Further thoughts on Independence Day

 

I dislike the modern, intellectually lazy practice of referring to Independence Day as “the fourth of July.”  I suspect it may have originated with people having trouble spelling the word “Independence.”  Whatever the root cause, it weakens the significance of the day and ignores the fact that our nation’s birthday was nearly July 2, not July 4, 1776.  This is precisely why John Adams, in a letter to his wife Abigail, stated:

“The second day of July 1776, will be the most memorable epoch in the history of America. I am apt to believe that it will be celebrated by succeeding generations as the great anniversary festival. It ought to be commemorated as the day of deliverance, by solemn acts of devotion to God Almighty. It ought to be solemnized with pomp and parade, with shows, games, sports, guns, bells, bonfires, and illuminations, from one end of this continent to the other, from this time forward forever more.”

Years ago, I wrote a blog post about Independence Day.  It was confined to the history of the holiday and how, over the years, it had been militarized – when in fact our nation’s founders were not only trying to overthrow a brutal occupying military force, but that after they were victorious the founders were loath to even have a standing military (the reason for the groups like the Minutemen and our Constitution’s Second Amendment, which has been twisted by specious court rulings). 

Independence Day is therefore celebrated as the decision by a group of Caucasian males, many of whom owned other human beings, to break ties with the nation that ruled over them.  As imperfect as individual Founders were, let us celebrate our nation’s rejection of unhealthy encumbrances while also advocating for the independence of all human beings. 

Independence from what? 

From outmoded and oppressive cultural traditions like arranged marriages, honor killings, and the presumption that one’s children will grow up to be heterosexual. 

From the expectation that your child’s religious beliefs will be the same as yours. 

From endless cycles of generational wealth and generational poverty. 

From debt to higher educational institutions for obtaining something which is better seen as an investment in our nation as a whole – because an educated populace, able to compete for the best jobs, benefits us all. 

From having to make the agonizing choice between receiving necessary health care and putting food on the table.

From a sanitized version of our history that leaves us blameless for the mistakes of our predecessors, including the treatment of Native Americans, slavery and its aftermath, the internment of Japanese-Americans, and many other wrongs. 

From the mindless worship of historical figures who, though they should be remembered, should not be celebrated.

From the sins of our parents.  Just as our nation does not recognize inherited nobility, nor should children be held responsible for the personal or financial shortcomings of their parents.

These things signify true Independence.

Random Thoughts on Independence Day...

"I am apt to believe that it will be celebrated, by succeeding Generations, as the great anniversary Festival. It ought to be commemorated, as the Day of Deliverance by solemn Acts of Devotion to God Almighty. It ought to be solemnized with Pomp and Parade, with Shews, Games, Sports, Guns, Bells, Bonfires and Illuminations from one End of this Continent to the other from this Time forward forever more."

- John Adams in a letter to his wife Abigail.

We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness...

Read the whole Declaration, it doesn't take long. Great words - that's where Ideas begin.

Sadly, many people today believe that Independence Day is a military inspired holiday like Memorial and Veterans days. While I will never denigrate our servicemembers who protect our liberty (and who swear an oath to defend the Constitution which places them under civilian control), part of the reason we broke with England was due to King George III's brutal occupation army. July 4th is set aside to commemorate the birth of our country and the IDEA of Liberty - an idea for which our founders pledged "our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor."

What would Adams think of today's Military-Industrial Complex? What would Jefferson think of our crumbling separation of Church & State?

Independence Day and the prison of Provincialism

As I’ve stated in previous posts, Independence Day means more to me than the founding of the United States.  It represents the adoption of a philosophy which ought to be reexamined from time to time.  While many Americans will be grilling hot dogs and burgers, waving flags, and setting off amateur fireworks this weekend, how many have actually read the full text of Declaration of Independence?  I have, and it makes for good reading – especially today, when so many of our rights are under attack. 

Take for example, this complaint aimed at the British Monarch, George III:  

“He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.” 

Is what George III did all that different from what has been happening across the country since 2017, where polling sites are being shuttered in minority areas and mail-in ballot options are being restricted – thus suppressing voter turnout in those areas?

Or this concern:

“He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.”

In other words, George III was placing restrictions on immigration.  Sound familiar?

There are other concerns voiced in the Declaration which presage today’s concerns, from restricting trade to quartering armed troops in cities.  I’m tempted to opine that the dude would have loved Trump and his minions.  George III, a weak monarch who was doing as his ministers advised, did these things because he was led to believe that they would intimidate the disobedient colonists from acting out further.  George and his ministers miscalculated. 

