New year: new thoughts, new choices

NOTICE: This post will examine controversial topics including marriage equality, church dissent, and abortion. The opinions herein are strictly my own, including explanations about how I arrived at these conclusions. I am not telling others how or what to believe, I'm just explaining what I believe and why.

Wow. I haven't posted anything since October, and that was in defense of "the essential profession", that being education. I'm going to let this post finally declare some things I hadn't openly declared the way I typically declare stuff...like on facebook.

The main thoughts I've had recently have made me a draw some conclusions that I feel best suit my life.

RELIGION

I was born and raised Catholic. I'm 31 and for the vast majority of my life, I've been a devoted Catholic, following all church and faith teachings. However, once New York passed marriage equality back in 2011, I started witnessing church leaders doing horrid things against God's gay children. I realized I could no longer spiritually invest myself in a church that didn't love me the way I know God does.

So I stopped attending church. I've become fed up with listening to men on pulpits judging others' lives when they serve an institution infamous for sexually abusing children. Now, are all priests and bishops bad people? Of course not. But that doesn't change the fact that there are many priests who abused kids, and whose bishops helped them avoid accountability. Having done that, they have NO room to judge the sins in my life, of which being in a long-term, monogamous, gay relationship isn't one of them.

After much discussion, reflection, and deep scrutiny, I no longer see my formerly beloved church as a home of unconditional love, but rather an exclusive club for boys who think they have a closer connection to God than the rest of us, and therefore believe they have the authority to tell the masses how to live. So to make my relationship with God front and center, I've omitted my church's involvement in it, and I frankly feel very liberated! I hold no grudges or ill will towards any of my Catholic friends or family who still choose to abide by what the church teaches. But my perspective of it all has changed...possibly permanently...unless the glacier-slow-to-change church can admit and ask forgiveness for its trespasses. But for the many who see the church as an infallible institution guided by the Holy Spirit, I think they need to reflect on whom they follow: a bunch of guys managing a building known as the headquarters of a global church, or the deity that church serves? Because according to Scripture, if you find THAT inerrant, you can't serve two masters.
My biggest complaints with the church is that it focuses so much two things:

-abortion/contraception
-marriage equality

Abortion/Contraception
Like in most social debates, there are two sides; for this, you're either pro-life ("Lifers"), or pro-choice ("Choicers"). Lifers believe abortion should be outlawed, and that life begins at conception, an idea the the Catholic church affirms. Choicers - and let me make this CLEAR - Choicers do NOT advocate abortion. Choicers advocate CHOICE to carry a pregnancy to term, or to terminate the pregnancy. Lifers say "You have a life in there, and it has a right to LIVE!" Choicers say, "It's my life, my body, and I'll make my own decisions with the help of my doctor!" Lifers believe they're speaking for those without a voice (i.e., the unborn baby). Choicers believe in people's privacy in making delicate, sensitive, personal decisions.

My opinion is that reproductive choice opinions should only be had by the ones it affects: women. And who runs the Catholic church? Men...men who'll never have to be in that position. These men will never, in their positions of power, have to deal with the social stigma that an unwanted pregnancy brings. Now, if you want to prevent unwanted pregnancies, there are two ways to do that:

-abstain or only have sex with the intention to procreate (as the church instructs)
-use contraception

If you're going to have sex for pleasure, the church only approves of that if you're married and use natural family planning, thereby completely avoiding the use of any artificial contraceptives. And if you get pregnant anyway, well at least you're married. Now you have to have this baby because clearly it was God's plan.

This brings me back to this fact: the church invades privacy by telling women how to live their lives, going so far as being in the bedroom with their rules about something none of them will ever do. I just think that when it comes to issues of such a private, personal matter, no one should have any say in how you live your life. Everyone (i.e., believers) will come to judgment on their day. When a woman makes a choice to keep or terminate a pregnancy, that's between her, her doctor, and her deity of choice. 

