Chris Christie Stops Homophobia In Its Tracks

Governor Chris Christie has vetoed the gay marriage bill in New Jersey. What does that say, really, about his character? Does it say anything?

Here's one way to interpret the news: 

I recently read an online article written by someone who self-defines as homosexual. I say self-define because, well, if gender is a social construct -- as we are so often told -- it follows that homosexuality is a social construct. But I digress. 

The article was about those who are gay and lesbian who oppose gay marriage. It may surprise you to know that such folks actually exist; it may further surprise you to learn that as many as 25% of gays and lesbians oppose same-sex marriage? Why would they do such a thing? 

If you listen closely to gay and lesbian critics of same-sex marriage, you might hear something like this: Gay marriage is just an attempt to sanitize gay relationships by those who are homophobic. That's right: the homophobes are those who support gay marriage. (I know, I know, it's all so confusing. But it's reality with which we deal here at Contratimes, and this is as real as real can get.)

Moreover, gays and lesbians who oppose gay marriage precisely do so because they want to self-define exactly what they believe qualifies as a morally and ontologically meaningful relationship. To some of these folks, the idea of "coupling" -- which is what the "monogamous" construct of gay marriage describes as the highest form of meaningful human attachment -- is itself repulsive and regressive, as it not only borrows from the straight world its ethos, but it relegates human interactions to the constraints of tradition: Go to school, get a job, meet someone, fall in love, and get married. This is entirely a straight construct, or so say those who wish to be free of all such constructs. And it is essentially homophobic: gay relationships can only be in their fullest sense authentic and real if marriage is achieved. 

It's akin to this: Gay marriage makes "honest" men out of, well, men; and honest women out of women. 

Hence, it is arguable that Gov. Chris Christie has thwarted homophobia in its worst form, i.e., legislation that actually institutionalizes homophobia. Does that not make him a hero? Perhaps. 

Fascinating, no? 

Anyhow, just something to think about. Not that anyone wants you to REALLY think about this stuff. Well, that's not entirely true. I want you to think about it -- deeply. 

Peace. 

©2012/Contratimes. All rights reserved. 

It IS Interesting, Isn't It?

It is one of life's greatest puzzles how often in a day a man can be condemned for being 'judgmental.'

Occupy Yourselves

Thus saith the Sage:

Alas, how desperate we've become when we hold out our hands begging the rich to deliver us. How sad it is that we constantly define ourselves by what others have that we do not have. In this we've been reduced to crass consumers, crass materialists: "We want to consume as much as they consume! We want to consume as much political power as they consume! It's not fair! They consume more than we consume! It's our turn!"

Of course "the rich" are mostly flattered.: they love that so many people have defined themselves by what the rich have; "the rich" love the adoration and attention: "Yes, yes. Of course, you need us. Of course you are not fulfilled unless you have what we have. Of course your lives are pitiable and unenviable; you are right to think that you will only be happy if you have what we have or we have less of what you want. We would love to help you. Here, take our increased tax payments; trickle them down to yourselves as you see fit. We are, after all, here to make you happy. And even then we will make money off of you. Thanks for the adoration. And thanks for needing us so desperately."

It's a sad, sad time. For centuries poets and prophets, novelists and philosophers, have all called us to find power in the transcendent; to find meaning in truth, love, beauty; in ourselves, in God, or in the personal creation of something glorious. We were taught that money, power, fame and acquisitiveness were death; that consumerism is a nullity. But now we've been reduced to mere grasping hands, plaintive and discontent, as we wait for things to trickle down or plan some takeover of others' goods. We have become the opposite of all things holy and wise; we seethe with envy and resentment, stuck in the groove of one ringing complaint: WE WANT MORE! THEY HAVE TOO MUCH! WE WANT MORE THINGS, MORE MONEY, MORE POWER! IT'S OUR TURN TO CONSUME! IT'S OUR RIGHT! 

How sad, indeed. The man who defines himself according to those who have what he does not have, can only end in sorrow. He's less than human, having reduced himself to materialistic consumption. He's lost his self.  But it's time not to occupy Wall Street. It's time to occupy the souls we have lost. Occupy Yourselves, speaks the Sage. Is your life that frivolous, that meaningless, that you cannot find meaning and happiness without looking upward at the penthouses and towering homes of the rich? Have you no decency; do you not feel any shame for reducing yourself to "the 99%"? Alas, you are worth more than such reduction! You are of infinite worth, and yet you remain in poverty if you think your worth must come from what you berate, decry, and yet beg for! CREATE your own wealth and to hell with what others have. Stop it! Occupy Yourself, I tell you!   

Or so pleads the Sage. And he pleads this: Stop letting your leaders, those who speak loudest about injustice, enslave you. They tell you that you "really can't be happy, or have meaningful lives, until you have MORE OF WHAT THE RICH HAVE!" 

In other words, stop letting those who denigrate your station in life DEFINE what makes for a happy, meaningful, productive life. You don't need them to sow envy and disappointment in your hearts. Their promises are cruel because they oppress you; and their promises are cruel because they are empty. 

Sorry, my dear friends, but we are too good to merely worry about what the rich have or what we don't have. Who really cares? And does it matter if "trickle-down" happens by the "invisible hands" of a free market, or by the visibly forceful hand of the State? After all, Barack Obama and his peers believe in trickle-down economics, they just think the spigot should be moved and directed. Is that really any different? It still enslaves; it still tells the Have-Nots that they ought to define themselves as being "less than", as being the ones who need help; that they are somehow deficient. In fact, such a position is deliberate, and hence is all the more oppressive. The free-market trickle-down at least makes no overt value judgment of people; but intentional wealth-redistribution, the kind which Mr. Obama ostensibly defends, does make such value judgments: "Here, you need this because, well, you are SO NEEDY -- and we can help. This is your life reduced to money, to acquisition, all in the name of 'leveling the playing field, the materialism playing field.'"  

Who cares for that? 

The sagacious do not. They are free.

Be wise, be free -- and occupy yourselves. 

Peace. 

©Bill Gnade/2012