While few Americans will have read the passages above – much less understood how they relate to today’s political struggles, many will spout the most ridiculous nonsense without a trace of irony.  And many who disagree with them will remain silent for fear of causing offense.  Part of this is because the notion of objective truth has been under attack, and I feel it is not exaggeration to state that truth is in danger of dying altogether – killed by bias, driven by social media.

Today, social media locks people into their own biases and prejudices.  This is by design, because those who have monetized social media have learned that engagement is driven by calculated outrage and confirmation bias.  What is confirmation bias?  An example: someone uses a search engine to research a topic – for example, conspiracy theories about vaccines, the moon landing, or 9/11 – and finds an article or a YouTube video which agrees with their viewpoint.  In other words, they locate something that confirms their bias.  They click on the link, which becomes part of their history – which the algorithm perpetuates by sending similar links their way.  In essence, without even knowing it, users close their own minds. 

As demonstrated in Yuval Noah Harari’s erudite book Nexus : A Brief History of Information Networks from the Stone Age to AI, the tendency toward confirmation bias in social media, where disinformation is equated with truth, can have catastrophic results.  Both Facebook and YouTube played a significant role in worsening the Rohingya Genocide.  It’s not as if those who programmed these social media tools deliberately set out to kill human beings, but the algorithm programed into them prioritized engagement over human wellbeing.  For “engagement” means money.

Despite waxing and waning content moderation, the trend continues to this day – as demonstrated by the increasing toxicity of most prominent social media platforms. Confirmation bias is taken to its furthest degree in Donald Trump’s ironically named app, Truth Social – which, despite its all-American chest thumping, was financed by Chinese and Russian interests.

This phenomenon is not unique to the United States.  It has been observed in the United Kingdom, Brazil, and Argentina as well – where manipulation of social media enabled unqualified political candidates who would not been elected dog catcher 20 years ago to obtain leadership positions. 

Confirmation bias dates back to long before social media.  It was most prevalent in what has been known as the ghetto.  Understand that when I use the term “ghetto,” I don’t mean in the modern American sense – which generally refers to a lower income African-American neighborhood – but in the classic sense, which refers to an insular, ethnically/religiously homogenous area.  For centuries, these places were necessary for simple survival.  That is no longer the case except in the most backward parts of the world.

For a brief period, I lived in a “gayborhood” in suburban Boston, Massachusetts.  As a young gay man establishing his identity, it had its advantages.  But eventually the conversations became repetitive and tiresome: which guy from the gym might be gay, who had the best body or attribute, and Madonna – lots of Madonna.  It all became a bit stultifying, like living in an echo chamber.  I had forgotten my annoyance with the paradigm until my husband Daniel and I spent some time in one such neighborhood a few years ago: Wilton Manors.  I found it depressing.  From what I’ve heard from others who lived in similarly homogenous places, my experience was far from unique.  Daniel and I now live in a very diverse suburb to the east of Cleveland now, and while I was happy to see three rainbow flags on my block this past month, I’m equally glad to live in a mixed community with people of all colors, creeds, orientations, and identities.  Variety is the spice of life.

Whether they are referred to as ghettos, shtetls, Ummahs, gayborhoods, or whatever, closed communities lead to closed minds. Social media has similarly placed users into “thought ghettos,” where Provincialism reigns.  Provincialism, sometimes also called “Parochialism,” is the enemy of freedom of thought – a liberty which is in danger.  It’s worth noting that in George Orwell’s 1984, people are prosecuted for “thought crimes.”  With many exploring their hidden desires and dispositions on apps and the frequent breaches of personal data, the notion of “thought police” is not as fanciful as it seemed in 1948.

