My Robot Is Pregnant theme song!

tough guy poetry and manly stories of loneliness
all contents copyright Jon Rolston 2004, 2005, 2006

May 27, 2009

gay dreams

They went up for a duet of some old soul oldie, a slow jam, I just can’t remember the name of the song because they were both so uninspired. The girl had her cell phone out and was texting while the guy sang his verse. Honestly. I’ve never seen anything like it. She disrespected us all. Even those of you who just had to read about it.
I slept twelve hours last night, which isn’t shocking since I’ve been working twelve hour days for a while now. I got home and laid down and woke up at 630 in the morning. I feel great. It just means I missed the rallies downtown protesting the Court’s upholding the ban on same sex marriage. It never inspires confidence in the Constitution and all the American Hoopla about democracy and freedom when a majority can vote away the rights of a minority and have the Court stand behind it.
Marriage offers special rights. As a single guy, I get screwed out of those rights just as much as two gay guys in love do. I can’t put my roommate or my friend or my sister on my health plan. The way marriage is set up today makes it a tax shelter. How is that sacred? It’s profane is what it is. So Christians should be lobbying to remove these governmental benefits from their sacred unions now that they’ve secured it only for themselves. Prove to us that marriage is holy. Outlaw divorce. Ban tax benefits. I sound like a dreamer.
I woke up this morning from a dream I was having in cartoon form. It was like a G.I. Joe cartoon I guess, and a bomb exploded under the sea and our unit watched as the wave rose and it threw my old electric razor into the air, which turned into a guided missile and destroyed enemy planes. I got up and took a shower and thought about the future where dreams will be recorded. In that age the best dreamers will be superstars. It will turn out that a few of us have incredibly more fantastic and coherent dreams than the rest of us, and we will be able to watch those dreams like a viral Youtube video.
That’s all I have to say for now.


  1. Apologies in advance for the long post.

    I’ve always felt that people confuse law with religion/morality on this issue. People seem to look to the law to uphold their historical belief system on this subject. Personally, I could care less whether two guys or two girls want to marry each other. As long as they both are of sound adult mind, I say whatever. I must draw that last distinction or else I’d be saying that I’m ok with people marrying animals or adults marrying children or stuff like that. The buck has to stop somewhere. Polygamy is a gray area but I’d lean away from it (life is complicated enough with one spouse).

    Anyhow, I was about to say that I’ve never heard a good argument for why gay people shouldn’t be allowed to marry each other. So, when the high court of (flaming liberal) California weighs in on that side of the aisle, I have to read their rationale.

    Here’s the first thing I noted: The official court opinion is 185 pages long! Can you imagine having a job where every time you made a decision you had to write a book about it? A book that almost no one will read? Well, Chief Justice Ronald M. George, I’ll give it a skim…

    It seems worth noting that this same court ruled in 2008 that the California marriage laws that limited marriage to a man and woman were unconstitutional (state level). So, people who don’t like gay marriage managed to get Prop 8 out for public vote and the majority of California voted to amend that state constitution to say marriage is only between a man and woman. This court was asked to decide if such an amendment to the constitution should be allowed and what to do with the 18000 fags (just kidding) that got married before Prop 8 passed.

    Money quote here on what the court has to consider: “the principal issue before us concerns the scope of the right of the people, under the provisions of the California Constitution, to change or alter the state Constitution itself through the initiative process so as to incorporate such a limitation as an explicit section of the state Constitution.” So, the court isn’t deliberating gay marriage at all. This is all about whether the process used to amend (or was it revise?) the constitution with Prop 8 was itself constitutional.

    I have no interest in vetting the court’s argument that this change was an amendment and not a revision. I’m guessing that their rationale was sound. I’m also going to guess that if someone used this process to pass something like banning prayer in school, San Francisco wouldn’t be all up in arms and Jon wouldn’t be writing about it. Maybe I’m wrong about that but my point is that the court shouldn’t be beat up for upholding a process that has been used to make over 500 amendments to California’s constitution over the past 160 years.

