Something that gets on my nerves about Gay society today would be the political alliance a member of the LGBT community makes to the Democratic party. I myself once felt this was the party which best served the interest of the LGBT community and instinctively felt it would be within my own self interest to vote for the candidate running under the Democratic ticket. This was a foolish oversight on my part simply because there doesn’t seem to be any interest thus far from the Democratic party supporting the rights of LGBT people.
I know some people who are reading this already fired up and are hitting up Google to find literature that supports otherwise. Just wait a second before you get upset because there is a point to all of this.
I felt compelled to right this because recently the Huffington Post syndicated an article from Towleroad which was about the owners of Manhunt making a donation to the McCain campaign. Even though the donation was made in March 2008 for whatever reason it recently caught the attention of these media outlets. At least the only two (which I know) which feel it is news their readers might find interesting.
Reading the comments people had about the article on Towleroad sounded a little familiar to me. They seemed to sum up exactly how I would have felt about the donation to a campaign which holds little if any tolerance for the rights of LGBT people made by the owners of a Gay sex site no less! Ignorance is most certainly bliss and hindsight is a most fortunate luxury.
The article captions an image which reflects one of the owners of Manhunt responding to a comment left on another blogs article where they were called a liberal which was evidently offensive to the owner(s) of Manhunt. The comment continues to justify the donation by insisting that matters of National security were important and one could worry about gay agenda later.
What the response fails to recognize is this “gay agenda” is only another example how our government denies us our right to due process and fails to validate our civil liberties. Gay marriage is a civil right and if anyone is against whether they be straight or gay would be allowing our government to limit there own civil liberties.
This limit on our civil liberties is further supported by Obama’s campaign which really doesn’t do anything other than dangle a carrot in the face of the LGBT voters by supporting Civil Unions. They had to keep the dedicated members of the Gay community happy because there after all this social obligation every LGBT member has to vote for the Democrat. This is why off-brand products and designer impostor merchandise make their way to the shelves because people are happy just with the label and not necessarily with the real thing. I suppose that buying a pile of fertilizer to live wouldn’t be so bad as long as the person who sold it to me called it a piece of prime real estate and more importantly if the deed to said property identified it as something to the like.
TJ Maxx and Marshall’s entire business model is based around buying liquidated designer clothing then selling to customers who generally feel satisfied they found a good deal on this name brand merchandise even though the tag might be torn off or marked through. Everyone knows it came from Gucci so who cares where it came from despite the fact it was bought and resold with the understanding the said items was damaged or flawed. Better yet those people who sell those named brand bags on the street keep showing up and selling knock off purses because some fool feels happy to buy something that just has a designer label on it. Even though it is evident to all parties involved in the transaction they are buying bologna. To everyone else it looks real or at least that’s what the tag says so we have no other choice but to manifest this entire facade into our own realities.
Some people feel calling Civil Unions between Gay people protects to sanctity of Marriage. I guess this would be a valid argument should Mary and Joseph have gone down to Jerusalem City Hall to receive a marriage license before any formal ceremony. I have to wonder were there any vigilantes to protect the sanctity of marriage when we stopped looking for the blessing from our church and started looking for a piece of paper which contained the names of two locals and secured a home for it in an official government filing cabinet. There seems to be this lack of documentation about exactly how the conversion took place. I would be curious to know if the government would “grandfather” any existing marriages which existed prior to having established the requirement for public record. It is worth noting there had been Sixteen Centuries of marriages before the need for any such public record required for marriage to actually exist. This argument as you can see isn’t much of one but people but I guess they like giving the government limit our civil liberties. More than likely violation of their civil liberties hasn’t hit home yet. Maybe if it ever got to the point that we would have to get permission from our government so a family would be allowed to legally move to another state they might get the point then that we should have stopped letting our rights be taken away from us.
Nobody suggested that allowing everyone to sit at the front of the bus would be OK as long as to some weren’t allowed to mentally recognize that they were actually sitting at the front of the bus even though they could sit where the please.
The Libertarian party has embraced same sex marriages since the 1970s and no fancy word alternative to pacify those who might not want to give liberties to others. Bob Barr is the candidate for the Libertarian party. So those who feel that voting for the Democratic party is what you should do simply because you are a member for the LGBT community wake up because they still would like to keep limiting your rights. They just want to make sure they get your vote even though it gives an impression of being inadequate of a title reserved for more traditional marriages. Don’t let other people make your mind up for you.
