?

Log in

No account? Create an account
IBNeko's Journal-Nyo~!
ibneko
ibneko
"The Grinch Who Stole Marriage"

Every Gay down in Gayville liked Gay Marriage a lot......
But the Grinch, who lived just east of Gayville, did NOT!!
The Grinch hated happy Gays! The whole Marriage season!
Now, please don't ask why. No one quite knows the reason.
It could be his head wasn't screwed on just right.
It could be, perhaps, his Florsheims were too tight.
But I think the most likely reason of all was
His heart and brain were two sizes too small.
"And they're buying their tuxes!" he snarled with a sneer,
"Tomorrow's the first Gay Wedding! It's practically here!"
Then he growled, with his Grinch fingers nervously drumming,
"I MUST find some way to stop Gay Marriage from coming!"
For, tomorrow, he knew... All the Gay girls and boys
would wake bright and early. They'd rush for their vows!
And then! Oh, the Joys! Oh, the Joys!
And THEN they'd do something he liked least of all!
Every Gay down in Gayville the tall and the small,
would stand close together, all happy and blissing.
They'd stand hand-in-hand. And the Gays would start kissing!
"I MUST stop Gay Marriage from coming! ...But HOW?"
Then he got an idea! An awful idea!
THE GRINCH GOT A WONDERFUL, AWFUL IDEA!

"I know what to do!" The Grinch laughed in his throat.
And he went to his closet, grabbed his sheet and his hood.
And he chuckled, and clucked, with a great Grinchy word!
"With this beard and this cross, I look just like our Lord!"

"All I need is a Scripture..." The Grinch looked around.
But, true Scripture is scarce, there was none to be found.
Did that stop the old Grinch...? No! The Grinch simply said,
"With no Scripture on Marriage, I'll fake one instead!"
"It's one man and one woman," the Grinch falsely said.
Then he broke in the courthouse. A rather tight pinch.
But, if Georgie could do it, then so could the Grinch.
The little Gay benefits hung in a row.
"These bennies," he grinned, "are the first things to go!"
Then he slithered and slunk, with a smile most uncanny,
around the whole room, and he took every benny!
Health care for partners! Doctors for kiddies!
Tax rights! Adoptions! Pensions and Wills!
And he stuffed them in bags. Then the Grinch, with a chill,
Stuffed all the bags, one by one, in his bill.
Then he slunk to the kitchen, and stole Wedding Cake.
He cleaned out that icebox and made it look straight.
He took the Gay-bar keys! He took the Gay Flag.
Why, that Grinch even took their last Gay birdseed bag!"And NOW!" grinned the Grinch, "I will pocket their Rings."
And the Grinch grabbed the Rings, and he started to shove
when he heard a small sound like the coo of a dove.
He turned around fast, and off flew his hood.
Little Lisa-Bi Gay behind him sadly stood.
The Grinch had been caught by small Lisa-Bi.
She stared at the Grinch and said, "My, oh, my, why?"
"Why are you taking our Wedding Rings? WHY?"
But, you know, that old Grinch was so smart and so slick
He thought up a lie, and he thought it up quick!
"Why, my sweet little tot," the fake Shepherd sneered,
"The judges are evil, the other states weird."
"I'll fix the rings there and I'll bring them back here."
It was quarter past dawn... All the Gays, still a-bed,
all the Gays still a-snooze when he packed up and fled.
"Pooh-Pooh to the Gays!" he was grinch-ish-ly humming.
"They're finding out now no Gay Marriage is coming!"
"Their mouths will hang open a minute or two
then the Gays down in Gayville will all cry Boo-Hoo!"
He stared down at Gayville! The Grinch popped his eyes!
Then he shook! What he saw was a shocking surprise!
Every Gay down in Gayville, the tall and the small,
was kissing! Without any bennies at all!
He HADN'T stopped Marriage from coming! IT CAME!
Somehow or other, it came just the same!
And the Grinch, with his grinch-feet ice-cold in the snow,
stood puzzling and puzzling: "How could it be so?"
"It came without lawyers, no papers to sort!"
"It came without licenses, came without courts!"
And he puzzled three hours, till his puzzler was sore.
Then the Grinch thought of something he hadn't before!
"Maybe Marriage," he thought, "doesn't come from the court.
Maybe Marriage...perhaps... comes right from the heart.
Maybe Marriage comes from all the words the Gays say.
Words like Husband, like Wedding, and Spouse who is Gay."
And what happened then...? Well...in Gayville they say
that the Grinch's small brain grew three sizes that day!
And the Gays had their Weddings. They promised for life.
They swore to be faithful, to Wife and her Wife.
The Husbands were happy, to each other they vowed
To be Out and be Honest, be Gay and be Proud.
They told all their neighbors and friends of their Spouse,
They told of their Marriage and sharing their house.
They said "We got Married." They shouted it loud.
Their marital status was "Married and Proud."
And the minute his heart didn't feel quite so tight,
He whizzed with his load through the bright morning light.
And he brought back the rings, cake and Gay birdseed bags!
And he... ...HE HIMSELF... hung the Gay Rainbow Flag!
...
The Lord looked down, at the proud and the tall,
and said "These are my children, and I love them all."

