Saturday, November 22, 2008

Heat in California

I don't know if things can get any hotter in California. You think I am speaking about the grass fires that have destroyed homes, toys, and families in the greater Los Angeles vicinity. Well, yes and no. I am also referring to the outrage on the part of the Prop. 8 losers (read: same-sex marriage).

So when I say hot, I mean angry, ticked off, burning mad, and vindictive. My sources – and they are many and varied, religious and irreligious – have suggested that the losers (must be careful how I use that term) have threatened to burn churches, parishioners and pastors personally, plus many of the blacks who voted against Prop. 8.

The link with the blacks is horribly ironic, and this is the point of this week's column. The promoters of same-sex marriages have considered this rejection akin to the Civil Rights movement of the '50s and '60s. Many of us a) weren't even born then; or, b) were born, but were too young to have any idea what was going on; or c) were born then, knew what was going on, but were so far removed from the South (Alberta to Georgia is a long walk, man); or, d) all of the above.

Talk about hot: If I were a black person today, I would be angry, ticked off, burning mad, and maybe even vindictive. Whether I would stoop to burning, beating, and blacklisting, I cannot say. To be honest, people who choose certain lifestyles can live in those lifestyles, but they certainly have no right or business destroying others who do not.

This is not about homophobia – an over-used and abused term, if there ever was one. Just for the record, with all the crass attacks on those who don't buy into that lifestyle, why don't we ever hear the term "heterophobia"? (Freedom of the press, you say? I don't think so.)

So the struggles of people born a certain colour are the same with people who choose a certain lifestyle, right? Hardly. Granted, neither party should be harmed, violated, or abused in any way, shape, or form. I just draw the line when one's ethnicity is compared to one's morality. I also draw the line when innocent people (eg., church-attendees, little old ladies [literally]), and such are harmed, violated, and even abused. No one should be allowed to be a moral bully.

My thoughts go deeper than mere opinion, but I must leave them here on the surface. I find it a sad day in our culture when those who embrace traditional view must fear for their safety. One may counter that those who have differing views on morality have feared for their lives for years, maybe even decades. Granted, and I would quickly and loudly add that that is also a very sad commentary on our culture. In other words, there should never be any gay-bashing, but there should not be any non-gay-bashing, either.

Civil rights (which are rarely very civil) and moral rights (which have little to do with morality). Who's right? Who's wrong? Is there a right and a wrong? The next so-called messiah, Mr. Obama, likely doesn't have the answers, either – no matter what he promised. I posit that when we distance ourselves from sound, moral foundations, we tend to create a very haphazard structure. Unstable, ill-built structures tend to be unsafe places in which to live and thrive.

There should be a coming together of the different factions, a clear-cut discussion as to what is feasible despite our differences. Then, as a result, we could aspire to a greater commitment to the health and welfare of all concerned. If not, we may end up having a greater meltdown in our culture than the current economic one.

In other words, those houses north of Malibu may only be the start of the California heat.

No comments: