Lots going on this week, personally, but my primary concern involves two major elections - one in the US and one in New Zealand. It's pretty cool (but also weird) how these two countries still play such a large part in my life even though I only live in one of them.
Darren and I can vote in both elections, and have in fact already voted in the US election. As US citizens, we can only vote in presidential elections (not primaries) and we do this by the '
absentee ballot' process. Since we lived in Maryland before we moved to New Zealand, our votes are counted there.
As permanent residents of New Zealand, we can also vote in the elections here. I find that astonishing, actually, as expats in the US are considered "resident aliens" and do not have any voting rights there.
While I'm sure it's clear by now just where I stand (*cough* bleeding-heart liberals *cough*), I haven't addressed the upcoming elections or other special votes taking place this week. No good excuse, just busy with life and work, and it's easier to let our friend
Arthur do all the heavy lifting.
I could spend several blog posts explaining why I think it's time for the Democrats to take the White House back, or why we should all be very afraid of McCain/Palin and their rallies filled with hate, but the subject I want to discuss most is the (anti) gay marriage bill up for popular vote in California tomorrow.
First, let me be clear. I am not a lesbian, and I do not wish to marry another woman. In fact, I didn't personally know any homosexual men or women until university (I think...it wasn't a clear and defining moment for me).
So why am I so interested in this subject? For all the things my parents did wrong, the most valuable lesson they taught me was not to discriminate against others. They fostered the innate acceptance of others in me when I was a young child. I truly believe every human should be treated equally regardless of color, sexuality or gender. It's that simple, and for me the argument ends there.
But it doesn't end there for so many other people because religion comes into the equation. Religion has been used throughout history to hate or discriminate against other people - because of gender, sexuality, color or even the particular sect of the same religion. Wars are raged and people are killed because of the differing times of day a person believes he should pray!
I'm not particularly "religious" (in the most strict sense of the word), so I cannot understand why, when so many (if not all) religions are based on love, acceptance and trying to make the world a better place, their holy books are used to divide, discriminate against and hate other people.
Women struggled to have a voice within the Christian church due to a letter the apostle Paul wrote to the Corinthians. That was overcome (in some protestant religions, and somewhat in the catholic church). Then black slaves in the United States struggled in general against Christians who used the bible to label them as animals or half-humans. Even when given the right to vote, initially a black person's vote was worth a fraction of a white man's vote. That also has been overcome (for the most part).
It seems the US and perhaps (some) Christians specifically - they seem to be the loudest squeaky wheels - need to have a villain: some group of people to hate via Jesus. For the past several years, the most hated groups are the Muslims and the homosexuals. Interestingly enough,
Morgan Spurlock (of Super Size Me fame), created a show called "30 Days" in which he asks a person to live outside of his/her comfort zone for a month. He has done several episodes so far - now currently in the 3rd season - but the first season contained an episode that placed a Christian with a Muslim family and a different Christian with a homosexual man in San Francisco. The results were astounding, and if you haven't seen the series, I highly recommend renting or buying it.
The latter episode placed a small-town heterosexual Christian military man (Ryan) with a homosexual man living in the Castro section of San Francisco (Ed). To be fair, Ryan was not a raging homophobe, and Ed was not a super-flamboyant stereotypical gay man. However, at the beginning of the experiment, Ryan admitted he believed homosexuality to be a 'choice' and a sin, due to certain scriptures in the bible.
Those familiar with such passages will note that Leviticus is the most damning. However, many of those who judge homosexuality by the bible will fail to admit that Jesus himself never spoke on homosexuality. It seems the Old Testament is used when convenient, but also ignored when convenient, such as the commandment "Thou Shall Not Kill".
This discrepancy was discussed (with no resolution) when Ryan went to meet with a lesbian pastor to discuss the bible. As he was in the military, he felt justified in killing someone if the need arose. He had found a way around a very clear commandment, even though there is no "except..." written in bible. It was not clear whether Ryan believes killing is a sin; it is certainly possible that he feels that way, as he does feel all sins are equal. Ok, the question then is, would he use that part of the bible to discriminate against or even hate someone who killed? ALL people who killed - including his fellow servicemen? Should people who kill another person not be allowed to marry, for instance?
Towards the end of the episode, Ryan met with
PFLAG(Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays). He met a man who talked about his daughter, and how much he loves her because she is his child, gay or 'straight' (I truly dislike that term). His 'truth' is that his daughter deserves to be treated with all the same respect and dignity and receive all the same rights, privileges and obligations as her two (straight) siblings.
