Here Thar Be Monsters!
Read in over 149 countries and 17 languages. Now at Augenguy.com! The original Indonesia Bureau brings you news and opinion with an IndoTex® flavor Monday thru Friday at 9a WIB (8p CST), from the other side of the argument to the other side of the planet. Be sure to check out Radio Far Side. Send comments_to firstname.lastname@example.org, and tell all your friends. Sampai jumpa, y'all!
Fact is, we completed the Ciputra Artpreneur Center and successfully brought the first-ever Broadway musical to Indonesia (Beauty and the Beast) with a sell-out audience for 18 performances. All we can say is...we told you so.
Anyway, don't want to get too far afield of today's fun little topic, though mythical bondings between French maidens and enchanted beasts isn't too far off track. Our topic today is the US Supreme Court's decision to force "gay marriage" down the throats of an entire nation - like it or not.
Now before you start rolling your eyes and clicking off to oblivion, we never have the usual take on things that others offer up. No siree, if you stick with us for a minute, you're going to get a whole different perspective on things, because...
Mr. and Mrs. Heterosexual, who don't cotton with this "gay marriage" thing? Guess what? It's your fault. It's all because you are a racist eugenicist that submits to central authority like a groveling slave that the US (and soon the world at large) has created "gay marriages".
Yup, you heard us right. Every single straight couple who has been married in the United States since the mid-1800s (hmmm...there's that War of Northern Aggression date again) is guilty of encouraging and empowering the state to dictate who can and cannot be married in the US.
First, a license is permission from whatever authority to do something that would otherwise be illegal. Since men and women have been creating bonded pairs for the purposes of procreation since the dawn of time, it hardly seems possible that the state would consider marriage an illegal act unless licensed by the ruling class, but there it is.
Much like it still is in Indonesia, the West started issuing marriage licenses in the Middle Ages to prevent mixed marriages, whether that meant mixed race, religion or some other criteria. The result was that the state authority had the power to deny couples the right to marriage if it felt offended in some way by the union.
No matter how you spin this, the fact remains that if you obtained a marriage license from some "authority" before you got married, then you are: 1) property of the state, and 2) receiving permission to do something otherwise illegal.
To further make matters worse, in the US and most countries where the state is granted the power to say who can and cannot get married, there is a laundry list of benefits that go with the license, like so many carrots on a stick to make you feel all warm and fuzzy about surrendering your God-given right to choose and breed with any mate you want.
In most cases, the law supports the rights of spouses to co-own and inherit property, receive tax breaks, get retirement benefits from the spouse's account, &c.
So, here we have folks not only conceding their right to choose a mate, but demanding and receiving special treats for doing so. This, in turn, sets up a special class of folks set apart from the rest by unequal treatment, which in the US violates the perceived ideal of "equality" under the law. Therefore, by accepting and participating in this system, you are directly responsible for the Supreme Court dicision to "allow" other types of unions under the "law" so that everyone is "equal," except for straight white males and drag queens.
And lest you think we hold ourselves above blame, we are just as guilty four times over in two countries. So all that you stuff up there is as much reflexive as accusative.
When we hear all the ballyhoo from the religious groups about "gay marriage," we must laugh, because in the end, all they are arguing is the identity of the slave owner, not the status of being a slave. Us Far Siders see no difference in begging the state or religious "authorities" for permission to do anything, much less get married.
If you don't agree with "gay marriage," then stop getting licenses and stop accepting special benefits. Instead, start using contracts, wills, trusts, and other long-established means of ensuring your mate and/or children get your property when you die. Stop using and accepting state-sanctioned identities, such as birth certificates, marriage certificates, and such. When your children of contract are born, simply note the details and havetwo unrelated witnesses sign it. Same thing under the law, only you are taking the power back to issue such a document.
Oh sure, this will mean that two men or two women, or even one women and three men will be out setting up contractual bonds. So what, who cares? Children are still protected as minors under their parents' guidance, and animals still don't have human rights, so they cannot enter into a contract of marriage, because neither children nor animals have obtained reason, and thus cannot consent to contract. This prevents the state from going even further afield with all this marriage non-sense, as is likely now that its power is confirmed (which is really what the Supreme Court decision was about - not "gay marriage").
So you, dear reader, are likely thinking, "Hey, so what is your stance on "gay marriage?"
We hold the opion that marriage is a physical, emotional, spiritual, and genetic bond between two people, in which the bond results in the co-mingling of DNA in a unique individual we commonly call a child. Marriage, therefore, is the creation of "family" related by blood from what where once complete strangers. Thus, a marriage can never take place in the absence of offspirng (remember the whole consummation thing?).
