Most Popular Choices
Share on Facebook 17 Printer Friendly Page More Sharing
OpEdNews Op Eds   

Logically Obese with Religious Candy

By       (Page 1 of 2 pages)   2 comments
Message James Nimmo

Am I Unreasonable?
Logically Obese with
Religious Candy

(Oklahoma City) Would any reasonable American refuse the First Amendment right of freedom of religion to a woman wearing a burka? How about a Jew sporting a yarmulke? Or say a Catholic draping a scapula?

The First Amendment doesn't mention burka, yarmulke, or scapula, but reasonable people get the drift of what is a symbol appropriate to religious observances.

Most state laws before 2004 didn't mention the gender polarity needed in order to apply and receive a marriage license. Now there, I'll have to cut our homophobic opponents some slack and give 'em a point. They've rushed right in and passed laws and amendments to cover that oversight.

But with the recent rulings from the Supreme Courts of Washington and New York concerning same-gender marriage, there's a new crack opened in the legal logic where there was none before, a canyon to accommodate the prejudice and ignorance accumulated over a lifetime of judicial practice

After reading the summaries of the anti-gay judges (Both states's decisions were not unanimous.) I now know why lawyers go to school so long and when some of them age they become judges: it takes all that training and experience to create loopholes you can drive a truck through and to create the paperwork to cover their asses!

For now the learned majority judges (they morph into "justices" when they get to this high level) have declared that marriage for gay people is impossible because we can't, hold your breath, REPRODUCE! What a talent for the obvious these reasonable people have.

Let's think for a minute. I'm a gay man with a fully functioning set of genital plumbing. Yeah, I could marry a woman under Oklahoma law, but I can tell you right now, I still couldn't reproduce. Would my Oklahoma marriage be annulled? A reasonable judge could set aside the marriage should the woman sue for divorce, but what if she liked the arrangement? We'd STILL be married even though we knowingly have no intention of producing offspring.

This platform the two courts used to deny gay people their human right to affiance with whomever shares their affinity is built with the lumber of ignorance and vituperance that we find in the Old Testament published by the Fundie Christian Clearinghouse and nailed together with gift shop reproductions of the Nails of Christ.

For them, sex means procreative sex, never recreational sex and I say more power to 'em, bang away for babies all you like. Don't expect every reasonable mother to feel so enamored of the prospect of being the next Andrea Yates.

As a gay man, I'm more than just threatened by reasonable Americans who think they can suspend my 14th Amendment right of privileges and immunities under the law. My rights of choice and privacy in the disposition of my property and association now stand thwarted and spurned by reasonable people.

So how is it that only particularly regressive religious POVs are being enshrined in civil law?

Several of the recently passed homophobic laws and amendments, such as in Virginia and Michigan, are being scrutinized by both gay supporters and witch-burners to see if the language contained therein could be used to prohibit ANY kind of legal contract such as powers-of-attorney, living wills, financial trusts, civil unions, or domestic partnerships, because these legal instruments resemble the outlines of opposite-gender marriage.

Remember that marriage is the Holy Book arrangement most straight people perform in houses of their residing god. They hold this ceremony so dear that sharing this undiminishable resource of companionship with gay people is tantamount to the end of the earth. Yet when these same holy straights want to break up, they reverse the process and retain the right to divorce themselves in civil courts, NOT in a church, at a rate of over 50%.

In my opinion, our gay equality movement is in trouble due to the confused information many people have about separation of church and state issues. This is why reasonable people vote in the 70%-plus majorities to deny full citizenship and participation in American life to gay men and women.

Next Page  1  |  2

(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).

Rate It | View Ratings

James Nimmo Social Media Pages: Facebook page url on login Profile not filled in       Twitter page url on login Profile not filled in       Linkedin page url on login Profile not filled in       Instagram page url on login Profile not filled in

James Nimmo is active in progressive issues and believes no one should be denied their equality because of the accidents of birth and circumstances.
Go To Commenting
The views expressed herein are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.
Writers Guidelines

Contact AuthorContact Author Contact EditorContact Editor Author PageView Authors' Articles
Support OpEdNews

OpEdNews depends upon can't survive without your help.

If you value this article and the work of OpEdNews, please either Donate or Purchase a premium membership.

If you've enjoyed this, sign up for our daily or weekly newsletter to get lots of great progressive content.
Daily Weekly     OpEd News Newsletter
   (Opens new browser window)

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

Hall-la-lou-lou-ing for Oklahoma's Senator Tom Coburn: Congress's Worst Person?

Oklahoma's Bigot-in-Chief has Learned Nothing in 10 years

How to Spell Equality? I before E except after C. L before G except Before B?

Catholic Church Expanding Beyond Roe v. Wade

Homo-Hater's Hubby Gets Outed in Phone Call

Forced Off the Edge of Life's Road

To View Comments or Join the Conversation:

Tell A Friend