On Gay Marriage and Moral America

Be forewarned: this is a fairly long piece, so those with short attention spans may want to open a second tab/window and flip back-and-forth between this and that.
________

I remember in 2004 when I first became interested in current events and issues. This was the election year between Massachusetts Senator John Kerry and incumbent President Bush. I was of the Republican mindset: the Iraq war was meant to “liberate” the people there; global warming isn’t happening; the government isn’t doing anything unconstitutional. Whenever the issue of gay marriage was brought up, I would simply slide past it, explaining it away as a non-issue: while allowing homosexuals to marry, I would say, how is that at all important compared to the starving kids in other countries? How is their ability to be legally recognized as a couple anywhere near as important as helping the poor, the homeless? Well, now that I’m a little older and better able to see things a tad more clearly, I call that entire position bollocks.

The problem with my answer was that it was a nonanswer, it was simply a dodge from a needlessly controversial topic. So going to war was more important than helping the poor? Apparently so, according to my former logic. Then again, I was barely a teenager at the time, but since then, I’ve abandoned that sort of logic. Sadly and apparently, many, many others haven’t tossed aside their archaic notions in the face of reality, but instead turn to the comforts of illogic and outdated social values.

We like to call the United States a nation of the free, of liberty, and take pride in our forefathers’ (and foremothers’) rebellious actions. However, according to my calculations and observations, we have yet to earn those descriptors, and our forefathers may be astounded to see what kind of a nation we’ve become. Our nation's founders hoped to establish a country with a thick boundary between the territories of church and state, and unfortunately, as one may observe today simply by knowing that as of this date, only two states have legalized gay marriage (well, that number may soon be back down to one, as I will explain later), that said boundary is thinner than the paper the Bill of Rights was written on.

For centuries, the union between a man and a woman has been seen as the only “natural” union, and that any same-sex couple is “unnatural.” Well, back in the days when the Catholic Church was in total control (the Dark Ages, to be clear), chastity was seen as the best way to live a clean, pure life; however, it was understood that one would fall to the earthly pleasures, and marriage was an option. The latter included other details in the contract: one must stay married with their partner for the rest of their life; and, once married, it was necessary that one have as big a family as possible. Of course, this meant that marriages could only be given between a man and a woman: in man-man or woman-woman relationships, no children could be begotten, and therefore said relations were unholy (man-woman relations were unholy enough, even after a marriage ceremony, and if one were to be divorced, the Church would not allow one to have their second marriage within a house of worship).

Somehow, this mentality of sex being a dirty, unholy thing has stuck all through time to this era, the twenty-first century. It was difficult enough in the twentieth century to just declare most sexual freedoms (beginning in the 1930s with the flappers, then in the ‘60s and ‘70s, and gradually progressing from there), but we still have light years to go until society ends with this bipolar mentality that “sex is bad unless we’re selling something.”

It almost surprises me when I hear people say that society is going down the drain, when we’re actually freer sexually than we were one hundred years ago. Granted, I do not endorse the objectification of women (or men, for that matter), nor do I support unsafe sex practices. The way the government is handling the issue of sex, however, is totally inappropriate and ineffective: instead of lowering the rate of teenage pregnancy, the uninformative abstinence-only education programs that depend on scare tactics rather than actual educational materials have in fact led to the increase in teen pregnancies. We should be teaching why having sex before eighteen might not be a great idea, what actually happens during the act, and ways to protect oneself should one decide to do it anyway. Instead, we are teaching why sex is dirty and evil, except after marriage. We are telling kids that if they have sex they will die, without further detail. We are telling kids that having sex is “like opening a present before Christmas, and once you’re married, it’s like you’re regifting.” Honestly, with talk like that, kids are more likely to blow you off as some crackpot, and go right on having sex, not knowing what to expect.

