he even killed a guy to cover up sleeping with that guys wife. And once that woman became his, she birthed Solomon! Crazy!
- The Rapist (Deuteronomy 22:28-29 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, ²⁹ he shall pay her father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.) Wait just a second here. Did I read that right? This is a commandment from God. Right here. It’s a series of commandments that also lists homosexuality as an abomination. So, really, if Christians want to argue that, they have to adhere by this one too, right? Let’s look at this one. If a man rapes a woman, and is caught, he’s got to pay her dad off (basically pay a dowry back to the father), and he gets to keep her! Not only that, but they can’t divorce! Ever! Are you freaking kidding me!? This screams “rape who you want, because then you get them forever.” And Christians want to tell us that gay marriage ruins the sanctity of it?

Look. I’m probably being a bit harsh here, but here’s the thing. If you want to pick condemnations out of scripture, then you have to look at all of it. Sure, some of these aren’t even remotely ethical or moral today, like they were back then. You can’t pick and choose though. You can’t spout off scripture at me, denouncing homosexuals, when our own scriptures condone other things. It’s a problem.

But here is the biggest problem I think. I think it’s ignorance. I think part of this stems from the fact that most opponents of gay marriage don’t realize just how normal homosexuals are. They aren’t all a bunch of glittery fairies, they aren’t pedophiles or rapist, they aren’t looking to recruit you, or trying to seduce you. They aren’t all lispy and weird. Sure, some of them are. I’ll admit to that. But look at the big picture. Do you realize just how normal most of them are? Some of my best friends are, and I would not dare trade them for the world. Is it sad that I know I can rely on them more often than I can rely on the church that condemns them? It’s ignorance, plain and simple. Walk a day in their shoes. Get to know them. Talk to them. Learn. That’s what stops the hate, the fear, the ignorant attitudes. It’s not about morals, and it’s not about religion, and it’s not even about marriage. It’s about doing what’s right for your fellow man.

Let’s give the homosexuals the benefit of the doubt, for once. Let’s give them some equality.

Oh, by the way. If you’re one of those “I don’t mind ‘civil unions’ and all, they just can’t call it marriage” people, grow the hell up. You’re just as ignorant as the people who won’t let them get married at all. Do you realize what you’re doing? Your defending a word. A damn word. Grow. Up.

Let’s build a country where we can all get along. Where we all get an equal shot at happiness.

Want to read more from Innocence Jaded? Check out his blog!