With contraception, that's against church teachings because those are artificial solutions as a method of pregnancy prevention. This goes back to the church teaching that all sexual activity must be open to procreation. So, again, the church is micromanaging your sex life. The church can preach and teach about sexual ethics all it wants (though it doesn't have room to talk, really). In reality, this one institution cannot keep every woman or every man from only having sex under such structured circumstances. Further, contraceptives like "the morning after pill" are in the church's cross hairs. But they also discourage the use of condoms for men, as that prevents semen from fertilizing any egg that the woman may have ovulated. But if all this anti-contraception warfare is happening, why are church leaders not advocating that men get vasectomies? I get the feeling it's because since men run the church, they can easily vilify women.

Marriage Equality
The church supports and advocates for the "traditional marriage" which is one man, one woman, and at least one child. When Catholics take their marriage vows, one of them is to "accept children willingly from God", to which the couple is expected to reply, "We do." Among the church's arguments, marriage is strictly for procreation that is supported by a life-long commitment to a spouse. And the church most often refers to a verse in the Bible that reads "and for this reason, a man shall leave his mother and father, be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh."

Side note: I may not be able to tell exactly where certain verses are, but I can make plenty of accurate plot references. 

Now, Jesus, in all four gospels, never says a thing about gay people. The only places any reference to homosexuality is mentioned in in Leviticus in the Old Testament, and a few letters written by St. Paul in the New Testament. Many who've supported traditional marriage typically cite Leviticus 18:22 about how "Man shall not lie with a man as with a woman; it is an abomination".

Another side note: I know THAT verse because I've been attacked with it repeatedly.

My thing is this: You want to make a biblical point? Fine. Did you realize that Leviticus also condemns wearing mixed fabrics, eating pork or handling pig skin, working on Sundays, or eating shell fish?  Did you know that in Deuteronomy (I forgot where), if a woman isn't a virgin upon marriage, she must be stoned to death?

Moving on, what about straight couples who get married, but don't have kids? Should their marriage be annulled? What about all the straight couples who are NOT good parents, or the woman who carried her pregnancy to term, but chose to gave the baby up for adoption? So, since the church opposes marriage equality partly because of the procreative aspect, would it be so bad if an abandoned child grew up with two loving parents who happen to be the same sex?

What about women who want to be mothers, but don't want to be married?

Another common argument is that if kids have gay parents, they'll likely turn out gay because that's the example of a relationship they see before them. Well, I'm the product of a straight marriage, and *I* turned out gay. Every person in existence was, is, or will be brought into this world because of a sperm that fertilized an egg: most likely through male-female sexual intercourse. Some of the offspring of these unions turned out straight, some bisexual, some lesbian, some gay, some transgender, but mostly straight. So if straight couples are the ones having kids that turn out gay, how on earth will two gay parents turn their non-biological children gay as well? Maybe straight couples should be the one to stop having kids. With all their procreating, one of them is bound to turn out gay because it's IN them. Sexual orientation is a gift from God. I believe some gifts He gives us are for serving Him through helping others, and other gifts He gives us are to humble us. 

Further, if being gay was a choice, the gay rights movement wouldn't have a leg on which to stand. We chose to be gay the same day you, dear presumably straight reader, chose to be straight. I sure as hell didn't choose to be gay, not that it's bad, but because it's extremely inconvenient. Thankfully, with more minds and hearts changing in favor of recognizing that gay people are only different by how they love, marriage equality is advancing around the country. Even in conservatives states like mine, Texas, the popular opinion is shifting to a more socially progressive one. Back in 2005, Texas passed an amendment to its constitution outlawing marriage equality. Eight years later, minds have changed simply because who someone loves is nobody's fucking business. As a result, some law makers are working to repeal the discriminatory amendment. And now, in the next few months, even the U.S. Supreme Court will possibly give a ruling on marriage equality!

HEALTH

I love animals, and for a number of months in 2012 I started eating less and less meat, which is a bit of a feat from someone who grew up in a Texas-Mexico border town! I gradually weaned myself off in baby steps, starting with simple choices at the grocery store; instead of buying hamburgers, nuggets, or cold cuts, I started replacing them with their vegetarian equivalents. The scale was finally tipped when I saw a documentary called VEGUCATED, about 3 carnivores going vegan (completely plant-based diet). This documentary also included slaughter house footage, and I could no longer justify loving the cow, chicken, or pig, and eating the burger, nugget, or bacon strip. So I'm now a complete vegetarian.