That is what finally affected Ryan. It was very difficult for him to disagree with that statement, and he admitted it would be difficult to deny that his brother, sister, or future children would deserve the same, if they were gay.
At the end of this 30 days, he read a statement at a party thrown for his host, Ed:
"Growing up in a non-diverse area, and not knowing more than two homosexuals in your life, it is very easy to believe stereotypes and form a wrong opinion about a group of individuals you know nothing about. I came to San Francisco very opinionated, believing false information and with a confident attitude that Ed, his friends, and the many acquaintances that I was going to make would not be able to change my views or beliefs. Was I ever wrong. Through this experience, I have learned more than I imagined I would and I am leaving with a very positive image and opinion of homosexuals and their difference, but not really all that different lifestyle. So, thank you to all of you for playing a part in this great and educational experience with me."
(Ryan stated in the commentary to the episode that he wrote the speech himself.)
If you are in the US, you can watch the entire episode for free
here.
What does this all have to do with legalizing gay marriage? I've said it before, but it will bear repeating until all the bigots relent: there is no legal argument against legalizing gay marriage, only religious arguments. And again, one of the founding principles of America is Freedom of Religion (there's also the pesky doctrine of
separation of Church and State). No one's religion should dictate what another person does. Period.
Even though that should be the end of the discussion, I'll go ahead and address some of the other arguments I've heard -
How about the one regarding the history and tradition of marriage? Well, that's a complicated issue - marriage has meant many different things and has been used for many purposes over thousands of years. Polygamy was commonly exercised in the bible, and still is in some parts of the world (and in some Christian faiths). Should we go back to that? How about marrying your husband's brother or father if your husband dies? That's traditional too.
What about the statistics of heterosexual marriage in the US? I believe the divorce rate is hovering around 50%. Will letting homosexual couples threaten that percentage? I believe it will affect the number in a positive way: if the hate and judgement against homosexuality is lessened, perhaps more gay men and women will be true to themselves and feel free to love who they choose instead of entering into doomed marriages with the opposite sex.
But what about the freaky-non-baby-making-sex? Conservatives seemed to be fascinated - consumed! - with gay sex. Because all married heterosexuals only participate in missionary-style baby-producing lovemaking, right? Tell that to my Catholic Puerto Rican friend who only had anal sex so she would be a 'virgin' on her wedding night...
So, no, two gay men or women cannot produce a child. Neither can millions of heterosexual couples. There are even married couples who don't want children. Should they be allowed to marry? Or forced to divorce? What about artificial insemination or other birth-enhancing treatments?
The point is, there are no valid arguments against homosexual marriage that do not open the doors to discrimination against heterosexual couples. Nor are any of the religious arguments valid in a legal debate. The hatred, the discrimination and the bigotry only serve one purpose: to create a second, lesser-than class of people in the United States. Constitutions have historically been used to expand the rights of the nations' peoples, and recently there has been a movement to amend constitutions to exclude a particular group of people.
If you live in California, please vote "No" to Prop 8 tomorrow. Watch the 30 Days episode, look past the stereotypes and preconceptions and see the people - someones sister/brother/uncle/son.
We started with Melting Perfection on Featherston Street. Merrin suggested getting one piece we knew that we would like, and one 'experimental' piece. I love dark chocolate, so I bought their "Dark Mendiant", which is a thin piece of 70% dark chocolate with assorted nuts and fruits layered on top. I also bought the limited edition "Santa's Secret Trifle" (in dark - 53%), which included a hazelnut mixture and a liquidy fruit filling surrounded by the dark chocolate.
We headed down the street to De Spa in the Old Bank building. This shop is quite tiny, and has an equally small selection. The shop girl had no idea about the percentage of cocoa in the dark chocolate offerings, but did answer quite a few questions about the chocolate selections. 
We continued on our way down Willis street to Butler's Chocolate Cafe. Butler's is probably best known in Wellington for their hot chocolate drinks (get a free piece of chocolate with each one!). They do have some tasty-looking chocolate cakes and other assorted baked items on the counter, as well as a small collection of assorted chocolates. Once again, the counter person knew exactly the percentage of cocoa in the dark chocolate (bonus), and I immediately purchased a piece of "Double Chocolate". 
The last stop in our tour was Shoc Chocolates on Tory. Aptly named, I think, for the prices. Their chocolates are very pretty and colourful and are a great alternative to the average box of chocolates gift. There wasn't a huge selection, but enough to make us feel we had enough to choose from.
Posts
