red fuzzy jesus

A Funeral For Marriage?

In January of this year I attended the wedding of two of my best friends, Robert and Regina. The ceremony and reception were beautiful. From the gown to the cake to the location, every detail made the evening exquisite. But the thing that really made the night was the obvious love between the two people pledging their lives to each other. Seeing that love immortalized and celebrated was inspiring. Sadly, only five months later, that marriage now means nothing. As of May 17, 2004 that blessed union between Robert and Regina has crumbled along with the rest of marriage. Why? How could their love and commitment suddenly disappear? Because some gay people are allowed to marry.

Having given up on Bible based sin arguments, opponents of marriage equality now use the destruction of marriage as their principal rationale.

In their own words:

"We will look back 20, 30, 50 years from now and recall this as the day marriage ceased to have any meaning in our country. The documents being issued all across Massachusetts may say 'marriage license' at the top -- but they are really death certificates for the institution of marriage." (link to quote) James Dobson, Founder and Chairman, Focus on the Family

“The only way to keep the sacred institution of marriage from being destroyed by our Congress is for you to demand that your Representative and Senators vote for the Federal Marriage Amendment!” (link to quote) Don Wildmon, Founder and Chairman, American Family Association

"One cannot alter the definition of marriage without throwing society into confusion any more than one can change the definition of a yardstick. The destructive effects may not be immediately apparent, but the cumulative damage is inescapable.” (link to quote) Timothy J. Dailey, Senior Fellow, Family Research Council

And then there’s Gary Bauer who takes it to an even more extreme level…

"We are in the middle of a war for the survival of Western civilization and one of the major political parties is using the bedroom habits of its members as criteria to qualify at their presidential nominating convention," (link to quote) Gary Bauer, President, Campaign For Working Families

These same sources have argued for years that the estimate claiming 10% of the population is gay is a myth. They claim it’s less than 1%. With the ever-present shame and loathing still keeping people in the closet and fewer people defining themselves in stark gay/straight terms it’s impossible to estimate what percentage of the population may be gay. But it’s an obvious contradiction to argue on one hand a segment of society constitutes an infinitesimal percentage of the population and on the other hand say giving marriage rights to those people destroys marriage for everyone else. Whatever is between a heterosexual couple past or present will still be there whether a few gay people marry or not.

Marriage is not being destroyed. It may be redefined but that’s not necessarily a bad thing. The concept of love being the reason one gets married is a fairly modern one in the grand scope of human history. People used to marry for economic security or the transfer of inheritance and property rights. Love may have played a part but it wasn’t the primary consideration. Marriage licenses used to not be allowed at all for lower class people or necessary for royalty. When we stopped having dowries and arranged marriages or when we allowed interracial couples to marry we redefined the institution and each time we made marriage more about love. We’re doing the same thing by opening marriage to gay couples. Gay people want to marry because they love their partners and if marriage redefines to honor that then I’m all for redefinition.

James Dobson has a new book out titled Marriage Under Fire about the threat gays pose to marriage. I wonder if in his heart of hearts he really believes the union between him and his wife is somehow diminished by what’s happening in Massachusetts. If it is so threatening then I wonder what he bases his marriage on. What does marriage mean to people that believe gays and lesbians will destroy it? They have no problem with Who Wants To Marry a Millionaire or Britney Spears’ drunken nuptials and two day wedded bliss. But, they scream in protest and rush into court when Del Martin, 83, and Phyllis Lyon, 79 finally marry in San Francisco after 50 years of faithful companionship. Anything goes apparently, as long as it’s straight. If they want to shore up marriage why don’t they push for a constitutional amendment to ban divorce and annulment? Because there’s a high divorce rate among evangelical Christians, that’s why, and holding a mirror up to your own deficiencies isn’t an effective way to maintain political clout.

No, Robert and Regina’s marriage doesn’t mean anything less than it did in January. Neither does any other straight couple’s. In the next ten years we’ll see more and more gay people incorporated into mainstream society and wonder what all the fuss was about in 2004. The proclamations that gay marriage marks the end of the institution or worse – (queue Vincent Price) the end of Western civilization - will sound as silly as such previous ‘church’ arguments as - black people have a different kind of blood than whites, left-handed people are possessed, and Galileo is a heretic for saying Earth isn’t the center of the universe. I just hope poor Dr. Dobson isn’t too lonely when he looks like a fool – now that his marriage means nothing.

