there’s a happy man
2005-04-29— Posted by: allegra
Happy family news
2005-04-29— Posted by: allegra
My cousin Rawd and his partner Graeme are getting married. I know that as an anarchist, I should fulminate about how marriage is propertarian and not required between two free people and blah blah blah woof woof; but I can’t help being pleased anyway.
I just reviewed this whole paragraph and deleted it.
It was funny, and it was true, and it was very disrespectful to the woman who would be my mother in law if she hadn’t told me how to run my wedding.
Anyway, my mum is off to Regina for the wedding, and her email, which I won’t quote for privacy reasons, reminded me of nothing so much as a lab puppy squirming with joy to see its master come home in terms of its emotional tone. I think this is the first same sex marriage in our family and I’m sure it won’t be the last. I know some people find same sex marriage is appalling, but I think they don’t get the “God is Love” thing. And, as a Christian minister in the US pointed out once, there are something like 1000 injunctions in the Bible about how to treat the poor, 60 or 70 about how straight people should behave, and something less than five about homosexuality. If the Bible is really God’s word – and you’ll have to admit this is not universally accepted – a true Christian is more concerned with poverty than the sexual behaviour of any of his or her neighbours. But if you tell real Christians that, they get upset.
My favourite two questions are “If Joseph wasn’t Jesus’ daddy, why does the Bible go into his genealogy with such detail?” and “Why does the Bible call bats birds?” NOTE: There is no right answer to either of these questions. Generally Christians I mention this to say they’ll have to take it up with their pastors, and then they perplex me by never getting back to me on the subject.
this is what I wrote to the newspaper
2005-04-29— Posted by: allegra
I just shook my head when I read the article entitled Spanish-language TV billboards strike a nerve. Mr. Gheen's a racist, and should get called on it. Which layer of racism is more offensive? The fact that he's having a little trouble dealing with the demographic reality of California circa 2005, or that he forgets who was there first? The First Nations - or aboriginal peoples, or autochthones, or Indians - were in California first. Then the Spanish pushed them out of the way. Then the Americans pushed the Spanish out of the way. Now Mr. Gheen is crying about how 'fringe elements' are not paying attention to American territorial claims. It doesn't seem to me that Americans have ever given a tinker's cuss about anybody's territorial claims but their own; given California's history of changing hands when somebody bigger comes along, maybe Mr. Gheen should just fold his hands in resignation, or go kick President Bush's door down - he's the one shamelessly pandering to the Hispanic vote by changing his tune on the immigration issue depending on who is voting and where. California's economy would collapse without economic migrants, a fact Mr. Gheen is choosing to ignore in his readiness to be offended by the purchasing power (and sense of humour) of the Hispanic community. Besides, history shows that empires come and go. Why not the American empire? Of course, as an urban Canadian, I view the whole issue of cultural assimilation differently. Within 10 years, I'm going to be a member of the white (or as I prefer to put it, pink) minority in Vancouver. It's no big deal by me. If Mr. Gheen isn't jiggy with the advantages of multiculturalism, maybe it's because he's not making money from it yet. Or maybe he's got a nice sinecure being a not so closet racist. It seems in modern day America, you can always make a living from hatred, especially if you wrap it in a flag. I can deal with the hatred - I can even understand it. It's the wilful ignorance of the reality of the interrelationship between the state of California and its many flavored & layered Hispanic community that makes me wonder about Mr. Gheen.