Copyright (c) 2004 by Mary Ann Horton. Permission granted to copy in whole, with attribution. This is a parody of "How the Grinch Stole Christmas." - Dr. Seuss
14 happy kittens | Leave catnip
Comments
jaiwithani From: jaiwithani Date: June 13th, 2005 01:54 am (UTC) (Link)
Permission to copy and print endlessly with attribution? ::saves::
p_trekkie From: p_trekkie Date: June 13th, 2005 02:45 am (UTC) (Link)
If ever a post screamed LJ-cut..... this one's just bit big for my friends page. :)


As for the substance, I supported gay marriage until my campus pastor explained how one becomes married. In many states, marriage is not a governmental function, but a religious one that is recognized by the state. As a result, bad things happen when you try to impose a definition of marriage not recognized by many religions. CIVIL UNIONS fix a whole host of problems (e.g. disentangling the state and religion in this matter) and are a much better idea.

I can't really do a good job of explaining it, because I only had a brief converstation about it... but trust me, implementing gay marriage rather than civil unions might precipitate implosions from some denominations and explosions from others.
ibneko From: ibneko Date: June 13th, 2005 03:31 am (UTC) (Link)
Heh. I'm pretty sure I've had larger and longer posts than this one that weren't lj-cut... ::slightly surprised at the complaint:: Still, if it bothers you...

And... mmm, I don't know if "civil unions" fits better, in place of "gay marriages", especially for this parody.
"Tomorrow's the first Civil Union! It's practically here!"
Then he growled, with his Grinch fingers nervously drumming,
"I MUST find some way to stop Civil Unions from coming!"


But yes, I know what you mean. However, I don't know why you're pointing this out to me~ I didn't write this, and the reason for copy/paste/posting it was because I thought it was interesting.
p_trekkie From: p_trekkie Date: June 13th, 2005 03:36 am (UTC) (Link)
Eh, true about it being a little random... I never remember to post interesting political ideas in my own journal, but seeing them in others gives me a reminder to put them out there....
ibneko From: ibneko Date: June 13th, 2005 03:54 am (UTC) (Link)
Lol. Then go post in your journal, when you read these things~ I'm pretty sure you'll get a larger audience that way, then by posting comments in my journal. Granted, I do allow spiders to search my journal, so there's always the miniscule chance that someone will come across your political ideas via me... but....
jaiwithani From: jaiwithani Date: June 13th, 2005 05:46 am (UTC) (Link)
You know how often 'marriage' appears in federal and state law? A bunchload. Even shows up in state constitutions sometimes. You simply can't get all the rights without implementing "marriage" - unless you convince the government to replace all legal instances of "marriage" with "civil unions" or you add a statute in your civil unions bill to the effect of "partners in civil unions are entitled to all rights given to marriage partners" - in either case, you're essentially playing a semantic game to appease conservative religious groups.

But I still see problems with this. There are federal statues that only recognize "marriage" and would likely be able to avoid any consideration of bestowing those rights to "civil unions" couples. While allowing gay marriage won't automaticaly force those federal rights to be recognized, it will trigger the court cases that will lead to that effect.

Lastly, civil unions seem to stink of "seperate but equal". It's an implicit condemnation from society that non-heterosexual couples are not entitled to the same status as heterosexual couples, and are therefore inferior. In an analogy I use too often, it would be like keeping miscegenation laws but allowing interracial couples to have "civil unions", because full marriage would have provoked an uproar from conservative religious groups. And full marriage rights did provoke an uproar from conservative religious groups. But it was the right thing to do.
p_trekkie From: p_trekkie Date: June 13th, 2005 01:23 pm (UTC) (Link)
Methinks you misunderstand my argument. I'm not talking creating a separate but equal institution. I'm talking about comletely revamping the current flawed system.

