I woke up this morning and I had myself a blog
Oh, yeah, I woke up this morning and I had myself a blo-og
The future's uncertain and the end is always - Pog??
OK so there's no good rhyme. As the proud owner of a 1987 Peugeot 505 STX, though, I think I'm justified in saying that this life takes you places you never thought you'd go. I was going to buy a brand new Kia, for the warranty. But I didn't see chaining myself to a six-year payment plan to pay ten thousand dollars for a chintzy Korean car that will be worth three thousand dollars in four years, when I'll still have six thousand dollars to pay on it. SO I went for the six-cylinder, automatic transmission, power sunroof, air-conditioned rugged if irredeemably Frankish Peugeot. Drives like a dream, it does, although those suspicious "clunks" coming from the automatic transmission should have given a wise man pause. But wise men tell no tales. No, that's dead men. Well, actually, that could apply to both, one by definition, one by prudence. Time for more coffee...
Tuesday, November 25, 2003
Michael Jackson and Gay Marriage
As the case against Michael Jackson gets more and more watertight, his defenders are backed into a corner. If all they had against them was a 45-year-old man sleeping in the same bed with preteen boys unrelated to him, they would still be in serious trouble. Who else, famous or not, could survive such confessed behavior? What other sane man, in this day and age, would do such a thing without thinking, "Hey, wait a minute, this could get me into real trouble"? Aren't we forced to think perhaps there was a little arrogance behind it, not just innocence? Isn't it highly probable Jackson was not thinking, "Isn't this beautiful and aren't I innocent and harmless and childlike", but "Hey, this would get most men my age in trouble, but I'm Michael Jackson. They can't touch me!" Since now letters have come out with damaging details about what was really going on in that bed, aren't his defenders now forced back into the "what's wrong with it, it's all done in the name of love?" defense? And screaming "racism!!" of course, which has already started. And which is palpably absurd when you realize that MJ has spent his whole life fleeing from blackness as he has from adulthood. The MJ Trial which looms ahead of us could have as many resonances as the OJ Trial did in the Nineties. One hopes the justice system comes off looking better. If the defense does try to defend Jackson's conduct on the grounds that even though it is illegal, it shouldn't be, we may be in for a wild ride. If homosexual conduct can go from being a ticket to jail to being a requirement for a marriage license, though, who knows what a California jury might come up with in the the way of "empathetic nullification"? The case for gay marriage stresses that homosexual attraction is love, a love just as real and just as worthy of protection by the state as heterosexual attraction. Well, then, why not the love of a 45-year old billionaire for a 12-year-old dying of cancer? Drawing the line at a particular age, as the state does with statutory rape laws, would have to be exposed as prejudiced, rigid and harsh. After all, don't laws allow underage heterosexuals to get married, with parental consent? Well, didn't MJ's kiddy victims have their parents' approval, for whatever reasons? I smell quagmire.
As the case against Michael Jackson gets more and more watertight, his defenders are backed into a corner. If all they had against them was a 45-year-old man sleeping in the same bed with preteen boys unrelated to him, they would still be in serious trouble. Who else, famous or not, could survive such confessed behavior? What other sane man, in this day and age, would do such a thing without thinking, "Hey, wait a minute, this could get me into real trouble"? Aren't we forced to think perhaps there was a little arrogance behind it, not just innocence? Isn't it highly probable Jackson was not thinking, "Isn't this beautiful and aren't I innocent and harmless and childlike", but "Hey, this would get most men my age in trouble, but I'm Michael Jackson. They can't touch me!" Since now letters have come out with damaging details about what was really going on in that bed, aren't his defenders now forced back into the "what's wrong with it, it's all done in the name of love?" defense? And screaming "racism!!" of course, which has already started. And which is palpably absurd when you realize that MJ has spent his whole life fleeing from blackness as he has from adulthood. The MJ Trial which looms ahead of us could have as many resonances as the OJ Trial did in the Nineties. One hopes the justice system comes off looking better. If the defense does try to defend Jackson's conduct on the grounds that even though it is illegal, it shouldn't be, we may be in for a wild ride. If homosexual conduct can go from being a ticket to jail to being a requirement for a marriage license, though, who knows what a California jury might come up with in the the way of "empathetic nullification"? The case for gay marriage stresses that homosexual attraction is love, a love just as real and just as worthy of protection by the state as heterosexual attraction. Well, then, why not the love of a 45-year old billionaire for a 12-year-old dying of cancer? Drawing the line at a particular age, as the state does with statutory rape laws, would have to be exposed as prejudiced, rigid and harsh. After all, don't laws allow underage heterosexuals to get married, with parental consent? Well, didn't MJ's kiddy victims have their parents' approval, for whatever reasons? I smell quagmire.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)