A War Without Reason

Last year at about this time I found it impossible not to get into a discussion about the war in Iraq. The statue of Saddam had been torn down and Bush had made his triumphant landing on the aircraft carrier. At work, in my family, even over the Internet it was hard to find people that didn’t support what we were doing. The exuberance over it came with assumptions that it was an unquestionable success and ultimately good for the U.S. At the time I tried to point out the flaws in the plan but was so repeatedly shouted down that I resigned to keep it to myself and wait to see if I was wrong. I wasn’t. Now even hardcore war hawks are admitting it’s a mess with no exit strategy and no easy solutions. Worst of all, it’s all ours to deal with. Aside from Great Britain, help from other countries is scant. Last year around this time I asked why. Why were we doing this the way we were doing it? I challenged people who supported the war to tell me why it was a good idea. The answers I get today are the same as then – only now they sound sillier.

Reason No. 1 – 9/11
Answer: Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld have all admitted that fact in separate speeches. No one on the hijacked planes was from Iraq. Saddam and Osama did not work together. In fact, Saddam had the most secular government in the Middle East and Bin Laden was a religious crazy. They didn’t like each other. Now that we’ve made Iraq into a confused police state tons of Al Quaida members are reportedly pouring in. It’s easier to plot destruction under the cover of chaos. For now, Al-Qaida is supportive of Iraq. The enemy of our enemy is our friend so to speak. Iraq may not have been a terrorism supporting state before. It sure is now.

Reason No. 2 – Iraq has all different types of weapons of mass destruction, even nuclear weapons, and it’s just a matter of time before they use them against us or sell them to a terrorist cell.
Answer: We never found any of these weapons. If the threat was so imminent and weapons so numerous where are they? It’s been exposed that the lines in the state of the union address about Iraq buying uranium in Africa were outright lies. When Colin Powell went before the U.N. to make the case for war he did it with large graphics and aerial photos showing circles and triangles – all supposed indicators of weapons facilities. What were those pictures of? They were a load of crap and it ruins the reputation of one of the most respected men in America. Iraq did not have the weapons capabilities to launch an attack against us and it was wrong to invade a country preemptively without sufficient evidence that it did.

Reason No. 3 – Saddam Hussein is a horrible dictator who tortures his people.
Answer: The U.S. ignores dictators that are as bad or worse than Saddam all over the world. While it may be idealistic to dream of the great America rolling in and toppling evil tyrants, it’s completely farcical. We could never do that Even if it was worth it to go after Saddam that effort only has value if we have some idea what to replace him with. The U.S. can’t run Iraq forever but who do we hand off power to? The Shiite clerics? No! Making Iraq a fundamentalist Islamic theocracy only plants seeds for terrorism and does nothing to create democracy and freedom for its citizens. Experts now say control will go to some of Saddam’s former party generals. That’s an improvement? The country is a mess and no one had a plan for what to do with it after Saddam was gone. Overthrowing bad rulers is worthless if the alternative is anarchy, even worse rulers, civil war, chaos, and perpetual violence. Everyone cheered with the statue was torn down. Did anyone stop and think what statues might replace it?

Reason No. 4 – A world without Sadam in power is generally safer. So is America.
Answer: Nope. The current chaos in Iraq creates fertile ground for terrorist activity. The images of our invasion in the Arab world increase recruitment in radical groups exponentially. Traditional allies around the world are alienated and angry. None of these things make us any safer. They make us more susceptible to terrorism and more hated by countries that should be our friends. It damages our credibility if we ever face a legitimate threat and need NATO or the U.N. Nothing about these operations makes us safer.

My challenge remains open. I invite those that still support what we did (and are doing) in Iraq to come forward and explain to me why it’s a good idea. I also ask that someone tell me how we’re supposed to improve things and get out of there? Suggestions as to how to win the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people and establish a functioning liberal democracy are also welcome.