Marriage is a religious institution. What I think should happen is that the government should chuck previous marriage laws and create a new "civil union" system. A marriage would NOT be recognized under this system at all. In order for partners of any sort to get benefits from the government, they would apply for a separate civil union agreement. A marriage would be strong grounds for a civil union, but civil unions would allow all sorts of other partnerships to be recognized, such as homosexual unions or people living together with any sort of commitment. Thus the regious institution of marriage and the state institution of civil unions could be separated. This is the only way I could think of for a fair compromise to all parties.

Every religion that I can think of defines marriage as the union between a man and a woman for the purpose of producing and raise offspring (the last part is more strongly implied in some cases than others). Since marriage is a religious institution, trying to make a different definition for the government would usurp the right of religious institutions to decide what that definition is. Furthermore, changing the federal definiton of marriage could open a whole can of worms with regard to church-state relations. It would open the possibility for discrimination lawsuits against churches and all sorts of other things that would lead to armed insurrection or worse from approximately half of the country.

Also, you make the mistaken assumption that gay marriage is opposed solely by the religious right. In fact, gay marriage is outright opposed by 60-70% of the population (not civil unions, though). Churches don't oppose gay marriage because they don't like homosexuals, but rather because it goes contrary to the purpose and tradition of regular marriage and steps on their domain.
jaiwithani From: jaiwithani Date: June 14th, 2005 12:29 am (UTC) (Link)
Because, on every occasion I've engaged on a debate on this subject, I've fond emotions tend to rise rather quickly: I think you're a pretty cool person. Really.

Now then..."Legal marriage" is already legally seperated from church-sanctioned marriage. For example, the state recognized my parents' marriage when the Catholic church would not. The marriages between male partners and female partners currently underway in Massachucetts are not recognized by most churches, but are by the state. The institutions are, and have for centuries, been completely seperate.

Your proposal seems to be using a new term for an old legal tradition. I don't really care what they're called - words are our servants, not our masters, and the end goal is full and equal legal recognition for all consenting adult couples who want it.

I don't think "fair compromise" is the proper term here. I "fair compromise" is what one prsues when two groups with roguhly equal mert compete for limited resources. When one party strives for equal rights and another group strives to deny them those rights, a 'compromise' is no compromise at all. To point, no one will lose anything when universal marriage is legalized. A 'fair compromise' to 'all parties' can only mean letting all parties have equal rights - that's the nature of compromise. Again, to wit, no one is crusading against the evils of heterosexual marriage.

Every religion that I can think of has a fair number of arcane and silly rules in it. Every religion that I can think of has a creation myth which, interpreted literally, falls no where close to what we now know about the history of the niverse. Every religion I can think of, at some point, makes a point about the inferiority of women. Every religion I can think of calls for punishments against non-believers and/or blasphamers that we do not and will not tolerate in modern society. These are among the reasons that we keep church and state seperate, and why people in places like Iran are generally very unhappy.

Marriage in a church is a religious institution. Marriage by certificate is a state institution. They are NOT THE SAME THING. There is no legal link between the two, beyond the formality religios leaders sometimes get of pronouncing a caouple man and wife.

Churches can't be sued for discrimination. A church could refuse to admit blondes and be perfectly legal. This is why the KKK is able to adopt highways.

Armed insurrection? Half or us are too lazy to vote. Not gonna happen.

Most people are uncomfortable with the idea of marriage between non-heterosexual couples. This is because people are stupid, as can be scientificallt proven with a sample of last season's "American Idol" ratings. However, it is a tiny minority that actively opposes it. Some churches oppose marriage for homosexuals because they are bigoted, as wee the churches that opposed interracial marriage. They will come to accept equality, in time (although the Catholic church is still working on the whole equality-of-the-sexes thing...they'll get there someday...). They are stepping outside of their domain of religious matters to interfere with the state. I suspect there are few, if any, federal marshalls in Massachucetts leveling their rifles oat pastors demanding that they recognize gay marriages.
p_trekkie From: p_trekkie Date: June 14th, 2005 04:15 am (UTC) (Link)
Oh you seem pretty cool too, and I love civilized discussions like this one.