I certainly understand having to navigate diverse viewpoints and complex conversations.  I am a registered Democrat who comes from what was once a solidly Republican family.  Both my parents and all of my grandparents were Republicans, and my great grandfather was a Republican member of the Michigan state legislature.  I am the only LGBTQ person in my immediate family.  My closest living gay biological relative is a second cousin who I haven’t seen in 35 years.  Recently I met up with my father’s sole remaining sibling, who is 89 years old.  During a wide ranging conversation, he related to me that he had been a Republican all his life but has never voted for Donald Trump.  He either voted Democrat those years or stayed at home.  While he still believes in the conservative philosophy as espoused by President Eisenhower, he laments the lack of bipartisanship.  I found my uncle’s perspective intriguing as it echoed something my father told me in March of 2016, just a few weeks before his death.  Additionally, my maternal grandmother began to align with the Democrats in her old age – she was appalled at the GOP’s cutting of social services and the hypocrisy of Newt Gingrich and other adulterous Republicans persecuting Bill Clinton over his sexual peccadillos.  While I have long supported the liberal economic philosophy as espoused by Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman (who were so far to the left economically that their policies would be aligned with Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez today), along with social policies that were not conceivable during the New Deal (like marriage equality), I also regret the lack of across the aisle communication.  But let’s not kid ourselves: It’s not Democrats who have steamrolled their agenda by firing senior ranked military personnel, firing Judge Advocates General, and crippling government agencies they don’t like.    

The America that used to exist, where leaders of diverse viewpoints talked to each other, made deals, even engaged in a little horse-trading, needs to reemerge.  Compromise may be a dirty word to some.  But it is what allowed us to beat fascism abroad, land a man on the moon (yes, that really happened), and win the Cold War.  The loss of the ability to compromise has led to the credible threat of fascism at home, crippled our scientific and space programs, and helped a resurgent, imperialist Russia gain a foothold in Eastern Europe.

In the end, it may be that the Revolutionary War was for naught – a 250-year experiment that ultimately failed. 

So, on this 4^th of July, let us declare our independence from the prisons of closed-mindedness and from provincialism in all its forms.

And read the Declaration of Independence.

A great American road trip

Harry Truman's Excellent Adventure: The True Story of a Great American Road Trip by Matthew Algeo

David McCullough's Truman is the definitive biography of the man from Missouri. But I felt that book did not give enough coverage to the twenty years after Truman left office. Harry Truman's Excellent Adventure, by Matthew Algeo, is a partial remedy to that. A relatively apolitical book, it covers a 1953 car trip Truman took with his wife, Bess, from their home in Independence, Missouri, to Washington, DC, up to New York City, and back to independence. Harry drove while Bess sat in the passenger seat, watching the speedometer to make sure Harry didn't speed. There was no secret service protection in those days, and while Harry and Bess tried to travel in anonymity, the press managed to track the couple down from time to time.

For those accustomed to thinking of Harry Truman as the plain spoken, quick tempered man who once threatened to punch a music reviewer for panning his daughter's singing, this book will come as a surprise. One factor that comes through is Truman's meticulousness. As the former owner of a men's clothing store (known as a haberdashery back in the day) Truman was always a snappy dresser, with a pocket kerchief carefully folded so that all four corners showed. The former president was just as particular about the way he packed his luggage (so that clothing emerged perfectly folded), the care of his new car (with Bess keeping tab of the gasoline expenditures), and the trip route (planned by Truman himself, long before the days of GPS).

Another factor of Truman's personality that emerges is his essential populism. He was not a demagogue populist like Pat Buchanan, or a corporate pseudo-populist like Glenn Beck. Harry Truman was always for the "little guy". He loved people, cared about them (he even took a two hour side trip to spend time with an elderly woman he'd never met), and was genuinely interested in learning about their lives.

Some have complained about the author's insertion of himself into the narrative and comparisons of present-day America with Truman's era. But Algeo's contemporary narration points out how America has changed since 1953. In some ways for the better: racial integration, and equality of the sexes. But we are a less personal, more corporate country than we were in 1953. Harry Truman would be saddened to know how many of the little diners, shops, and motels he stayed at have either gone out of business or been co-opted by large corporations. (I could never imagine Harry shopping at a Walmart.) Despite the number of times I smiled when reading this book, there were tinges of sadness as well.

Direct link to my Amazon review

A 32 Hour Ohio Trip

Viewing the Presidential Planes gallery from the entry to SAM26000. I could definitely get used to this view.

Just before 7:00 AM Sunday, Dan & I bundled into the Element for a quick trip to Dayton. (Mason was boarded in a home provided by FlipFlop dogs, a wonderful service which I heartily recommend to dog owners.)

We arrived at the National Museum of the United States Air Force around 10:00 AM, giving us some time to look around before boarding a bus to another section of Wright-Patterson Air Force base.

The World War II hangar displays planes and other artifacts from the war. Not just American planes, including the Bockscar, which dropped the atomic bomb on Nagasaki, but German and Japanese planes are included as well.

Plane nomenclature was not politically correct in the 1940s.

After about an hour, we headed out to view the Presidential Plane and Research & Development hangars. Billed as the Presidential Airlift, the former contains several prominent planes used by Presidents from Franklin Roosevelt to Bill Clinton.