Along the same vein, we’ve got our government (and ourselves) promoting discriminatory policies with our reproductive organs in mind, this time with the bans on gay marriage. Proponents of banning gay marriage vary in their reasons as to why such unions should be prohibited. Some do so for religious purposes. Some say it’s “unnatural” because such unions produce no offspring. Still others oppose same-sex marriage because it’s not traditional – marriage has always been between a man and a woman, they say, and doing anything different might lead down a slippery slope where a man can marry a dog!

America, as one may or may not know, is not a “Christian nation.” On the contrary, one of the reasons that separation of church and state is so important was not to keep the government out of church affairs, but to keep the church affairs out of the government. Our founding fathers were deists, not Christians, and when they saw the mess going on in England – the powerful Protestants’ discrimination towards Catholics which led to a fierce rivalry that continued up through the twenty-first century – they fully understood the fact that should any theology come to dominate government policy, the only assured outcome would be inequity towards minority religions. The last thing we want to do in the United States is to pass legislation in favour of any theology, and supporting the prohibition of gay marriage would be supporting the dominance of religion in the government (not that this has stopped government policies such as the 1919 Prohibition of alcohol – the Eighteenth Amendment, which was finally repealed by the Twenty-First amendment in 1933).

The whole argument that homosexuality is “unnatural” is totally unfounded: homosexual behaviour has not only been observed in other animals, but as a natural occurrence in humans, as well, for one’s sexual preference is rooted in the brain. How exactly this is so (in a nature vs. nurture sense) is not exactly certain, but what is known is that gender preference isn’t a choice: it’s as natural as heterosexuality. To say that homosexual marriage is wrong because it won’t produce offspring is to totally disregard infertile couples who have tried so hard to have children, or who don’t even want any children at all.

The argument for tradition is a feeble argument, at best. It was also once a tradition for people to marry within their own race, and interracial marriages were legally prohibited; however this is no longer the way because such policies flagrantly denied individuals the right to choose with whom they may know as family. It was seen that separation only led to inequality, and archaic conventions of segregation were tossed aside to make way for true equality.This should happen with any tradition that happens to impede on the rights of any citizen: that tradition should be deemed useless in the current society, and thrown out. To deny that this scenario is a mirror to the situation for gay couples today is to be blinded by outdated societal values. I understand that the term “marriage” traditionally refers to the union between a man and a woman, but these unions are still recognized by the government, opening the married couple to legal benefits that unmarried couples don’t have access to. It would at least be appropriate to term the legally recognized unions as civil unions, allowing gay couples to have the legal benefits of married couples. Unfortunately, this is tied in with another tradition: the “sanctity” of marriage (and, apparently, civil unions).

Many folks fear that allowing gay couples to marry would lead to the destruction of the “sanctity” of marriage, even leading down a slippery slope of bestiality and perversion. This baseless argument is irksome to me the most, because it paints homosexuals as not only perverted freaks who wish to partake in sex with their dogs, but also implies that homosexuals are less than human. Gay people are ordinary people: they eat the same cereals as we do, wear the same sweaters as we do, listen to the same music we do. Those who want to get married want to do so because they are in love, not because all they want is “sex, sex, sex.” They don’t want to marry their dog, or sleep with their cat: they just want to make a total commitment to the one they love. Isn’t that what heterosexual couples want (most of the time)? It is utterly disgusting that anyone could think that such an inane line of reasoning has any basis in reality.

Furthermore, to say that banning same-sex unions would be “protecting the sanctity of marriage” is utter nonsense in itself: if it needed any protection, one would think such proponents for marriage’s “sanctity” would first target domestic abuse and divorce. Honestly, I’ve never seen such kindergarten arguments since elementary school: and they’re all coming from what one would assume are mature adults!

On Thursday, May 15, 2008, the California State Supreme Court overturned state legislation prohibiting gay marriage, becoming the second state, after Massachusetts, to legalize same-sex marriage. This was all based on a ruling against a state ban on interracial marriage over sixty years ago. If you haven’t heard, thousands of gay couples in California have gone to finally get married, and were able to celebrate their unions. However, to paraphrase Andy Griffith, I’m afraid we’re picking our peaches before they’re ready: in November of this year, there will be a ballot initiative that will finally decide whether California is a free state or not. The initiative is a state constitutional amendment that would ban gay marriage, overriding the State Supreme Court’s decision, and thereby making every single civil union between same-sex couples invalid. What could be a step forward towards a freer America may just be a fall backward towards the Dark Ages. While I’m keeping my fingers crossed for the outcome this November, I’m certainly not going to hold my breath.


