As Seen On The Bathroom Wall

You hear it thrown around so often lately.

"The Sanctity of Marriage"

It's a phrase that's become the political platform of countless conservatives, neocons, and fundamentalists the world over. Protect marriage! Save marriage! One man and one woman!

Oh sure. It sounds like it's a noble cause, one that anyone would want to fight for. Until you get to their reasons for wanting to "save" it, and "protect" it and who exactly they think they need to "save" it from.

Homosexuals.

The Gays.

Or for you forum fanatics out there, teh [sic] gays.

See, for those who don't know because they've been living under a rock - or because you're Amish, and if you are, WTF are you doing on the computer anyway? The computer and the internets are the debbil!!! - homosexuals want the right to marry someone of the same sex because like most people, they feel that it's their right to leg shackle themselves to another human being for as long as they live. Or, if you're a Republican, for as long as it takes for you to find a new mistress and dump your hospital-bed-bound wife.

Shocking, isn't it?

Now, it's to be expected that the arguments that come against it - and I've listed a few in previous blogs - deal mainly with the religious connotations. Hey, you can't be a conservative and NOT be religious. It goes against the rulebook!

However, an article was brought to my attention today that lists some of the most asinine, ludicrous, hilarious, bass-ackwards justifications imaginable. Sam Schulman wrote a column piece titled "The Worst Thing About Gay Marriage" in which he explains what he believes to be the worst thing about gay marriage and why. It's a long, windbagesque diatribe of strawmen and red herrings that could, quite possibly, be the cure to insomnia or the cause of aortic embolisms; I'm not sure which yet as I'm still recovering from my eyes bleeding onto my keyboard.

For fun, and to save you all a lot of time, I'm going to list some of the reasons given, and in no particular order, though I'm certain it wouldn't really matter what order I place them in because they won't make any more sense - trust me, this isn't Jenga.

And here we go:

• A wedding between same-sex lovers does not create the fact (or even the feeling) of kinship between a man and his husband's family; a woman and her wife's kin. It will be nothing like the new kinship structure that a marriage imposes willy-nilly on two families who would otherwise loathe each other.



• Gay spouses have none of our guilt about sex-before-marriage.



• marriage is concerned above all with female sexuality. The very existence of kinship depends on the protection of females from rape, degradation, and concubinage. This is why marriage between men and women has been necessary in virtually every society ever known.



• This most profound aspect of marriage--protecting and controlling the sexuality of the child-bearing sex--is its only true reason for being, and it has no equivalent in same-sex marriage. Virginity until marriage, arranged marriages, the special status of the sexuality of one partner but not the other (and her protection from the other sex)--these motivating forces for marriage do not apply to same-sex lovers.



• A same-sex marriage fails utterly to create forbidden relationships. If Tommy marries Bill, and they divorce, and Bill later marries a woman and has a daughter, no incest prohibition prevents Bill's daughter from marrying Tommy. The relationship between Bill and Tommy is a romantic fact, but it can't be fitted into the kinship system.



• children adopted by a gay man or hygienically conceived by a lesbian mom can never be regarded as illegitimate)



• In gay marriage there are no virgins (actual or honorary), no incest, no illicit or licit sex, no merging of families, no creation of a new lineage.



• People in gay marriages will discover that mimicking the cozy bits of romantic heterosexual marriage does not make relationships stronger; romantic partners more loving, faithful, or sexy; domestic life more serene or exciting. They will discover that it is not the wedding vow that maintains marriages, but the force of the kinship system. Kinship imposes duties, penalties, and retribution that champagne toasts, self-designed wedding rings, and thousands of dollars worth of flowers are powerless to effect.

Well now, aren't you glad that you read that? Don't you feel that much more informed?

Oh, by the way, the author of this particular article has been married three(3) times. I suppose one could argue that it wasn't the vows that made him want to get married so often, or the flowers, or the children. No. It was the kinship. The loving, wonderful kinship of having three mother-in-laws who hate him, three father-in-laws who want his brothers-in-law to kick his ass, and countless other family members-in-law to show him what happens when you fail to practice what you preach.