The Sacred Cow was a modified Douglas C-54 Skymaster which carried FDR to the Yalta conference in 1945. (The aircraft which took him to Casablanca in 1943 was a modified Boeing 314 flying boat, but the Secret Service was leery of that model’s poor safety record and mandated a better plane for further Presidential flights.) The entry way to the Sacred Cow was short and I banged my head as I entered it. That was not something FDR would have had to deal with as there is an elevator that lifted him, in his wheelchair, from ground level to the flight level. As I walked through the fuselage, I was struck by how modest the interior was. The CEO of even a mid-size company would have more luxurious accommodations today.

The entryway to the Sacred Cow. Watch your head.

FDR's accommodations on the Sacred Cow were very modest by today's standards.

As the presidency grew, the Sacred Cow was outgrown and Harry Truman commissioned a C-118 Liftmaster, which he christened the Independence and outfitted with a color scheme which presaged today’s Air Force One. The plane had better accommodations, including a multi-line intercom.

The Presidential plane continued to grow as Eisenhower commissioned a Lockheed C121 Constellation, named the Columbine III by his wife Mamie, after the official state flower of Colorado. I suspect Mamie Eisenhower had a hand in decorating the interior of the plans as well, outfitted with chintz sofas and drab colors – no style at all. (I didn't bother taking a picture.) 

SAM26000, a modified Boeing 707, is arguably the most famous of the Presidential Planes. Jacqueline Kennedy recommended the designer who came up with details including the font on the exterior (based on the font used on the Declaration of Independence), along with the exterior and interior color scheme – both of which have been carried over into the present day Air Force One. First used in 1962, SAM26000 was seared into our national memory in archival films of President and Mrs. Kennedy exiting the plane to a cheering Dallas crowd On November 22, 1963 - with his coffin being carried onto the plane a scant three hours later. Members of President Kennedy’s staff had to remove four of the seats and saw away part of the bulkhead to accommodate his coffin.

I found the R&D hangar to be less interesting. Most of the aircraft were one-offs which never got put into actual production – and probably shouldn’t have made it past the drawing board. Viewing some of the bizarre looking planes, I could only muse at the huge tax expenditures for the military-industrial complex. It served as a reminder that while the United States spends more on the military than the next ten nations combined, we still can’t provide full health care for those who serve – to say nothing of countless uninsured civilians.

From the museum, Dan & I went to a concert with the Dayton Philharmonic, led by Neal Gittelman, at the Masonic Temple - a beautiful building containing a lovely hall with fine acoustics. The music included Mozart’s Marriage of Figaro overture, the Piano Concerto in C minor, K. 491 - with my friend Zsolt Bognár as soloist - and Beethoven’s Fifth Symphony.

In my opinion, the C minor is the greatest of all Mozart’s piano concertos. It’s highly innovative, with an opening theme which covers all twelve notes of the chromatic scale. The central Larghetto is one of the few slow movements in a Mozart piano concerto which doesn’t need embellishment. The finale, a theme and variations, is among the darkest movements Mozart ever wrote, and the minor key ending is a rarity in a piano concerto. The whole work carries an emotional resonance that most of the other piano concertos, beautiful and finely written as they are, lack. Zsolt played the cadenza by Hummel, which Rubinstein also used – although the elder pianist trimmed a few bars toward the end. Zsolt’s performance was very fine, exquisitely scaled and balanced, with just the right amount of dramatic tension and pointed phrasing. The Dayton Philharmonic is a fine regional orchestra, with a surprisingly strong string section.

If there’s any piece of classical music one can refer to as overplayed, it’s Beethoven’s 5th. Not merely is the 5th overplayed in terms of frequency, but often it’s over-interpreted. For example, there is a phrase in the third movement where Beethoven indicates a ritardando toward the end. In too many performances led by too many conductors (who shall remain nameless), the pulse starts to slow early on in the phrase, well before the spot in the score where the composer placed the ritardando indication. In effect, the conductor is telegraphing Beethoven’s punches! I was relieved to hear that Maestro Gittleman interpreted the work as indicated, as did Toscanini before him. The work on the whole was briskly paced, with a riveting finale.

Zsolt signing copies of his CD after the concert.