Presently I spend less time now asking why we did it in the first place and more time asking what the heck we’re supposed to do now. I have a feeling that the answer to that question has something to do with next November.

Letters to Morons - No. 1

The following letter was written in response to an article that appeared on the American Family Association web site on May 14, 2004. The article contained links to gruesome photos and the video of the beheading of Nick Berg. Because I don’t want to indirectly link to those images I am including the full text of the article below without the links. The article asserts that because graphic photos of the Abu Ghraib torture were used in the news but the most gruesome photos from 9/11 and other murders were not it represents a bias against President Bush. I counter that the same standards of decency were applied to all referenced stories. The photos they link to include captions such as ‘What the Real Enemy is Capable Of” and the text of the article is inflammatory against all Muslims.

---------

May 16, 2004

Dear Mr. Lambert:

I am writing in regards to an article titled Moral Equivalency Justified by Major News Groups that appeared on the American Family Association website, www.afa.net, on May 14, 2004. The end of the article contained links to graphic photos of people jumping out of the World Trade Center on 9/11, the murder of Daniel Pearl, and the beheading of Nick Berg. The article also contained a link to the full video of the beheading of Nick Berg.

The premise of your article is wrong. You claim that the media demonstrated a liberal bias by repeatedly showing images of the prisoner torture at Abu Ghraib but did not show the type of images you linked in your article. This assertion is absurd. 9/11, Daniel Pearl and Nick Berg’s murders all received extensive media coverage. However, network news and print media did not show the most gruesome images from these stories in the interest of common decency and out of sensitivity to their readers and viewers. The same rule applied to the photos from Abu Ghraib. The images that appeared in the news were edited to make them appropriate. And the worst images shown to members of Congress have been classified by the Pentagon and not shown to the media. It is ridiculous to assert that because gruesome and disturbing photos are kept out of mainstream media it proves some sort of bias. All of these stories contained horrible images not fit for mass consumption and understandably those images were censored.

The American Family Association was the most active group encouraging censorship and backlash following the exposure of a breast for less than a second on network television. Supposedly, an instantaneous glimpse of Janet Jackson’s naked boob was harmful enough to justify lawsuits, boycotts, mass mailing campaigns, and calls for the resignation of FCC officials. The American Family Association lead the charge in all of these pursuits and spent months campaigning for stringent censorship in every form of media. However, while that organization shames the female body it now chastises the 6 o’clock news for not showing videos of someone being beheaded. This dichotomy in your ideology is beyond misogynistic, beyond religious fundamentalism, beyond idiocy. It is patently insane.

I am thankful someone had the courage to get those photos out of Abu Ghraib. It is not hatred of George Bush that inspired their distribution. It is morality. What happened to those detainees is a grotesque violation of human rights and it is the media’s job to expose such aberrations – especially during a time of war. Had photos not been taken and shared with the media the abuse could be continuing today. The Pentagon certainly wasn’t correcting the problem on its own.

The reason why the prison torture photos are so disturbing is because the torturers are Americans. Americans are supposed to be different than Islamic fundamentalist terrorists. We preach to the world about human rights and use Saddam’s bloody rule as a justification to take over his country. Then these photos come out. They could potentially destroy our credibility in world affairs. They also will make the United States more hated around the world putting every single American in more danger from a terrorist attack. They deserve the attention and significance they are given. Their implication is immeasurable.

In your article and by the headings above the pictures you repeat a racist ‘us’ v. ‘them’ theme. You imply that the deaths of Americans are somehow more tragic than the brutal rape and sodomizing of prisoners. You value some human life above others based on nationality and religion and it is disgusting. You frame the war as a white Christian crusade against Islam. It is not. If it is anything it is a fight for freedom against terror and tyranny. Your ideology, your hatred of women, your racist views and your backward religious fundamentalism is as threatening to the freedom of Americans as any Islamic fundamentalist. The views you espouse are as much a perversion of Christianity as the Taliban is a perversion of Islam.

I am disgusted by your decision to post such horrifying and disturbing images. I am more disgusted you would use your web site to encourage hatred of all Muslims. To say that censoring nauseating, graphic, violent pictures in the news is a campaign against President Bush is dishonest and stupid. You hate Muslims, love George Bush, and hate that these photos are embarrassing his administration. So, you have created some bizarre fantasy of media bias to defend your man. You have no moral compass and no standards of decency.