Of course, I'm still working on the bumper sticker that reads: "The Sanctity of Marriage: Protect It By Marrying As Often As You Can".

Isn't that right, Mr. Shulman, Mr. Giuliani, Mr. Gingrich, Mr. McCain and so on...?

This isn't going to be a post about gay marriage.

This is going to be a post about why Miss California is a lying hypocrite who deserves to have her crown removed.

Picture of her posing semi-nude have made their rounds on the internet. I have not seen them and will not because I don't need to. She admitted to having taken them because she's "a model" and "models pose in lingerie".

Of course, she also claims that the pictures are being shown around because people want to shut her up, to keep her silent because of her faith and her beliefs.

There's just one problem.

Her faith.

Now, I'm not saying it's wrong of her to be a Christian. I love Jesus Christ and try to accept everyone as he did because there is not a single one of us who are perfect. Miss California herself admits that she isn't perfect.

However, Miss California also holds her religion up as a shield, protecting her from all of the consequences that come from using her faith as a crutch for her behavior and beliefs. This particular incident with the photographs is no exception. She wants to claim that she's a Christian and a model, and that she should be given a pass at the latter because of the former. The trouble with that is that she uses scripture as her basis for other beliefs that deny others the rights that she has, all while ignoring the scripture that demands she NOT pose in lingerie as a "model".

“I will therefore that men pray every where, lifting up holy hands , without wrath and doubting. In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair or gold, or pearls, or costly array; but (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works”

(I Timothy 2:8-10)

Scripture also prevents her from being deceitful, which she was when she signed her pageant contract, both for Miss Teen USA and for the Miss USA pageant.

There's nothing wrong with being a Christian.

There's everything wrong with claiming to be a Christian.

The former requires you lead a life that Jesus would have lived.

The latter requires nothing of you, no scruples, no honesty, no integrity, no compassion, and most obviously, no humility.

Miss California, I think you know where you fall.

I admit. I like Adam Lambert. I haven't watched a full episode of the show yet, merely the illegally uploaded clips that get quickly removed on youtube. The excitment over Adam's voice is warranted. He's got chops, and he's easy on the eyes.

Really easy.

But there's something really wrong about how he keeps getting credit for being "creative" with his song selections and arrangements. Granted, I liked his rendition of Tears for Fears' Mad World, as originally performed by Gary Jules, but that's because let's face it, most people had no clue about the song, both original and other, prior to Adam's performance, so him selecting it was nice.

But Adam. That whole alternative song arrangement thing was done last season with whatshisface Cook and Doxology's cover of Eleanor Rigby.

This week, however, showed that Adam's just not tired of that whole covering the cover thing, and it's getting on my nerves. He covered one of the greatest songs out there, "Feeling Good", and did it in the same arrangement as Muse's version. Now, if you know that arrangement, you know that version kicks major ass. Granted the other versions out there are fabulous as well - I'm a big Nina Simone fan as well so her version comes in a close second - but let's face it, when you're covering a cover, you're not exactly stepping out of the box. You're just changing from cellophane to shrink wrap packaging.

American Idol is supposed to be about singing, and I guess if what you're trying to sell is another cookie-cutter pop star, then winning is the way to go. The only two successful winners of the show who've gone on to earn musical accolades entered into the two most conformity driven genres out there - pop and country - while all of the others have pretty much crashed and burned. Runner ups and third, fourth, and fifth place contestants have fared much better, which goes to show that America, the voting public, isn't really interested in originality and merit. We just want to see if you'll fit into the mold we've set out for you.

I hope Adam doesn't win. Not because I don't want him to be successful, because I do. No, it's because perhaps if he lost, he'll develop his own style and the next time he covers something, it'll be more than just a replica of a copy.