Now I think I figured out where we disagree. We are operating under two different premises: Mine is that state and church institution are not yet separate and yours is that they are quite separate. A year ago, I thought that they were separate, but I was led to believe otherwise by an individual very much in the know a few months ago. I wish I had a better memory of that discussion or the time to check the actual laws before I head out of country, but unfortunately I have neither. It also varies from state to state. Now I could be mistaken, but I'm pretty sure you can't be married by a justice of the peace in Maryland.

I would like for the rights to be equal as well. What I meant by compromise was finding someway to give equal rights without irking an enormous chunk of the country. Even if the church and state are currently separate, using the term "civil union" for all forms of unions in the states' eyes would go a long way towards allaying the fears of the moderates.

Ah yes, you're right about the armed insurrection. I half expected one on the day after the election last year until I remembered how apathetic most of the country is.

Also, while I'm all for separation of church and state, it is interesting to note that Sweden and Finland both have a state religion and the people in those countries seem to not have any freedom issues whatsoever. Iran shows the worst that can happen when church and state mix, but it doesn't always go that way.

Regarding calling religious beliefs arcane, inaccurate, etc.: it's not a particularly useful argument. You clearly do not hang around Christian intellectuals. We spend most of the time deciphering how the words of thousands of years ago can be applied in our time. (coincidentally a the majority that I know are Democrats) Only a very small minority accept the Bible as the literal word of God. All I'm gonna say about that is that I certainly hope those people don't read and follow Deuteronomy 20!
jaiwithani From: jaiwithani Date: June 14th, 2005 06:57 am (UTC) (Link)
Concur'd.

Also, in a word: to hell with the moderates. "Moderation" gave us such great historical artifacts like the 3/5 compromise. Never, ever, ever settle for quasi-justice for the sake of tranquility. Embrace the advances, but don't ever quit.

The state still has absolutely nothing in terms of compelling churches to recognize squat: churches are perfectly capable of proclaiming the bill of rights illegal and boys as having more cooties. Likewise, churches have no force whatsoever to compel the state to recognize anything. If that's not seperation, I don't know what is.

The state religions in Finland and Sweden seem to be no more important than a state bird in terms of government influence. Also, the demographics of these countries suggest a slightly more homogeneous demographic than we're used to in the USA, so it makes sense. These are both highly secular countries - I'd argue that despite the state religion (a product of a homogenous culture), both of these countries are less fervently religion than the United States. I don't think it's comparable to Iran, which made religion the basis of the state, rather than simply recognizing that an overwhelming majority of citizens practice the same religion. Finland and Sweeden still keep church and state seperate - the church has no inherit power in government beyond what it can exercize through democracy.

One of my best friends is a Christian intellectual, although he has an unfortunate habit of overusing polysyllabic words for effect :-). Interesting guy.

Yayfor "I'm feeling lucky" on google: You need to have a justice of the peace or a religious clergyman sign the document. Show me a state that only allows religious leaders to perform marriage ceremonies, and I'll show you a state with a serious Constitutional problem.

Oh, I should probably mention here that I'm an athiest. And I plan to get married someday. This would seem to introduce complications into the idea of marriage being primarily a religious institution.
From: superdense Date: June 13th, 2005 03:20 am (UTC) (Link)
the rhythm is off. in some places, it's way off. you can't parody dr seuss and fuck up his meter.
ibneko From: ibneko Date: June 13th, 2005 03:35 am (UTC) (Link)
LOL. Go... hunt down the author and tell her. I didn't write this~ so don't complain to me, unless you want to come up with a better version for me to post.

(And yes, the rhythm is off in too many places. But it was the thought that amused me... hence the posting.)
From: superdense Date: June 13th, 2005 03:38 am (UTC) (Link)
yeah, i am aware you didn't write it. in that context i meant "you" as in "the entire population of the earth," not "ben."
ibneko From: ibneko Date: June 13th, 2005 03:52 am (UTC) (Link)
Ah, then you're posting in the wrong place~ ^.- I'm pretty sure less than 2-3 people ever read comments posted to my journal (excluding myself and the person who posted the comment.) You may have a better chance reaching the entire population of the earth via your journal, methinks.
14 happy kittens | Leave catnip