While there are many reasons one might be vegetarian (health, environment, animal ethics), my main reason is my love for animals. But studies have indeed shown that vegetarians have a reduced risk of heart disease, among other fatal ailments. Having seen the documentary also changed my perspective in the grocery store. When I walk by the deli section, I no longer see the main dish at a party, or get recipe ideas. Instead, I simply see dead animals who very well may likely have been treated inhumanely before being dismembered, processed, placed in those packages, and slapped with a bar code waiting to be scanned at checkout.

I'm naturally an empathetic person, and so being a vegetarian has enabled me to live a kind life by enjoying a kind diet. By the way, being a vegetarian makes Fridays during Lent so easy!

GAY ADVOCACY

I love discussions about gay rights. I work in the elementary education field, so when I get the "Are you married?" question, I respond with "That's none of your business." But because I'm not going to just go up to someone and ram my views down their throat, and because I'm a musician who loves to sing, I've joined the Capital City Men's Chorus...yes...a choir of gay men. The mission of the chorus is to uplift and promote a positive image of the gay community in the city through the performance of beautiful music. So when our straight fellow music lovers come to our concerts and hear the beautiful music we make together, discriminating against us gets ideally harder to do...thereby helping our fellow LGBT brothers and sisters finally get the equality to which we're entitled.

We've had a few concerts, and this season (2012-13) is the choir's 24th season. We've had 3 performances this year, and have at least 2 more to go. And I'm having a BLAST!

Well, now that I feel I'm more caught up after almost 6 months since my last post, I'll bid thee farewell.

Thanks for reading!

The essential profession

I took two personal days from work to do some professional development I've wanted to do for a long time. I went to the middle school into which my elementary school feeds, and spent an entire day with the band director, and the choir director. My professional goal was to get an understanding of what a typical day as a secondary band/choir director looks like, and what former students go through after I've had them for a few years.

All I can say is that I'm SO glad I took those days to see what I saw. I went there expecting raging hormones, backtalk, and some strict, hardcore classroom management, even possibly discipline.

Instead, I saw on-task kids, respect for the directors, having fun in class, doing their best to meet the director's expectations, and frequent positive reinforcement from directors seeing exactly what they wanted from their students.

On a legal pad, I took notes from everything I knew could be useful in my own teaching. And then I started writing reflections, thoughts based on how I felt after witnessing what I did. I'm so grateful to my feeding directors for allowing me to spend a day with them.

Like I said, the main reason for going was to better vertically align my curriculum to better prepare my 5th graders for middle school, whether they decide to join band or choir. At the elementary level, I teach choir as an after-school club that welcomes 3rd-5th graders. So doing that can give - especially the 5th graders - a taste of what choir is like in middle school. Except in middle school, they compete and get trophies, and have to impress judges. While I can definitely prepare kids for choir through a weekly choir "club" that culminates in a public concert, my preparing them for band involves using recorders. Yep..."Hot Cross Buns" and all that jazz.

Sidenote: I actually saw real hot cross buns at a local grocery store, and of course I had to buy them. I'll never buy them again. They were nasty. They had ginger, and I really dislike ginger. Blech!

At the elementary level, they're learning to become musically literate. But the lessons I teach, 45 minutes in length, consist of giving them a kinesthetic, aural, or visual experience to teach a new musical element, then we play a game for funsies, and then they practice reading, writing, and improvising with elements they've already learned. At the middle school level, it's about 50 minutes of solid practice. The "fun" is in meeting the challenge, and in making music itself. There are no games the way there are in elementary school.Their directors actually made practice fun.