________

Apologies for my writing being a bit more off than usual: it's late, but I really felt the need to post this. The font(s) might also be a tad "wonky", as one of my comrades would say. I may edit this later for any grammatical/spelling errors.

Edit: I edited the post for a bit more clarity.

July 4th Special: Andrew Jackson Part 4

This post is a tad late, but I'm simply going to skip any excuses and get right to the point of this post: the conclusion of the action-packed life of Andrew Jackson.

________

Andrew Jackson was one of the first presidents upon whom an assassination attempt was made, possibly the first to have survived two of them during his administration. The first attempt on his life was made in 1833, and another in 1835. In the latter event, Jackson (and his assassin) was (were) lucky to have made it out alive.

In 1835, Jackson was walking with his aides, when the crazed Richard Lawrence came up to him with two pistols, and attempted to shoot the president. When the first gun didn't work, he tried the second, and, fortunately for Jackson, both weapons were jammed. Obviously irked that someone would attempt to kill him (unarmed, at that), Jackson went forward and repeatedly beat Lawrence with his cane; his aides had to pull him off his own attacker.

His eventual death in 1845 was far less exciting, but still a bit interesting (and by interesting, I mean somewhat gross, so you may want to skip this paragraph if such things perturb you). Andrew Jackson got the nickname "Old Hickory" because he was also tough physically: in the various duels and wars he had been in, he sustained a number of bullet wounds; a few bullets were never even removed. Because of a particular injury, he often coughed up blood. The extent of his injuries are likely to have caused a death by lead poisoning, though that is debatable. What is known is that he most likely died of heart failure, and that the days leading up to his demise certainly weren't pretty: he also suffered from dropsy. Dropsy, or edema, is essentially a build-up of fluid in the body. For Jackson, the swelling started in his legs, and worked its way up to his face.

________

And now for a final fun fact about the nation's seventh president: During his administration, Jackson received a 1,400-pound wheel of cheese from northern dairy farmers. This hunk of acidified milk was about four feet in diameter, and two feet high -- about the size of a small kiddie pool. So, Jackson did what any American would do, and had a big cheese party -- a public cheese party. This event was as big as his Inaugural Ball (possibly without the shattered dishes, though), and the cheese was consumed within two hours.

________

I hope you enjoyed the July 4th Special on Andrew Jackson. If you have any questions/comments/concerns, feel free to comment this post, or e-mail me at metal_enthalpy@yahoo.com. Don't forget: you can also send me your own mugshots to me, at the same e-mail address.
________
Sources:
Wikipedia - Andrew Jackson
Wikipedia - Edema
Doctor Zebra - President Andrew Jackson
A fact book on presidents, of which I unfortunately forgot the title

July 4th Special: Andrew Jackson Part 3

Welcome to the third installment of the four-part July 4th special on Andrew Jackson, here on the Mugshots blog. Last post, Jackson's election campaigns of '24 and '28 were discussed, as well as the nasty slurs thrown at his wife by the competition. Now read on to find out about his actual presidency.
________

As the common man’s president, Jackson fought adamantly against the Second National Bank. He feared that the Bank was run by crooked fat cats (my words, not his, though I'm certain that's what he'd say today) who just wanted to take the people’s money and land, and that the Bank also favoured the North over the West and South. So, when the charter for the Bank’s continuation came to his desk, Jackson vetoed it, instead opting for the Specie Circular, which required that land payments be issued in specie (gold or silver coinage); this led for the demand in gold and silver, eventually culminating in the Panic of 1837, a depression from which it took years to totally recover. While Jackson’s plan was certainly full of his best intentions, good intentions do not necessarily make for the best policies.

