This and that
Swarm said:
You are not trying to be fair.
It's not my fault if the standard people want isn't nice.
I never did understand that, how so many people could blindly participate in a cruelty, and then when they're treated
remotely in the same fashion, they screw up their faces and bawl, "That's not
fair!"
Strangely, though, no matter how much I make the point that there is an obvious response, nobody wants to take it up. Now, for those who aren't so offended by the idea of looking at heterosexuals according to the same standard that is allegedly "fair" for viewing homosexuals, there is no reason to take up that response.
For the rest, though, it seems they just want to cry about it.
I remember this one time—and, really, I didn't realize denim burned like that—this guy, Ted, somehow landed a cigarette cherry in the rolled cuff of his Levi's 501s. I don't know. It only took a few seconds. I think someone said, "Uh, Ted?" And maybe someone else didn't really think much of it; we'd all dropped cherries on ourselves before. Just not like this. In the seconds it took for us to recognize the difference, smoke was pouring off Ted's leg. He literally did that cartoonish, "What's burning?" thing, and then looked down as the heat finally reached his ankle.
Yes, it was
hilarious watching him hop around with, really, quite thick smoke trailing off leg as he tried to unroll the cuff. And then it was over, and Ted was sitting on the curb laughing his ass off and lighting another cigarette.
Life goes on.
The one thing he didn't do was stand there and scream, "That's not fair!" and cry about it until someone did something for him.
The jeans weren't totally wrecked. He put a classic blue and white bandana-looking patch over the burned part, and defiantly wore the damn things, smiling graciously whenever someone asked him about it, since the patch was on the inside of the fabric, and therefore visible when he rolled the cuff.
• • •
JDawg said:
Yes, it changed the state constitution. And it also overturned the state Supreme Court's decision. Which further proves that we need to get rid of some of these ridiculous, archaic, obscure laws that allow for majority rule. We've never been a direct democracy, and majority rule is tyranny. Not even the state Supreme Court has a chance with laws like that, and they're supposed to be keepers and interpreters of the state constitution.
We do have a law in place. For some reason, though, the challenge is slow to come.
It's the Fourteenth Amendment, and when gay marriage finally goes before the Supreme Court of the United States, the main question will be whether the right to marry is invested in the sex of the partners, or if there is something more to it.
And there
is something more to it, since heterosexuals get married for some pretty stupid reasons. You know, like how they think they're in love, and that it will always feel that way. And then the feeling fades, and they take up a lover, and eventually file for divorce, or some stupid melodrama like that.
Hence, the need to protect the sanctity of marriage.