After a relaxing evening and good night’s sleep, Dan & I headed to the Book Loft in Columbus. This is the kind of book store I’d have loved to work in, rather than the purgatorial chain store where I wasted four years of my professional life. The set of historic pre-Civil war buildings, with its 32 rooms of books and cubby holes, is the ideal place to browse away one’s day. After shopping there and leaving with an armful of literary booty, we strolled the German Village neighborhood. It’s ironic that, even as I have embarked upon more distant travel recently, there are nearby regions I have not explored. My parents used to regularly take the family to Columbus when I was a young child to visit my great aunt and her husband. But I can count the number of times I’ve been to Columbus as an adult on the fingers of one hand. It’s a lovely, ideally sized city, which I intend to visit more often. Indeed, from what I’ve seen were it not for my job and the Cleveland Orchestra, I could well envision myself living in Columbus.

We arrived home in South Euclid a few minutes before 3:00 pm, St. Patrick’s Day. A whirlwind trip!

Just in time for Independence Day...

Restoration Of 'Star Spangled Banner' Uncovers Horrifying New Verses

Church & State

Despite what religious fundamentalists and the misinformed will tell you, the United States was not founded on Christianity. The founding fathers were largely DEISTS--the closest equivalent today would be Unitarian Universalists. The US Constitution does not mention God once, and there is only a fleeting reference to divine providence in the Declaration of Independence.

The bedrock principle of the federal government has been one of NEUTRALITY with respect to religion, which is precisely what the First Amendment was written to ensure. That neutrality has been chipped away since 1954 when "In God We Trust" was put on the money and "Under God" was added to the Pledge of Allegiance. Bush's faith based initiatives have further eroded the First Amendment.

In am of the Chrisitian faith. However, I have no desire to see that faith forced upon anyone. I am also cognizant that the separation of church and state has part of its basis in the New Testament ("Render to Caesar what is Caesar's and unto God what is God's"). That seems to escape some of the more fundamentalist Christians.

I have no desire to see the United States morph into a Christian Iran, and I suspect the vast majority of Americans agree with me, whatever their personal religious beliefs.

“The government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion.” - Treaty of Tripoli, signed by John Adams (giving it full power of law - read the Constitution)

“Twenty times in the course of my late reading, have I been upon the point of breaking out, ‘this would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it.’” - John Adams

“Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between church and State.” - Thomas Jefferson

“...an amendment was proposed by inserting the words, ‘Jesus Christ...the holy author of our religion,’ which was rejected ‘By a great majority in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and the Mohammedan, the Hindoo and the Infidel of every denomination.’” - Thomas Jefferson

“Our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions, more than on our opinions in physics and geometry. . . .” - Thomas Jefferson

“The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg. . . .” - Thomas Jefferson

“The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as his father, in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter.” - Thomas Jefferson

“Religion and government will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together.” - James Madison

“My parents had given me betimes religious impressions, and I received from my infancy a pious education in the principles of Calvinism. But scarcely was I arrived at fifteen years of age, when, after having doubted in turn of different tenets, according as I found them combated in the different books that I read, I began to doubt of Revelation itself.” - Benjamin Franklin

“It is the duty of every true Deist to vindicate the moral justice of God against the evils of the Bible.” - Thomas Paine

Thoughts on Marriage Equality

June is an important month in the history of the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender rights movement.  1969’s Stonewall Riots took place over two nights in late June; on June 26, 2003 the United States Supreme Court ruled that gender based sodomy laws were unconstitutional; exactly ten years later, the court struck down Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act, which outlawed Federal spousal benefits to same-sex couples; finally, on June 26 of this year, the Court struck down the Defense of Marriage Act entirely, along with all State measures prohibiting the same- thus legalizing same-sex marriage nationwide.  It is all the more fitting, therefore, that LGBT Pride month falls in June.    

There was a flurry of internet comments that greeted the Court’s ruling.  One that stood out to me was in response to a gay man who stated he had no plan on marrying his long-term partner: “I don’t see why you should,” a respondent said. “It’s just a piece of paper.”

But marriage is so much more than a piece of paper. So much more.

“No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family. In forming a marital union, two people become something greater than once they were.  As some of the petitioners in these cases demonstrate, marriage embodies a love that may endure even past death.  It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage. Their plea is that they do respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find its fulfillment for themselves.”

Well said, Justice Kennedy.  I only wish your views on corporate personhood were as enlightened.