    So, what do gay couples actually lose with Prop 8? They still have the right to engage in civil unions so how does that differ from marriage? Here’s a helpful link:

    3 main differences between marriage and civil unions:

    1. Federal benefits – civil unions don’t get them. This is part of the Defense of Marriage act of 1996 (during a liberal administration this got in?). Say what you want about that bit of legislation but the main point here is that California can’t do anything about that. The changes to their constitution have no impact on federal views of marriage. This one’s out of scope.

    2. Portability – A civil union might not be valid if you move to a state that doesn’t support them. Again not something California has real control over but if slapping the ‘marriage’ tag on a union forces other states to honor that union then I understand why this is an important issue.

    3. The word ‘marriage’ – Here’s the real core of the issue. Gay people want to be able to say they’re married. Straight people don’t want them to be able to say it. Frankly, I can’t get on either side of this debate. I simply don’t care enough.

    So, Jon, rail on in the name of same sex marriage but don’t beat up the poor state of California unless the word marriage is that important to you. Instead, take the fight to the feds, that’s where the real oppression exists. Be careful, though, if you succeed in changing the world and keep the same roommate for 7 years, you might find yourself in a common-law gay marriage! ;-)

    Comment by Lyle_s — May 27, 2009 @ 9:36 am

  2. Lyle,I don’t know you but you said a mouthful. Where are the footnotes and bibliography for that paper?

    Rolston, I say take your one year union to the streets though i think it might be better suited as bi-annual…like smog certificates. Check for your writing at a later date.

    Comment by n.d.p. — May 27, 2009 @ 7:49 pm

  3. Thank you for putting all that work into the comment. You’ve read more than I have. Can I ask a question? If the court says, as they originally did, that limiting a marriage to a man and woman is wrong, why then should it be put to a popular vote? Democracy isn’t supposed to be about popular votes. It’s supposed to be a system of protection for minorities. Equal rights for all. Equality regardless of monetary or religious influence. The Constitution (the big one) is our guiding legal document. It’s the one that says we have equal rights regardless of what a majority thinks should happen to a minority. If californias state constitution doesn’t afford a citizen that right, you’d think going to the federal level would solve the problem, right? Wasn’t it the Dred Scott case that proved the Constitution could be ignored for years? Can you say Gays are treated equally under American law at the federal or state level? I can’t see an argument for that. So there has been a failure of justice. I guess they wrote 185 pages because they are lying. The facts don’t take long.

    Comment by Rolston — May 28, 2009 @ 12:51 am

  4. Lyle, will we be able to playback our dreams someday? I really want that.

    Comment by Rolston — May 28, 2009 @ 1:00 am

  5. “Democracy isn’t supposed to be about popular votes.”

    Really? Seems like a core philosophy, to me. Majority rules. I don’t think democracy was ever designed to protect minorities. What it does allow us to do is make provisions to protect them, when the people want it.

    Is it perfect? Of course not. Is the majority wrong in this case? I would say so. But that doesn’t mean the system is broken. It means people need to wake up and realize their arguments against gay marriage are irrational. These things take time. Can you tell me that 20 years ago you would have fought for gay marriage? The beauty of our country lies in the freedom to speak our minds which allows for open discussion that leads (eventually) to the right decisions being made. That’s how we get to the protection of minorities.

    What the courts ruled in 2008 is basically that the state couldn’t pass laws limiting marriage to a man and a woman because those laws weren’t backed up by the state constitution. Basically they were saying that this issue needed to be decided at the constitution level. Hence, Prop 8 was born.

    Marriage is managed at the state level. That’s not going to change. All the feds can do is control things related to their benefits. Unfortunately, they chose to shut out married gays in 1996.

