Self-Sufficient Steward

Since last week’s story about an 18 year-old Mitt Romney assaulting a gay classmate and forcibly cutting his hair, I’ve posted elsewhere that the bigger issue is his current handling of the incident. I suspect that when examining his early life, the candidate would prefer that we concentrate on his time as a poor Mormon missionary in France a year or two later. There, Romney describes a life of austerity, without showers or lavatories. His fellow missionary at the time, like his classmates at Cranbrook, remembers things a bit differently, and describes their shared stained-glass residence as a ‘palace’. He also volunteers that the presidential candidate’s campaign had asked him not to talk publicly about their time there.

In fact, apparently Mitt had quite a gay old time in France (in the original sense of the word), as evidenced by the photo below, in which Mitt appears on the right.

Is it just me? Or is it kinda creepy how much he resembles the openly gay Blaine Andersen character in Glee, played by Darren Criss?

Criss, who is an outspoken supporter of the LGBT community, could not be reached for comment.

Posted on May 13th, 2012 by jack-of-all-thumbs
Filed under: Rants and Musings | 1 Comment »

Long ago, mom taught me not to discuss politics or religion with people. Well, she told me that anyway. I can’t say that I learned the concept, though it made more sense to me in the days when there were liberal Republicans and conservative Democrats, and you didn’t want to start a fight to make things worse. But in recent years the two sides hardened their positions and culled their respective herds of ideologically questionable members such that nobody could talk to anybody on the other side, because there were no bridge-builders left. To me, that seemed a sure recipe for disaster, so I have tried over the years to engage in dialogue across the great divide. I have attempted to remain civil. In the heat of ‘battle’ I have failed at that more than once, never neglecting to apologize and mend fences. I failed again today. And decided I’m done with bridge-building in at least one area. Namely, trying to have a rational discussion with an evangelical Christian who feels that they are on a mission.

The following is an exact transcript (names redacted) of a Facebook conversation, which followed the passage of the North Carolina constitutional Amendment One yesterday, which outlawed any form of civil union other than a marriage between a man and a woman.

I admit that I picked the fight by weighing in on someone’s post, and that I became increasingly snarky.

My old friend “Anne” leads off with her post, soon to be joined by “Cathy”, a kindred spirit.

* * *

Anne: “The Lord is hearing the cries of HIS people and is healing our land! Praise the Lord for this victory!” (passage of Amendment One)

Anne: “For my brothers and sister who struggle with homosexuality I am committed to pray that the Lord will show you the truth that will set you free! I truly love you with the love of the Lord who created YOU and wants to know HIS truth!”

Me: “Despite the best efforts of our forefathers, yesterday we weakened that wall separating church and state. The ‘cries’ I hear are theirs, and those of tolerance-loving people of all faiths.”

Cathy: “The “separation of church and state” (which is wording that doesn’t even exist in the constitution) was to keep the affairs of government out of the church, not to keep morality and truth out of government. Just because people have a “right to choose” doesn’t make their choices right. If I “choose” to slap someone can I justify that based upon my individual “rights”? Yet everyday we murder thousands of unborn children and devise ways to live lifestyles that are Biblically wrong and we do it all in the name of “choice”. The champions of “CHOICE” would be quick to prosecute me for my violent behavior in slapping someone or tearing down a forest, but will justify their own murderous and devious behavior against an unborn child and the GOD-instituted way of marriage and the family. Choice is the biggest lie to be shoved down the throats of the nations of the world. And tolerance is really only tolerance if Christians are okay with the wrong, wicked, and immoral things the world wants to do. Tolerance is something liberals want to beat conservatives down with, but it isn’t something that liberals want to extend to conservatives. It’s such a double standard.”

Me: “You are correct that the phrase ‘separation of church and state’ does not appear in the Constitution. You should have stopped there. It is a concept espoused in the writings of Thomas Jefferson, interpreting the intent of the Constitution. The word ‘God’ does not exist in the Constitution either. And the separation was most certainly to keep religion out of government, thus the phrase: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…”. You won a battle yesterday. You will lose this war.”

Anne (to me): “No…YOU have already lost the war you just don’t see it yet…but one day my friend, EVERY knee shall bow and EVERY tongue shall confess that Jesus Christ is LORD! And just because you don’t believe that does not make it any less true that YOUR knee will bow as well my friend. The sad part is that unless you come to know the saving grace of Jesus Christ, you will not be a part of the miracle of heaven…and that breaks my heart!”

