DADT, Gay Marriage: Who cares?

Last week wasn't very good as far as blog posts went. And I'm sorry for that. This week, I've got three posts already written.  This one is considered "timely," as my Examiner.com editors like to say.



A while ago, I wrote an article about gay marriage in New York.  It was entitled: Gay Marriage, so what?  I suspect you can guess what my general conclusions were.



I collect all sorts of weird articles, and magazines.  On the one hand, I could read Guns and Ammo, then the Spring catalog for a major publisher, then Time Magazine (until they went anti-Semite), the list goes on.



One such magazine is Salute, the magazine of the archdiocese for the military services, USA.



Yes, the military has their own archdiocese -- their Cardinal is the Cardinal of New York City.



In their Summer, 2011 issue, there was a statement from Archbishop Timothy P. Broglio, the Archbishop for USA military services. (An Archbishop is more hands on.)



His statement was two pages long, and here's an excerpt ...

"The church is unwavering in her commitment to the pastoral care of all persons in need, regardless of sexual inclination or anything else.  All people in need are served by Catholc Chaplains with zeal and passion for bringing the reality of the Risen Lord to all.  Whether Don't ask don't tell persists or not is immaterial to that bedrock principle.  The faithful .... must never forget that those with a homosexual inclination must be treated with the respect worthy of their human dignity."  [Typed by hand, any typos are mine]

In short: that's nice, we don't care if they're outed, it doesn't matter to us.



The message then cited Federal law (1 USC subection 7)... which I believe is commonly known as the defense of marriage act (DOMA).



So, "yes, you have DADT repealed. Who cares? We don't like it, but we're not going to marry gays, and you're not going to make us. We can continue, business as usual."  Everyone can move on.



Which is pretty much what I said the first time about gay marriage.



It's so nice when the Catholic Church listens to me.

[More below the break]



Then, on September 30th, the Pentagon issued an order allowing all military clergy to perform gay marriage ceremonies ....



The response of Broglio?  It's pretty much the same. Not to mention, there is still DOMA.  It's a federal law.  How can a federal agency allow the existence of something that, legally, does not exist at the federal level?



And, come April, 2012, what will happen when all of the gay married couples file joint income tax? The IRS cannot acknowledge them -- the IRS is a federal agency.  Accountant friends (and relative) are already saying that the IRS will not accept joint filings from any of the new marriages from New York (et al) between two men, or two women.



Not to mention .... the military has bases all over the 50 states. Gay marriage is only passed in about ... Five? (CA, VT, MA, NY, HI).  Isn't that a bit of a problem? And arguing that they are federal institutions is a problem, when you consider that, again, DOMA is federal law. State laws do not matter in this instance.



Is it just me, or did someone not think this through?



As I said the first time: I'll start to care about gay marriage when someone comes after religion in its name.



I don't care just yet. Initial reports of this story said that "military chaplains are being forced to marry homosexual couples."  I cared for about five minutes, then I looked for more footnotes.



However, now that I found that it "allowed" gay marriage, instead of "requiring" clergy to perform them, I'm back to not caring. Though the legal situation is going to be hilarious.

Extremists, Atheists, and Jesus Freaks.

In previous articles having to do with politics, I have described myself as apathetic, or left or right depending on where the jury is from. I hate all politics, so I could be summed up as fair and mentally unbalanced.

What about religion? The same rules apply.

If anyone is familiar with the George Carlin routine [link rated R for language] about religion, it involves him talking about the Invisible Man in the Sky, and He Wants MONEY. When I first saw it, I thought it was hilarious. A nice little parody of the Catholic church when he was growing up.

Then I discovered that it's what he believed. Him, Bill Maher, and a whole bunch of other people.

Now, it could be that I'm a snob. My BA in philosophy might as well have been in Catholic philosophy. My father with the PhD in catholic Philosophy taught me more about the faith than my Catholic schools ever did. I get the impression that if my education mirrored George Carlin's, I'd turn out much like him. I would like to think that I could do my own research to learn what was going on, but who knows.