Sincerely sickened,

Gabriel Hudson

----------
[[referenced links removed]]

Guest Commentary
Moral Equivalency Justified by Major News Groups
CAUTION: THIS COMMENTARY CONTAINS LINKS TO GRISLY, GRAPHIC IMAGES THAT ARE NOT APPROPRIATE FOR CHILDREN TO VIEW. THESE LINKS ARE PROVIDED FOR TWO REASONS: (1) TO DEMONSTRATE THE BRUTALITY OF THOSE AGAINST WHOM THE WAR ON TERRORISM IS BEING WAGED; AND (2) BECAUSE THE MAINSTREAM AMERICAN MEDIA HAS SELECTIVELY CHOSEN TO FOCUS ITS WRATH ON THE RECENT PRISON-ABUSE SCANDAL WITHOUT BALANCING ITS REPORTING BY SHOWING IMAGES PORTRAYING THE ATROCITIES COMMITTED BY TERRORISTS AGAINST AMERICANS.
By James L. and Lori Lambert
May 14, 2004
(AgapePress) - Last week I expressed my outrage over the media's lack of balance in reporting the discovery of Iraqi prison abuse and the related pictures that were splashed all over the front pages of many major news outlets around the country. I also recounted the horrific murders of non-combat personnel by butchers in the Middle East and how the "elite" media refused to show the imagery of their brutal deaths, yet simultaneously used the pages of their newspapers to parade footage of the Iraqi prisoners who were humiliated.
See last week's commentary by James Lambert
Not long after that commentary, a 26-year-old American worker, Nick Berg, was brutally murdered by terrorists who admittedly had strong ties to the al-Qaida terrorist organization headed by Osama bin Laden. The video depicting this murder shows scenes where these animals take approximately 30 seconds to carve off Michael's head while he is screaming. After this occurred, we can hear rabid chants to 'Allah', while they say, "God is great, God is great!" -- all while holding Berg's head up to the camera.
It is amazing that papers like the New York Times and many others gave short shrift to this brutal and ritualistic killing. Yet within the same pages of these same websites and newspapers, the Iraqi prison scandal was again highlighted in such a way as to seriously detract from Berg's tragic beheading.
It is strongly apparent that the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, the San Francisco Chronicle, CNN, and many other news groups are clearly agenda-driven. It particularly annoys me when media groups like the LA Times places an "Analysis" banner under their headlines to justify placement of editorialized reporting on their front page.
Traditionally the front pages of major newspapers have always been reserved for objective news stories. What papers like the LA Times have done is to transfer their opinions from the editorial pages to their front pages and couch it as "news." This is exactly what these media and other news groups have done to this Iraqi prison story. Further, it appears that extreme hatred of George W. Bush is the engine driving the prison-abuse story by various editors of these news groups. It has now become a partisan story to help bring down the President this fall.
While what occurred in the Abu Ghraib prison is indeed appalling, it is of extreme importance that we be reminded of other "abuses" that have resulted in death -- the death of Americans. For that reason, I have provided links to web pages that will provide "balance" to the imagery that clearly demonstrates the type of adversary we are up against.
While these images are brutal and graphic, these images express why we are fighting the war against terrorism. It is important, at this time, not to hide our collective heads in the sand, but to view this imagery so that we may "know the enemy."
CAUTION: THESE LINKS WILL TAKE THE READER TO GRISLY, GRAPHIC IMAGES THAT ARE NOT APPROPRIATE FOR CHILDREN TO VIEW. THE IMAGES DEPICT PEOPLE JUMPING FROM THE WORLD TRADE CENTER, ABUSE OF CHARRED BODIES, AND HUMAN DECAPITATION

James L. Lambert, who resides in San Diego, California, is a frequent contributor to AgapePress. He is the author of Porn in America (Huntington House), which can be purchased through the American Family Association; and a licensed loan sales agent who offers all types of real-estate mortgage loans. He can be reached via his website: JamesLLambert.com