Cathy: “And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works. And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works. And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. AND WHOSOEVER WAS NOT FOUND WRITTEN IN THE BOOK OF LIFE WAS CAST INTO THE LAKE OF FIRE.”

“This is how the war ends. Christ is victorious. Saved, born again, believers will be found written in the book of life. All others who rejected Christ are not in the book. I pray that your heart will be touched with the truth.”

Me: “From the ALL CAPS, I suspect that you’d prefer me in the lake of fire. Let’s each keep a book. You can have the bible and leave me the Constitution.”

Cathy: “I would absolutely NOT prefer anyone in the lake of fire. However, God believes in choice also. We each choose where our eternity will be. The all caps was only to show the emphasis on the seriousness of our choices. There are choices that lead to light and life and there are choices that lead to darkness and death. I can assure you that the choice of a nation to forsake the Creator and kill unborn babies and defy God’s plan for marriage will lead to darkness and death. I don’t know why you believe that Christians are haters. Standing firmly on rock solid truth is not hate. It actually says: I love the Lord enough that I will not compromise what He has said, and I love others enough to try and show them that Christ loves them and wants them to choose Him. Not eternity in the lake of fire. The constitution is considered by God to be part of the wood, hay, and stubble that will all be burned away. The Bible is eternal. I’ll gladly keep it. And as twisted as the Constitution has become, I’d much rather keep the one that hasn’t changed ever and has no amendments to it. It is perfect in its entirety. I’ll gladly let you have the ever-shifting, ever-changing, subject to human interpretation from generation to generation constitution. I’ll keep the KJV!”

Anne (to me): “Your response to my last post is typical of so many liberals who read something and make it say what you want it to say…your words were strickly for affect and it does not work anymore. You obviously did not read the last past of the post as I said that it saddened me that you may not spend eternity in heaven…how do you translate that into “I prefer that you’d spend eternity in the lake of fire”? I have learned to expect this kind of anger from the left and those who support the things that are happening in our world that is causing it to crumble. As I have said so many times all I want is for you to know Christ…the one who saves and wants you to know HIM. Think what you want but that is the absolute truth…and by the way, the constitution belongs to ME as well…and the bible is yours too, maybe you should read it as much as you do the constitution.”

“There is way to much personal interpretation of the constitution and as Cathy said, it has changed so many times over the years that no one recognizes it anymore!”

Me: “OK. This conversation has become satire. Not a single word in the Constitution has changed. The original sits under glass for all to read. Amendments are equally documented, only added after a defined process and ratified by voters in 3/4 of the states. The Bible on the other hand was written in languages other than English, over hundreds of years, by dozens of writers documenting events decades in the past. After that, there have been translations and interpretations, some clearly done for political reasons, for example the KJV. Regardless, your interpretation is apparently the only true god that has ever existed, and he works through you, with the intent of gaining dominion over all of the rest of us.”

“I can no longer have a conversation with someone who is so convinced that her personal version of God needs to rule my world, that she is incapable of reason.”

‎Cathy (to me): “:( my heart is sad for you.”

Anne (to me): “What you don’t like is that I am incapable of YOUR reason…and that makes you so mad. I have no personal ‘version’ of God, there is only one…and I would never try to rule your world…That is the Lords job. No matter what I am going to pray for you!”

* * *

Is it asking to much to be able to have a conversation about the meaning of a constitutional amendment?

Apparently so.

Posted on May 9th, 2012 by jack-of-all-thumbs
Filed under: Rants and Musings | 3 Comments »

On Saturday, I posted about losing Coltrane, an old friend, who was the apple of his mom’s eye. Since then, it’s been a quiet week around the house, which now seems to echo a bit despite its small size. It’s no surprise, we’ve been down this road before in the thirty-plus years we’ve been together. But it seems tougher this time. Probably because the faces we see in our mirrors look a bit older than the last time. The invulnerability of youth seems long ago.

Hopefully, this funk too shall pass, probably with some help from Mason, the heir apparent. The eight month-old foundling decided on Saturday to make me smile, or at least yell at him and break the silence, by racing away and tunneling through a muck-filled ditch during a walk. He used to be yellow.

Coltrane would have been proud of the result.