It’s well worth pointing out that four of the five Justices who voted for marriage equality were appointed by Democratic Presidents: Stephen Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, appointed by Clinton; Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, appointed by Obama.  The fifth Justice, Anthony Kennedy, was appointed by Reagan when his first two nominees, Robert Bork and Douglas Ginsburg, failed to gain Senate approval.  Whenever someone complains that there’s no difference between Republicans and Democrats, I always point out the importance of the Supreme Court.  It’s appropriate to pay homage to another, unrelated Kennedy: Edward – without whose withering criticism theodious Bork would have likely won Senate confirmation.

Back in 2010, when Daniel and I had to go to Vermont to get married, I was impatient with the lack of progress on the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, Hate Crimes Legislation, and the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.  I noisily announced my intention to leave theDemocratic Party in favor of the Greens.  Two things happened which changed my mind: The Hate Crimes Act and repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell were passed and signed into law; and I witnessed the ridiculous behavior on the part of several Green Party members revolving around a local zoning ordinance – which led me to an epiphany: America’s Green Party and their members have accomplished nothing for the environment, and certainly nothing for human rights.  That’s when I recalled an old truism, which has applied in my own life as well as in most politics: Slow and steady wins the day.

Following the ruling, I was amused that thrice-married, twice-divorced Donald Trump promptly assailed the Court’s action and spoke out for the “sanctity” of marriage.  Trump sets a poor example for the country both on issues of marital fidelity and pronouncements on public policy.  There is an old adage which cautions to “Never speak of rope in the house of a man who’s been hanged” and that certainly applies to Trump vis-à-vis marriage.  I simply cannot take him or any of his followers seriously. I find it interesting that while numerous Republican or religious acquaintances have quietly told me that they don’t agree with their Party’s or Church’s stance on LGBT people, not one of them has stood up and proclaimed that view publicly.  Not one of them has joined the many groups, like Republicans for Marriage Equality, or an LGBT-friendly religious group, to express their belief.  This has led me to the conclusion that either these people were lying to me, or they simply lacked the guts to stand up for their beliefs.  As Toscanini said, “The spine curves when the soul is curved.”    

Their behavior was particularly galling in light of comments by all too many on the religious right, which affirmed my belief that many religions are little more than an excuse to hate.  While their leaders, and followers, endlessly repeat “Hate the sin, love the sinner”, it’s patently obvious that many of them hate the sinners as well.  It’s not enough of them to froth at the mouth, they lie while they do so when they claim that religious liberties are under attack – for the Court’s ruling affects Civil marriage only.  No priest, minister, rabbi, imam, or other religious figure will be required to perform a same-sex marriage ceremony.  Frankly, considering how most religious institutions – with the exception of a few “open & affirming” congregations like the United Church of Christ, and the Unitarians – have made it part of their mission to slander and suppress the LGBT community, I can’t understand how any LGBT person of conscience can associate with them. 

The Court’s affirmation of the right of same-sex couples to marry is a huge threshold in the continued mainstreaming of the LGBT community – a phenomenon which has gained momentum since the 1990s.  About the most courageous thing an LGBT person could do back then was live openly in the suburbs – especially if coupled.  At the same time, there are members of the community who don’t want to be mainstreamed.  For every gay couple out there wanting to marry, there’s a self-styled “queer” who rejects marriage as “heterosexist” and “patriarchal” (even if the couple involved is Lesbian).  It’s no surprise that many of these people live in gay ghettos, surrounded by gay friends, shopping in gay shops, drinking and dining in gay bars and restaurants.  That’s OK, but it’s limiting – as recounted in Edmund White’s States of Desire, Travels in Gay America, it amounts to a “shtetl” mentality of separateness - where immersion in one's own Tribe comes at the expense of knowledge of the wider world.  Everyone should be free to pursue their own path in life – to pursue “happiness”, as stated in the Declaration of Independence.  No one should feel “pushed” into marriage any more than someone should be forced into heterosexuality.  For what the Court’s ruling acknowledges is that LGBT people have a legal “choice” – in other words, Freedom – to marry as they see fit.  I don’t see how any right-thinking person can besmirch that right – particularly as so many states still allow marriage between first cousins, which is virtually incestuous.

With rights come responsibilities.  Doubtless there will be some lesbians and gay men who frivolously marry, and those who marry to receive attention and gifts, as have many heterosexuals.  It will be up to individual members of the LGBT community to exercise their newly acknowledged rights in a responsible manner.

The work goes on.  In too many states, it’s still legal to fire an LGBT person without cause.  This needs to be changed.  There must be an end to job, housing, and other discrimination against LGBT people.

So, to quote fictional President Jed Bartlet: “OK, what’s next?”