    It’s kind of funny to me that New England is leading the progressive movement on this issue and California can’t get out of its own way. I suppose gay folks may not want to fly across the country to get married but they should have as much if not more disposable income than anyone else in the country. Maybe New England is making a tourism play for gay couples! Get all that good gay money up in there to stimulate the local economy. Maybe they’ll all move up there and Poops can make a killing painting rainbows on their houses!

    If you want to play back your dreams, make it happen. Come to Wisconsin and start working with that group that’s reading minds in Madison. I was up there last weekend, nice country in the warm month(s).

    Comment by Lyle_s — May 28, 2009 @ 6:40 am

  6. Being a lazy idealist talking in broad stripes makes it hard to match your arguments Lyle. Definitely can’t argue that twenty years ago I would have argued for gay marriage. Sophomore year we were still calling each other faggot. Gay people weren’t real.

    My main point is, I don’t think Democracy (and it’s system of popular vote) means we can vote to ban a freedom, but that’s how it is used. When it happens the Supreme Court is supposed to step in and say, “The will of the people is counter to the will of the Constitution. The people are overruled.”
    If the Cal state constitution didn’t allow bans on gay marriage and they ammend it to include one, our larger federal constitution should step in and prevent that. Democracy to me means we have freedoms we protect through laws. Yes, democracy is about free elections where citizens can choose their fate, but our Democracy has a Constitution and Bill of Rights at its core that trumps mob rule.

    Any way, it’s fairly obvious in another generation most if not all states will allow gay marriage, if only for the reason you provide – money. Double income no kids. Maybe adoption should become mandatory for gays so they don’t have all this extra money to organize politically. Maybe Poops could hire some of his thespian friends from Peter Pan to be the face of his new gay friendly paint company? Or he could be a bear, wear a leather vest and ride his dirt bike to the clients house and give an estimate for services. There seems to be more than a few people in this city who adopt a “gay” demeanor or accent in order to stay competitive. Especially in the design world where a straight man is bottom of the barrel, used to haul furniture and clean up after people.

    Comment by Rolston — May 28, 2009 @ 9:21 am

  7. BTW My roommate moved out a two months ago. For a trial separation. Now Chris and his cat David live with me.

    Comment by Rolston — May 28, 2009 @ 9:24 am

  8. The Bill of rights is pretty specific in what it deems to be freedoms. I don’t think gay marriage is in there. Any chance you’re confusing our Constitution with the Declaration of Independence (Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness)? Anyhow, I’ll leave the research to you on that one. I’m much more interested in how pursuing this Poops the gay painter tangent.

    Whadda you say, Poopies? You up for breaking out the crotchless painter’s pants and rainbow drop cloths?

    Comment by Lyle_s — May 28, 2009 @ 9:53 am

  9. Oh boy,that would negate the straightness right out of me, despite my natural attraction to crotchless things. Don’t let any prejudice you may have against gay voters, deter you from honestly asking yourself what this really means to you. We all should commence spriritual growth, but why do we have to do it throught the constitution? The practical individual of today is a stickler for facts and results. I used to amuse myself by cynically dissecting the beleifs of gay men and women, But now i may observe people of all races, colors and creeds that are demonstrating a degree of stability, happiness, which I could have sought in the very beginning, without judgement. Why are you asking me? I took 7 years of highschool?

    Comment by poopies — May 28, 2009 @ 1:15 pm

  10. I’m sure I’m confused, I haven’t read those things since a fourth grade book report. The Constitution does call for securing “the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves” in the first sentence. I did twenty seconds of research for that. Let’s call this one done. poop-a-loop can take over.

    Comment by Rolston — May 28, 2009 @ 9:17 pm

  11. maybe i missed the point of this post…cuz i thought it was about the viral you tube dream thingie someone might be inventing one of these days… that’s what I’M waiting for.

    course, i do hope gays have the right to marry, live together, get insurance and all the rest of it long before that.

    but, when do you think the dream recorder thing is gonna happen? seriously. i want one.

    Comment by molly — June 6, 2009 @ 9:53 am

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Powered by WordPress | Managed by Whole Boar