Posted on May 8th, 2012 by jack-of-all-thumbs
Filed under: Family Life | 1 Comment »

I promised a dear old friend that I would try and articulate my opposition to Amendment One, on our North Carolina ballot next Tuesday. Here goes:

As I understand it, the amendment will read as follows: “A constitutional amendment to provide that marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this State.” That’s our choice in North Carolina next Tuesday. How we decide will affect every state citizen for the foreseeable future; some in a small way, others in a life-changing one. First, I would point out that those of us who are heterosexual have always enjoyed the benefits of this legal recognition and will certainly continue to do so. Regardless of the outcome of this vote, our unions are sanctioned and secure. No threat to our marriages exists. So, given that most voters in NC are heterosexual, why should we bother to vote to ensure something we already enjoy? Since no one else’s relationship enhances my own, nor cheapens it, why should I vote to deny legal rights to others that I am already guaranteed? The only answer I have heard expressed is that a union between any two humans of the same sex is against the will of God. Thus, those of us who are comfortably straight should vote to restrict access to our privileges from our friends, neighbors and family who are gay, because God wants marriage to be between a man and a woman. That’s the ONLY argument I’ve heard in favor of Amendment One. So unless someone can provide me with data that the proponents of the amendment have any argument other than: “homosexuality is a sin”. I’m going with that as my reason for the existence of this ballot measure.

OK…..admittedly I am not a religious person. But I realize that most people are, and that there are long-standing reasons why most people believe in a supreme being, or beings. And frankly, I agree that religion serves a beneficial purpose. In such religious belief, is grounded our universal repugnance of lying, cheating, murder, etc. Yes, there is much useful and common ground among the world’s religions, but there are clearly legions of differences. Some trivial, some profound. As we all know, this nation was founded due to religious differences with the Church of England and others, in an attempt to separate the religious beliefs of a citizenry, which vary from faith to faith, from the civil laws governing those same citizens. Because, as our founding fathers understood, those laws should not vary, but should treat all citizens equally.

I was taught as a child that each individual is guaranteed the same rights under the law. Well, as I came to appreciate later…..not exactly. It wasn’t until the 15th amendment that all races were supposedly allowed to vote, and not until the 19th amendment that the same privilege was extended to women. So now in 2012, in my beloved home of North Carolina, some want to legislate inequality again. Yes, that’s the core of this: codifying inequality. Because this is not about belief, an individual is and will continue to be allowed to believe ANYTHING he or she wishes, and to be a member of a group that espouses the same beliefs. No constitutional amendment changes that right. This is the murky area we have inherited when ‘marriage’ has both religious AND civil significance. Sadly, this amendment, by use of the phrase ‘only domestic legal union’ eliminates all other legal alternatives; thus the religious view of marriage currently promoted by the political majority, would also be the legal definition of marriage, since no civil alternatives are allowed; a crucial point.

And this amendment will have additional indirect legal consequences, for gay and straight alike. Again: “marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this State.” The key words are ‘only’ and ‘legal’. Under such language, long-term relationships, gay and straight, and the children raised in those families may lose the protection that the members of married families enjoy. Why? What have they done wrong? Why should they lose hospital visitation privileges? Domestic violence protection? Inheritance rights? Tax fairness? Yes, it MAY not come to this, those provisions may be struck down in court battles, but numerous NC legal scholars from our state’s law schools feel that it may. And even if the rights of those gay or non-married couples and their kids are upheld after a court fight, who pays for those legal battles in support of inequality? We do. Every citizen of this state will foot a part of the bill for legal fees.

Perhaps more importantly, we ALL will feel the impact of the loss of talent that passage of this amendment will likely force. Think about it. Do you really care about the sexual preference of your brain surgeon? Your fireman? The electrician who wires your house? I doubt it. You want competence. So please don’t support an amendment that tells a significant percentage of talented people of both sexes: ‘Look elsewhere. NC doesn’t want you.” Personally, I want smart people taking care of me.

In addition to listening to lots of thoughtful people, like pediatricians, and CEOs and law school deans; I’m listening to my heart. And my heart says: we are all entitled to our beliefs, but we are also all entitled to equal protection under the law. Rejection of this amendment allows both. But passage of this amendment, and legislating inequality does not.

Please vote against Amendment One.

Posted on May 3rd, 2012 by jack-of-all-thumbs
Filed under: Rants and Musings | 1 Comment »

After months of unanswered criticism directed at Barack Obama during the endless Republican debates, it’s about time to get down to the business of making the case for re-electing this President. Here’s a good start.

Posted on April 27th, 2012 by jack-of-all-thumbs
Filed under: Rants and Musings | No Comments »