28 March 2013

The poiwer of personality

So this story was related to me a couple weeks ago. Thought it was funny as hell.

Not sure how many are aware, but Chief (the founder of BACA) is friends with the members of Kansas. Well, they had a show in Florida the same weekend as our International Conference in Orlando. Meaning a couple lucky pukes from Australia (no, I'm not jealous. Why do you ask?) not only got to go for free, but also got backstage passes. Chief himself couldn't go, as there was a meeting the same time as the concert.

Since their friend couldn't be at their show, Kansas decided to join him in Orlando for breakfast. Which is where the story gets funny.

Aych & Kuhn, from our temp charter in LA Crosse, were in the restaurant. As they put it, they saw Chief sitting with "a group of older looking guys", and went over to say hi. They greeted Chief with hugs, waved at the rest, and headed for their table to sit down for their meal. Only realizing later that the rest of Chief's companions were the members of Kansas.

Says something about your importance in a group, when your presence outshines that of actual rock stars. But that's my brother Chief  for you

Thoughts on gay marriage, and hyperbole

So the Supremes are hearing arguments about the gay marriage issue, with both sides hoping that their ruling will end the discussion their way. A couple things I've noticed about this issue over the years.

First off, those opposed have shown that they stand solidly with the debate techniques of all "antis" I've seen, resorting to sillyness and illogic to support their position (my favorite has been "what's next: allowing pedophiles to marry their victims, or people to marry their pets?"). The "religious argument" is (or should be) a non-starter: plenty of non Christian folks in the US, who feel no obligation to follow Biblical law. This leaves most of their points to boil down to "Ug, the gheys... YUCK!".

That said, I HAVE heard one decent point in the "con" column. And it's a powerful one: "the government doesn't belong in peoples' bedroom". Unfortunately, they're already there, with benefits granted to married couples. So...

We come to the "pro" side of the argument. The funniest I've heard from them was on Facespace, written by someone obviously single: "but this is an issue that effects these people EVERY DAY".


The only ways the government recognizing a marriage has any effect are rare circumstances: taxes, inheritance, insurance, and (in some places) hospital visitation (and I haven't been in a hospital in over a decade that still restricts to "immediate family").  Government recognition (or it's lack) doesn't make you more able to love (or cohabitate with) whoever you wish, regardless of the design of their plumbing, and it's similarity to your own.

So really, either way the Supremes rule is a net "meh" for society. It might have further repercussions on some other issues, but is anybody who's invested in "gay rights"* really interested in those other issues?

There is one thing that keeps popping into my mind, though. Many years ago, the Supremes had a big hit with their "Ten Commandments" decision. All the pundits covered it, media lauded it, women swooned. I was on a pagan mailing list, and it was all afire with justified vindication.

Funny thing: that same day, the USSC handed down the Kelo decision.

Now, don't get me wrong: keeping government buildings from posting the legal base used by one faith (OK, three major faith groups) was important. But isn't being secure in the ownership of your paid-for property at least AS important?

The "Ten Commandments" decision was trumpeted from the roof tops. Kelo? Not even close.

So now, I ask you: while we're spending so much time and energy on gay marriage... what else is the USSC writing a decision on?


* "gay rights" is a term that's always bothered me. Aren't the talking about basic human rights, not some advanced special rights?