Aside from all the wonderful things I witnessed, I had a special moment that nearly made me cry. During the choir director's planning/conference period, the band director came into the choir room to do a sectional rehearsal with the upper brass section (trumpets, cornets, French horns, etc.). A couple of my former students were in this group, and I had a good relationship with one of them. This particular kid played the trumpet, and when he was in 5th grade last year, he was learning recorder like all the rest. He sat down to the director's far right in the front row. There was an empty seat next to him, so I requested permission from the director to join his ensemble, which he granted. I sat right next to him, and he was thrilled.

As I sat with him, the director made some really fun things happen. While the director made some really boring activities seem militarily fun, he had the choir director's electronic keyboard at his disposal, so he used it to give some synthesized drum beats as the horns practiced their notes. As I sat next to my former student, rarely did he ever look at me. He was always watching the director, his trumpet, or his lesson book. He raised his hand at every opportunity to play anything the director requested. I just sat there, watching him scrutinizing the book, completely engaged and serious about his success. At one moment, he saw the double bar lines at the end of an exercise. He pointed to them and looked at me.
"What do the double bar lines mean?" he asked.
"What did they mean when you played recorder with me last year?" I replied.
"That it's the end?" he concluded.
I nodded. 
At this point, the director saw he had his hand up. The director acknowledged him, publicly praised him for seeking out answers on his own, and reminded the class that many of their basic answers are found in the book they were using.

I couldn't have been prouder of this kid. In that brief moment, in his time of uncertainty that led to conclusion, it was as if I was there in spirit, in the back of his mind, and he was there trying to figure out the answer to his own question. He had left my guidance, and had a new teacher to continue his growth where he had left off with me. The big difference, though, was that I was physically there, right next to him, ready and willing to support his learning.

It was powerful, inspiring, and so humbling!

Particularly after experiencing this, the old statements I've heard for years in education returned to my mind: "It's all about the children," and "They are the future." For years I'd heard these statements, and for the first time, I fully understood them. 

When children are given chances to perform in school, that exposes them to the stage, to rehearsal, to performance, to applause, to pride in themselves, and a sense of accomplishment. It's a cycle. Give children a program of some kind, whether Christmas or Veterans' Day or whatever. Give them songs to sing, teach them how to stand on risers, how to watch the director, how to get on and off the stage. Then give them an instrument, and have them join an ensemble where everyone else is learning and making mistakes as they get used to something new that is the next step up after what they've already done. Give them a goal to reach, and coach them along the way to reach it. Give them a chance to shine through a solo opportunity, and watch that self-confidence build. Teach them to relish in compliments, and accept constructive criticism, to learn from it.

Though my argument is biased towards the performing arts, this applies to all types of professions. Children want to become scientists, veterinarians, doctors, mechanics, and engineers through exposure to the sciences and math. They want to become authors through exposure to literature and language arts. They want to be historians or soldiers when exposed to social studies. They'll want to become artists, dancers, actors, musicians through exposure to the fine arts. They'll want to become business owners when exposed to math, social studies, economics, and taught to use them to learn to make money.

My point in listing all these professions is that they all begin with one thing: learning something from a teacher. And this brings me to the whole point of this post, a quote from David Haselkorn:

Teaching is the essential profession, the one that makes all professions possible.

Oppressive freedom

As long as anyone is oppressed, no one is free. -Unknown 

With the presidential election looming in just a few short weeks, there's a lot of talk, and a lot of hypocrisy going around.

I'm going to get right to the point here.

Too many people believe America is a Christian nation.

It isn't. And this is coming from someone born and raised Catholic: to have any laws passed reflecting religious beliefs is unconstitutional. How? Well, read the 1st amendment of the Bill of Rights:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people to peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

There you have it. As much as you want to claim that America is a Christian nation it's not; it's just that Christianity is the predominant religion practiced here. Remember that the people who founded our country came here fleeing religious persecution. They came here, in part, because where they were from, you had to worship a certain way, and if you didn't, you were screwed. Here, they made sure that no one had to worship the way the government told them to. You could worship anyway you wanted to, or not at all. The 1st amendment gives us freedom of religion, not to protect religion from government, but to protect government from religion. The government, through this amendment, cannot impose religious beliefs on the country.

