matt | August 4, 2012
Speaking of race, I encountered this article, which basically says that being white and dressing up as a nonwhite character is fine, unless you color your skin. Digging through the comments, the rules seem to be:
- Using blue body paint to be one of the aliens from Avatar? Fine.
- I dress up as Kirk, and Liz paints her skin green and wears a bikini? Also fine (and hawt).
- I use black body paint and dress up like a Klingon? Probably fine.
- I dress up and use black paint to be Ben Sisko (one of the most badass federation commanders ever, I might add – I mean, come on, the dude punched Q), then I’m being offensive because of the historical connotations of blackface.
Really? Really? We haven’t gotten past this? I mean, that was one of the core themes of original Trek which Roddenberry wanted to address, and that was FIFTY YEARS AGO.
Why, when there are so many other things to fight about, we’re still getting all butthurt over arbitrary conditions of genetics?
matt | August 3, 2012
“I think we are inviting God’s judgment on our nation when we shake our fist at Him and say, ‘We know better than you as to what constitutes a marriage’. I pray God’s mercy on our generation that has such a prideful, arrogant attitude to think that we have the audacity to define what marriage is about.”
—Dan Cathy, COO Chick-fil-A
Not surprisingly, this is not the first time someone has professed to know the will of God when it comes to marriage:
Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.
–Leon M. Bazile, judge in Loving v. Virginia
Further, the Defense of Marriage Act is not exactly a new idea either. Codifying what constitutes a legitimate marriage, lest it lead to the downfall of civilization, has been done before.
It’s the same playbook, run again, just with a different group being denied their civil rights this time. Here is what the Supreme Court had to say about this playbook last time:
Marriage is one of the “basic civil rights of man,” fundamental to our very existence and survival…. To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State’s citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.
— Loving v. Virginia Decision
Now, for everyone who is supporting Chick-fil-A, I ask – if they were donating to groups promoting racial segregation and defending traditional marriage as between people of the same race, and that will be punished for being so arrogant as to presume to change that definition, would you still back them?
Of course, many of those folks will claim that this is somehow special and different.
It’s not, and everyone who believes in equal rights of free people should realize that.
matt | August 3, 2012
I’ll see if maybe I can keep it up. There’s enough stuff going on to talk about (that’s actually worth talking about), that I have things to write, but I’ve just been busy.
We put in the garden, and that’s going well.
Picked up some kayaks for our anniversary, and have been paddling about in those.
We’ve got chickens now (I’ll need to post pics) – 10 of them.
We’ve been working on the house, working at work (times are busy for both of us of late), not much else.
Just living life, I guess.