First Church of Craig's List Denver

It's funny how long it takes to try to get things somewhat clear in my head. Somewhat, and at least noticeably more clear than they had been for me!

Last night I had listened to an archive from last Friday of Ronn Owens' KGO radio talk program. He was jubilant as he celebrated with San Francisco's mayor the California court decision recognizing the rights of homosexuals to marry. It came to me that these nice folks don't see how they are floating along blissfully down to Niagara. They have undercut any argument they might have had against, say, accusations of their own "bigotry" in opposition to the right of Washington Elementary's second grade class to be a married family. One happy, polygamous band of flies.

If the Constitution is understood to recognize the rights of all individuals as more or less autonomous, then let's not stop with the marriage rights of a consenting adult male-female couple. On what basis? We have rights because we're human, gay or straight, black or white. OK, you get nicked if you commit the type of crime against others that requires us to restrict some or all of your rights -- especially hate crimes, like restricting the rights of others. That's important, because many Christians will soon be so accused by virtue of their anti rights doctrines.

So if being a live human is the playing field, why is it level only for 18 year olds and up? Up until now, their unchallenged assumption has been that "naturally" this was for the children's own good. Just like "naturally" marriage is between a man and a woman? They will be forced to admit their doctrine of human rights rests on only one thing -- the right of "I want." We are endowed by our Creator with the right to pursue whatever makes us happy, as long as we don't hurt others -- so they preach. If I want, nobody has the right to stop me.

Up until now, those Washington Elementary seven year olds have been prohibited from exercising marriage rights because they were considered incapable to properly do so. Like that's a valid argument, in light of the I Want doctrine. Age inhibits their ability to properly engage in and enjoy marriage, they have been told. And who gave you, oh parent, the right to withhold this enjoyment, in the first place. Why, this is a form of slavery!

Ageist, biggotrous arguments against child rights (to spell out what they will be charged with) is nothing but residual (and warped) Christian thought that will eventually be challenged.

They are saying: "You don't get all our rights yet, little Susy. It's because your brain hasn't grown enough. We're not saying you're not human, just not yet human enough. You need to be mature enough in thought power to sustain independence outside the care of your guardians. It seems arbitrary, we know, but we figure eighteen is the average age most folks come into their full humanity. Full enough, anyway. It's for your own good. When you cross the threshold into what we deem sufficient mental ability, then you can do whatever you want, as long as you let me do what I want."

Of course, if God or other humans place laws on them for their own good, restricting them from what they want, they object. Once they hit eighteen, no fair. Says who? Well, common sense. And who says their common sense should be taken as the guide?

Bottom line, it's one big scheme. It's the best we can come up with to legitimize our desire to get what we want. It keeps us looking respectable to ourselves and our acquaintances as we pursue our interests, our passions, our divorces and maybe our homosexual predilections, our pornography, our pot, certainly our selfish and self-centered avarice, but mostly our self-determination. I see the apple. I want it. That should be enough. Nobody has the right to stop me.