So, that being said, when you have crazy social conservatives who want laws passed that reflect their religious beliefs, they're becoming the very obstruction to freedom the founding fathers opposed.  They're using religion to oppress others, and when non-religious people protest them, religious people hypocritically claim their religious freedoms are being violated when, in fact, it is they who are violating others' freedoms by wanting laws passed that align with their religious beliefs, thereby imposing them on others, hence oppressing anyone who doesn't subscribe to their faith.

Take bullying for example. When anti-bullying legislation had been considered being put into law in several states, it was religious people who protested it saying their religious freedoms were being violated. They claimed THEY were victimized through this legislation because they thought such legislation would prevent them from expressing their beliefs towards others in the event of a disagreement over a hot topic issue. It could've been a Christian student harassing a Muslim student. More than likely, it could've been a Christian student harassing a gay student.

Jews can't eat pork. Mormons cannot consume caffeine or alcohol. Catholics are to abstain from eating meat on Fridays during Lent. All of these are beliefs each individual faith practices, and yet, we have no laws from either of them being passed forcing others to live the way they do. Southern Baptists baptize new members through full-body immersion while Catholics baptize with simply pouring holy water over the baby's head. Neither practice is being legislated.

Given all these examples, WHY are these same religious group protesting anti-gay bullying, or marriage equality? Whatever happened to "live, and let live"? If you want someone to believe the way you do, invite them to a church service. If they're not interested, respect that. Everyone's journey of faith is different, and should be respected.

You can't support religious freedom unless you support ALL TYPES of religious freedom, including freedom FROM religion. 

I'm going to conclude this post with two different quotes, both of which I saw on Facebook, one wittily funny, one irreverently funny:

Being against gay marriage because of your religion is like being angry at someone eating a doughnut because you're on a diet. 

Religion is like having a penis; it's okay to have one, it's okay to be proud of it, but there's no need to display it in public, or shove it down other people's throats. 

A short, non-partisan, polite, political rant

Besides my mind being saturated in music education, being gay has caused me to be saturated in and follow politics closely. Being gay is only a small part of me, but it affects MANY aspects of my life. Here are 2 of those aspects:

Because I'm gay, I can be fired from my job; there is no employment protection for gay people in many states, including Texas.

Because I'm gay, I can't legally marry the one person I want to marry. Back in 2005, Texas became one of many to put discrimination into the state constitution, passing an amendment that turned me into a 2nd class citizen, stripping me of one of my basic civil rights, which, in turn, affected many other protections and benefits I could've automatically received had I just gotten a marriage license.

Consequently, I've had to hire an attorney to grant me and my 6-year partner a small handful of rights a marriage license automatically grants, like hospital visitation rights, medical power of attorney, and financial power of attorney, and it cost us almost $1,000. So I am now passionate about politics, because unlike church laws and teachings, I actually have a say in politics -- it's called a vote. Politicians have the power to make and change laws, and because laws have been passed that have made me unequal under the law, I keep a close eye on politicians, because I don't want them passing laws that hurt my well-being.

All that being said...

I can understand why many people don't care to follow politics; they feel there's no point, that politicians are just crooks, only in it for money or publicity, they can be bought. It doesn't help that politics can get childish, messy, and so on. Despite the negatives of politics, we need to pay attention to what's going on. We need to learn who's running, and what they support and oppose, because the people in office sponsor and pass laws that affect your daily life and/or the lives of those around you. This is why it's so important to vote, regardless of whether or not you think your vote "counts", you have the right to do it, so EXERCISE IT! If you don't like the job the elected official has done, you have no right to complain if you didn't exercise your right to vote.

Now, we must all fear evil men. But there is another kind of evil which we must fear most, and that is the indifference of good men. -The Boondock Saints

#NowPlaying: My CSO - "Good Life"

OneRepublic's (1R) song "Good Life" has been on repeat in my head lately. When I'm in my car, listening to the radio, if this song comes up, the volume goes up with it. I look ahead onto the road as if looking at a camera in my own music video. Don't worry, I've still yet to have gotten into an accident (God forbid).