As for bonds between same-sex partners, you are more than welcome to enter into a contract. We fully support the right of free and reasonable people to enter into contracts for pretty much any lawful reason. We refuse to call it a marriage, though, thank you very much.
Marriage is something that takes place far beyond the reaches of court decisions and contracts. It takes place at both a microscopic level and at a metaphysical level, and no amount of sperm donors and turkey basters will ever achieve that. Nor will the eventual power of science to take DNA from two same-sex partners and combine it in a dish. These are facsimiles of marriage, but they are not transcendent.
So, the dear reader asks, "Does this mean you are or are not in favor of "gay marriage?"
Quite simply, we are saying "gay marriage" is impossible under any circumstance, regardless of how much paperwork you plaster over it. It is not a matter of agreeing or believing in something, it's just a fact.
The right decision in Obergefell v. Hodges would have been for the US Supreme Court to declare marriage licenses unconstitutional and that Last Wills and Contracts were sufficient to bestow property and benefits on whomever one wanted.
Ha! In your dreams...
As usual, poorcated Americans are once again reacting emotionally to something with little or no historical background or truth,
The recent rush to ban the Confederate flag and remove it from public spaces (and even cop underwear) is founded on profound ignorance fed by media numbnuts who know even less than us normal folks. Because a confused and drug-addled (pharma, not illegal) young man entered a South Carolina church and killed some people - also based on a profound ignorance of history - the US is in an orgasm of symbol destruction.
For the many readers here who are not Americans, a little background.
From 1860-1865, the United States became embroiled in a civil war, commonly called (by educated people) the War of Northern Aggression. The northern and southern tiers of States broke apart and drew a line, called Mason-Dixon, because there were some fundamental differences in cultures and politics.
At that time, the north was increasingly becoming industrialized, while the south was largely agrarian. The US Congress was dominated by representatives from the north, because numbers were based on population, and the north had quite a few more voting folks than the south. This led to piles of legislation in the Congressional pipeline that favored the north at the expense of the south.
The south was being heavily taxed without ample representation, and the federal government was increasingly dictating to the southern States in violation of the Tenth Amendment protecting States' Rights.
The north was also getting filthy rich on finished manufactured products using raw materials produced in the south, but naturally were crushing prices for the raw materials to increase profits. I know, hard to imagine, but Yankee financiers were getting fat while heavily manipulating the prices of things like cotton and other agricultural products.
Tempers flared. Things got out of hand. The south dared to develop other markets and cut off supplies to the north. The north got bend out of shape and blockaded southern ports. Shots were fired. A war started.
Now you may notice that, among the reasons for the war, slavery was not one of them. In fact, slavery was still common on both sides of the Mason-Dixon line, but the importation of slaves had already stopped and the institution itself was slowly fading out. Texas had banned the slave trade (though it still allowed slave owners to bring their property from outside). The south was a bit slower, because of the manpower needed to run the large plantations, but the north was benefiting from the products of slavery as much or more than the south.
The Confederate flag, therefore, was not a symbol of racism and slavery, it was a symbol of States' Rights, anti-federalism and opposition to the undue power of international bankers and financial interests.
In other words, the Confederate flag represents the right to self-rule, free and open markets, and decentralized government. It also represents the economic truism that production should always be more powerful than finance.
When you look at the history behind the symbol, in fact, it becomes apparent who wants to ban the Confederate flag and why. The modern slave owners - bankers and fascist governments - don't want anyone thinking about why hundreds of thousands of Americans die defending their way of life from Yankee carpetbaggers.
In addition, it's important to remember that not one single slave was ever brought to North America under the Confederate flag. Nearly every single slave was imported under the British and US flags. In fact, some of the largest slave markets, even at the time of the War of Northern Aggression, were north of the Mason-Dixon line.
One other bit of information educated people should keep in mind: it was the US Democratic Party that introduced the pro-slavery Dredd Scott legislation. If you are one of those poor, mind-controlled victims who still vote, and you choose the Democratic candidates, then you are supporting the party that vehemently defended slavery.
If you argue that the Democrats no longer believe that way, then you would obviously vote for the Nazi party, as well. And if the Democrats no longer support slavery, then why did it create the Federal Reserve, the income tax, Social Security, and Obamacare. Yup, even today, you are supporting slavery - only now it's for everyone and not just a certain class of folks.
So, if you are a real, educated person, then you would not only celebrate the Confederate flag, but would move immediately to ban the British and US flags, and declare the Democratic Party an enemy of the state and freedom.
By the way, in 1860, the people of Texas voted 4-1 to secede from the US and once again become a free and separate nation. It never joined the Confederacy, but remained neutral with sympathies to the South. At the end of the war, Texas was taken by force by federal troops and has never been a legal "state" since then. All educated people know that.