Atheists do not annoy me. Seriously. Two of my friends are atheists. One was my best friend before she went crazy with extremist politics—I was going crazy with PhD studies at the time, so that didn't help either.

My other atheist acquaintance is the primary artist for this website, Matt. He says he's a militant atheist. I disagree. If only because I've met militant atheists, and they have hated my guts for no other reason than I am religious. They couldn't do something reasonable like get to know me and my personality quirks before they hated me.

And I love those hate-filled nutjobs. Truly I do. They're amusing. If only because they spend a lot of them telling me what I think. It's sort of like my political article. I try to tell people what I believe politically, and from one sentence (usually a half sentence) they leap to amazing conclusions about what I think, what I believe, and why I believe it. They're funny as heck.

Then again, I may have a strange sense of humor.

So, what annoys me? If I blame George Carlin on bad education, and Bill Maher on being … himself, really … and I find Anti-Catholic twits a source of amusement, then what exactly would set me off in terms of religion?

1) Anti-Theists: a segment of the population that isn't talked about very often, Anti-Theists are exactly as the title says, they are against believers. My friend Matt may believe that religions are stupid, or that the bulk of religious people are stupid, but he doesn't hate my guts because of my faith. There are folks who have suggested that children should be taken away from believers just because they believe; or that Christians should be charged with child abuse because they tell their children that Jesus Loves Them. Anti-Theists like Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris believe that those who believe in God are dangerous, even criminal. I congratulate Dawkins, Harris and their ilk on making discrimination and bigotry acceptable.

2) The Politically Correct. The Transportation Safety Authority is on everyone's list recently, so I see no reason to leave them out of my list of irritants. Recently, a front group for the terrorist organization the Muslim Brotherhood had trained the Transportation Security Officers of Los Angeles International Airport in how to be “sensitive” to members of Islam. I particularly enjoyed where “if a woman wears hijab and needs a secondary screening she should be screened in a private area by a female TSO officer.”

I like the headgear on the TSA offical.

However, they can give patdowns to nuns in public.

My main quibble there is that they can either accommodate all religions equally, or they can leave religion out of the equation. It strikes me as racist and bigoted: Why be sensitive to the religious of Islam and not Christians? Are Muslims somehow more sensitive than Christians or even Jews?

Again, it may just be me, but when I'm told “We have to give Muslims special treatment,” what I hear is: “We're going to patronize the poor sensitive little darlings, pat them on the head, and accommodate their ignorance so we can show how enlightened we are.”

Like I said, I find it demeaning and racist. It could just be me.

3) Anti-Christmas people. Fine, you don't like commercialism, good for you, neither do I. If you actually believe that Christmas is the season for love, peace on Earth, etc, and you dislike the crass commercialism of the season, I'm with you. Let's get together and sing Christmas carols down the street.

If you think that my wishing you “Merry Christmas” somehow means that I am demeaning you, you are an idiot. And you are probably looking to be offended. I say Happy Hannukah, and I say Merry Christmas, and I might even be persuaded to say happy Kwansa if I ever find somebody who follows that particular day. If you do not like it, feel free to complain. The complaint department in on the right

4) People who should know better, but lie. Earlier posts in this blog about the origins of the novel have mentioned how I came across people who researched on the Pius XII situation, noted the books they used, and spun a yawn that directly contradict the facts. Liars with an agenda … they tend to irritate me.

5) Jesus Freaks. You know who I mean. The people I mentioned in a previous post, where they're not interested in what you believe in, or what you have to say, they just wish to talk you to death with whatever rote lines of dialogue they have. They start with “Have you accepted Jay-sus Christ your own personal savior?” And, regardless of what you answer, they will push on as though you haven't spoken. Then we whip out the tazer and make them slightly crispy. I prefer atheists like Daniel Dennett. He's at least reasonable. I prefer atheists like Matt, or like my former friend Colleen; they may not like religion, but they usually point at reasonable problems.

In short, I dislike the willfully-ignorant and the mean-spirited. 

But, I suppose it comes down to "Who doesn't?"