The main element that caught my attention with this song was the percussion at the beginning. It feels very driven, almost tribal, and anthem-like. It reminds me of the percussiveness in Adele's "Rolling in the Deep". Songs with percussion like this have a direct connection to my heart, mind, and soul. I come alive. I become contemplative. I think of my life, the lives of others, where we are in time and place, I think about human civilization, and how so many are privileged, and how just as many, if not more, are disadvantaged. A whirlwind of thoughts come through my mind as I connect to the rhythm of such music.

I haven't written a Current Song Obsession (CSO) post lately because though there have been many songs, this one has truly been on repeat lately, and up until now, I was wondering when I'd write my next post in this series which I informally launched with the song "Get It Right" from the TV show GLEE, a song, I feel, very accurately describes my life, my thoughts, and frequently, my actions.

Anyway, back to 1R. Initially, when I listen to songs, I try to find the message in the lyrics, if there happens to be any message. Many times the lyrics can be interpreted at face value. Other times, they may be more metaphorical. It's always up to the songwriter, and what they want to say.

That being said, upon first hearing the song, and particularly the chorus, I thought it was a very spiritual message, an uplifting one, particularly about overcoming some kind of adversity. After watching this lyrics video below, I had to re-evaluate my conclusion of the song's meaning. Did it even have a message? Was it a story? My new conclusion is that in this song, singer Ryan Tedder is describing the success of his band, and how they've traveled throughout the world, but fully enjoying the ride that came with their band's success. Their success has rewarded them with a "good, good life".

As a pop song lover, one of my favorite types of songs are those that teach lessons or tell stories. The lesson could be in a single line of the song, it could be the entire song itself, or anything in between. Many times, if a song has a lesson to teach, the lesson is highlighted just before the chorus is repeated, therefore giving the song a little more impact in its chorus, where much of the emotion of songs are located, and of course, the chorus of a song is where the title is usually found.

When you're happy like a fool
You let it take you over. 
When everything is out, 
You gotta take it in.

I'm of the opinion that this song, at its core, is a message of finding the good in life. Whether you're traveling, missing friends or family, making sacrifices that keep you out of contact with loved ones, there's good that's always surrounding you. And if you can, you need be aware of it, and "you let it take you over", and then share it with others when you get the chance.

When you live a good life, you can get more out of it when you share the joy it gives you with others, which, in turn, makes everyone's life a little better. 

 

Corpus Christi

I anticipate that soon there will be a big media storm (unless it's already going) over a movie that's to be released soon. It's a movie called Corpus Christi based on a play by the same name by Terence McNally, in which Jesus is portrayed as a gay man, and the movie is set in 1950s Corpus Christi, TX.

*GASP*

Why should such a play make everyone so nervous and filled with homophobia all of a sudden? Were you there in Jesus' time? Even if we go on the Bible, it's never mentioned whether or not Jesus was in a relationship with anyone, except his 12 disciples. We know he taught them through parables the teachings we try to live by to this day, and then later, we know that Judas betrays Jesus with a kiss. We don't know if it was a kiss on the lips or cheek, it was just a "kiss". According to the Bible, Judas didn't shake Jesus' hand, pat him on the back, or hug him to identify him for the Roman soldiers, he kissed him.

Many Christians probably loathe the idea of Jesus being depicted as gay. But, for the sake of argument, what if he was? Would it make a difference? If so, how? Would God love his son any less if Jesus was gay? Isn't God's love unconditional? Isn't Jesus' love for us unconditional?

All this movie/play does is portray Jesus in a way that no one has openly or publicly done. This simply challenges our deeply embedded image of him as one of total purity and asexuality (no sexual attraction at all) because our churches don't discuss it, and neither does the Bible. Instead, Christian churches, through their frequent anti-gay stances, maintain and uphold the following portrayal of Jesus: healer, teacher, miracle worker.

I'm pretty sure that when you ask some Christians how they feel about gay people, you'll get a mixed reaction either support or opposition. But if you were to have a discussion about Jesus possibly being gay, it'd suddenly be blasphemous and repulsive. But, why should it be blasphemous and repulsive?