In order to bring in some money for the government to execute its plans and reduce the national debt (which Jackson did very well, though it stayed low only briefly), Jackson supported tariffs, or taxes on imports. The North was the center of industry at the time, whereas the South the center of agriculture. Foreign manufactured products could be sold in the nation for less than what the North was selling them, and therefore domestic factories would typically receive less bu. These tariffs in particular (aka the “Tariff of Abominations”) meant that the South would either have to pay more for their imported manufactures or simply buy the Northern-made goods, both options irritating the Southerners, even leading some of them to believe that Jackson was leaning towards supporting the North.

One state, in particular, decried the tariffs, leading to the event known as the Nullification Crisis. South Carolina threatened so much as to secede from the Union, and refused to pay the taxes. John C. Calhoun, Jackson’s then-vice president, wrote up the nullification doctrine, which essentially said that if a state found a federal law or action unconstitutional, the state could do away with it. However, the nullification doctrine was unconstitutional in itself, as it would essentially override the concept that the federal law is the supreme law of the land. Jackson, himself, opposed this: if the people didn’t like something the federal government did, they wouldn’t have voted for those particular representatives. However, the state voted and approved of the idea of nullification, and Calhoun resigned as vice president to help South Carolina and its cause.

Jackson was obviously not thrilled with all these events, so he used executive “muscle power”, getting Congress to pass the “Force Bill” which allowed him to enforce the tariffs. However, Clay’s Compromise Tariff, which lowered the tariffs on some products and eliminating them on others, was able to get South Carolina to repeal the nullification ordinance. What could have happened, South Carolina’s total secession and possible secession of other states, even eventual civil war, was held off for another thirty years thanks to the actions of Jackson and Clay.

Jackson’s image as the Indian fighter was brought up once more during the dilemma between Georgia and the Cherokee tribe living there. The Cherokee had a good bit of land, some of it rich with gold deposits, and Georgia wanted it for its white settlers, so the state decided to perform a mass eviction of the natives. In the Supreme Court case Worcester v. Georgia, it was ruled that Georgia had no right to do such a thing, as the state of Georgia had no jurisdiction over Cherokee lands. Jackson, however, supported Georgia’s decision in removing the Cherokee. Georgia was able to gain the support of a Cherokee removal treaty, the Treaty of New Echota, from a few unofficial Cherokee leaders. Jackson passed the Indian Removal Act, which funded the movement of the Cherokee from their current position in Georgia to a reservation in Oklahoma; this process would take place during the next administration, that of Martin van Buren, a close ally of Jackson.
________

If anything seems odd about this post, when I was putting this in, the text formatting started acting odd. The same thing goes for the previous post. Next post will wrap up the July 4th special, thusly wrapping up AJ's story. If you have any questions, comments, etc., feel free to comment on this post or e-mail me at metal_enthalpy@yahoo.com. You may also send me your (coffee) mugshots at the same address.

July 4th Special: Andrew Jackson Part 2

Last post, I explained Andrew Jackson's rough and tough side, and how his tendencies towards violence can be found back to his childhood. Now for Part Two of the Jackson July 4th special at Mugshots.

________

Andrew Jackson first ran for president in 1824 on the Democratic-Republican ticket, against Henry Clay and John Quincy Adams. Jackson ran as a “man of the people”, as he was himself a “common” man, who worked hard to make a name for himself and to get to the place he was; on the other hand, Adams was a man of an aristocratic background, and who hardly understood the plight of those who have never been well-to-do.

Jackson was also known as “Old Hickory”, as he also had a reputation of being tough. He gained the most popular votes (not the majority of them), but as anyone familiar with the American political system can tell you, the popular vote doesn’t count anyway except to select the state electors who are most likely to vote for whatever majority chose them, and the electors can vote for whomever they wish. In the end, Adams won the Electoral College, and thusly the presidency. Jackson called this a “corrupt bargain”, for Clay opted to support Adams, the latter then appointing his supporter as Secretary of State.