I remember first learning about this play, Corpus Christi, and a church whose services I occasionally attend recently hosted a production. I didn't go because I couldn't afford it at the time. But I'm curious to see Jesus in a different portrayal than the exclusive one we've all learned over the years. I'll admit that when I first heard about this play, I was initially bothered by it. But after giving it careful thought, I drew my own conclusion: If Jesus loves us no matter who we are, what sins we've committed, etc., why should our love for him be any different? How is portraying him as gay blasphemous?

Because it is! It's mockery and repulsive blasphemy to imply that Jesus and his followers were gay! 

Do you have gay friends or family members?

Yes.

Does it bother you that they're gay, or do you love them just the same?

No, it doesn't bother me.

But it bothers you to think of Jesus as gay?

Yes! 

Why?

Because he wasn't!   

How do you know he wasn't? Were you there? Does the Bible discuss anything about any sexual relationship he could've had?

No. 

It seems to me that the very idea of Jesus being sexual with anyone in general is what's an upsetting thought to Christians (but thinking of him as gay is even more upsetting because we're taking the most beloved icon in human history and juxtaposing him with one of the most controversial issues of the human condition). Think of him as a sexual being like anyone of us, and Christians start to squirm; think of him as a homosexual, and Christians, even those who support gay people, will cover their ears yelling "LALALALALALALA!" This is because we just want to think of him as the kid born of a virgin, being found in the temple preaching to elders, teaching them, and then we fast-forward to his 30s where he acquired his disciples, challenged religious leaders, forgave sinners, and performed miracles (wedding at Cana, multiplication of loaves and fishes, curing lepers, the blind, the deaf, walking on water, calming the storms, raising Lazarus from the dead, exorcising demons from fellow citizens, and most famously, rising from the dead and ascending into heaven). There are over 20 years of his life the Bible doesn't discuss. What happened in those years? 

Do I think Jesus was gay? *shrugs* I have no clue. I think it'd be cool if he was. But that's my whole point: whether he was or wasn't, what does it matter? He died. He rose. Christians expect him to come again and judge the living and the dead. He loves us. We love him. And as long as there's love in a relationship with Jesus Christ, nothing else matters.

I'll help you pack

In an historic vote, the US Supreme Court upheld the controversial Affordable Care Act - aka Obamacare - and some people *ahem* conservatives are pissed. In fact, many conservatives have decided that they're going to move to Canada. (#4 is my personal favorite)

There's only one problem: Canada has free, government-run health care. That's single-payer health care where the government pays for everyone's health care through raising taxes on everyone. And you know what? That's what I want too. I dread going to the doctor because I know I'll have to pay an expensive co-pay. I hope I'll never have to go to the ER because I'll have to shell out money I don't care to spend. But if I have my taxes raised a little more, and I get FREE HEALTH CARE, I'm TOTALLY cool with that.

I can't remember who said this, but the quote goes: "I love taxes. I pay them, and I get civilization in return." Amen.

In all honesty, am I thrilled about how the ACA works? Yes, and no. When it was being legislated, *I* was pissed that there was no public option...because I wanted a public option! That's the primary reason I'm not completely thrilled about it. But do I support Obamacare? ABSOLUTELY! We're already required, by law, to have car insurance. What's wrong with being required to have health insurance?

So, like I said, if the ACA had offered a public option, I probably wouldn't even worry about going with an insurance company. But what kind of healthcare to do I really want? Single-payer health care. I want Canada's health care. In fact, many industrialized countries have it. And they're fine. We're the only industrialized country that doesn't have single-payer health care. Why is that? And the countries with universal health care are not communist. In fact, there are FEW communist countries still in existence, Cuba and China being among them.

So, if you want to move to Canada, I'm only a little jealous, but despite my jealousy, I'll help you pack. Why would I be jealous? Well, for the free health care for one. But also, Frank and I can have our 6-year relationship recognized there too. There, I could legally call him my husband.

Besides, we have yet to witness all the good things the ACA offers. A lot of it won't be implemented until Obama's 2nd term, assuming he gets it.