Victory for our hero would come four years later, in the election of 1828 – an election also known for having the most mud slung between the two major candidates. As the candidate for the newly-formed Democratic party, created by Martin Van Buren, Jackson ran against Republican incumbent John Quincy Adams. One major bit of Anti-Jacksonian propaganda was actually against his wife: Rachel Jackson was thought to have also been a bigamist, a person married to two people at once.

Rachel Jackson had been unhappily married when she had met Ol’ Hickory; her husband filed for a divorce, and when it was thought the divorce had gone through, Rachel married Andrew. In actuality, the divorced was not yet finalized, and the second marriage was void. After the divorce had definitely gone through, however, Rachel and Andrew remarried. What’s also interesting to note is that the Jacksons raised an orphaned Native American boy, even with AJ’s reputation of fighting Indians.

In the election of 1828, Jackson won over the Electoral College, becoming the “people’s president.” Unfortunately, just a few months after his victory, Rachel Jackson died; Andrew Jackson blamed her death on all his opponents who insulted her character.

________

That's all for tonight, but tomorrow the irony of Jackson being on the twenty-dollar bill will be explained, as well as other policies that defined his presidency. If you have any questions, comments, etc., feel free to comment this post or e-mail me at metal_enthalpy@yahoo.com. Also e-mail me any mugshots you may have (coffee mugs, please).

July 4th Special: Andrew Jackson Part 1

This July 4^th, the Mugshot Blog would like to honour a great American hero. This president is perhaps among the first Americans to initiate a culture, or at least image, of violence for the United States. He also served in three wars, possibly even postponing a fourth for another thirty years. The first “common man’s” candidate since Jefferson, first Democrat, the first to severely cane someone, and the last to oppose a National Bank yet still have his face on federal notes, the seventh president of the United States of America is one of the nation’s most colourful characters in history. Indeed, Andrew Jackson had a life full of adventure, and what better way to start his story than at its beginning?

Andrew Jackson was the third and final son of Andrew (who died three week’s before our hero’s birth) and Elizabeth Jackson. He was born March 15^th, 1767, though it’s unclear as to whether he was born in North or South Carolina. When he was about fourteen, he served in the Revolutionary War, and was captured by the British. He was released, and after the war he became orphaned, as all of his immediate family died from war-related problems.

Later, Jackson went into law school, and practiced cases on the frontier. He even became a planter, having a plantation manned by as many as 40 slaves in Tennessee. Jackson was also involved in many duels, yet only killed one person in one: Charles Dickinson. The story goes that Jackson allowed Dickinson to shoot first; our hero was shot extremely close to his heart, but he was able to shoot back, killing the opponent.

Jackson had a reputation as an Indian fighter, first earned in the War of 1812. In the Battle of Horseshoe Bend, Jackson and his men fought and won over the Red Stick Creeks. He later led his men into an outstanding victory over the British in the Battle of New Orleans: Jackson’s group of 5,000 only sustained 13 casualties, while the British forces of 7,500 had 2,000 of their men killed. Jackson also garnered his reputation of Indian fighting in the First Seminole War, where he fought back the Seminole Indians south from Georgia to Florida, even onward, going into Spanish territory and causing a bit of an international dilemma to be resolved by then-president Monroe.

Jackson was no easy-going commander, either: Jackson’s men at New Orleans had only enlisted for a certain amount of time. When that time was up, and food was low, they were more than ready to leave. Jackson, however, would hear none of it; one of the men, possibly even a few, decided to leave, but Jackson shot them, demonstrating that none of his men should cross him. Of course, after that moment, his men were a lot more obedient.

________

Jackson's story is a bit long, so I'll have to break this into parts, another segment added for each day of this 4th of July weekend. Have a great holiday, everyone, and be sure to come back tomorrow for some more Jacksonian action!

If there are any errors, or if you have any questions, don't be shy, and feel free to comment or e-mail me at metal_enthalpy@yahoo.com.