If My Head's Too Big For A Timer, Then Why Is The Timer Counting Down On Its Own World?

The first half of today's title, minus “If”, was my son Jeffrey's response to me when I didn't set the timer on my cell phone as he read the rest of the book I had about a global village – you know, the exercise where if the world were reduced to 100 people (and that was in 2002; right now it's 116 people) how they and their resources would be distributed. I told him I was timing him “in my head” and would tell him when his ten minutes of reading at home were done.

The second part of today's title, minus “Then”, comes from a Sliders episode and this bounded about in my mind after Jeffrey said my head was too big for a timer. After discounting the logic that my head being too small, not too big, that would be the problem … anyway, once the title characters open a portal between dimension and fail to get through it in time, it would seem they're stuck for about thirty years. Until they find a new timer in this alternate Earth heavily influenced by ancient Egypt.

So from “Slide Like An Egyptian” we come to an awesome pork chop dinner – can you tell we're definitely not Jews in regard to our diet? – last night with baked potato, green beans, and corn, checking out the kids' papers (gotta love our daughter Sarah's self-portrait!) and play with the kids for a bit before bed. I miss that and I'm getting to really despise our computers; our desk computer we still haven't reinstalled Internet Explorer on, our laptop gets addictive, and our NOOK …

well, with our NOOK I'm so wishing I had put my foot down. But this morning, because my wife Martha had to leave early for work (7 am) I made sure the kids got fed and got to school and still find the time to get orders done and my legs not feel quite so wound down (this morning the BURST exercise was sprinting, and as I had very limited room to run in our living room, it was fun). Snow's finally melting and not too fast either, hallelujah.

And I'm closing today with a response that I wrote TODAY but should have posted a few days ago. To be quite honest with you (and Meagan, the Facebook friend who was disappointed I hadn't responded to her questions on a post I'd made of “I support the Biblical definition of marriage”) I was hoping I wouldn't have to issue a defense or apology – in its classical sense “apology” means “defense”, see “The Apology of Socrates” – but this is one issue that seems unavoidable now.

So here we go!

Dear Meagan,

I am so sorry I've taken so long to respond to your questions, will you please forgive me? I will say your second question, “If I don't believe in God's Laws, why would I wish to change them?” is one I CAN'T answer because I do not know, nor would I presume to know, what you're thinking or wishing. Seriously; that's almost a philosophical question on the order of standing in front of a bus and telling it you don't believe in it, then coming back and telling me what the bus did.

Now question one – What exactly do you think we're asking for with “equality” that we don't realize? – I can give you AN answer. I say “an” answer because there isn't a right one. No matter what I say I think you are asking for when you're asking for what I think (and can I admit I'm a little flattered you think that's important) I can almost smell the argument coming. From both sides ... which kinda surprises me that only you and I and Lani have even responded outside of “liking” this post.

You'd think Christians – or let's go a step further and say all those who support “the Biblical definition of marriage” – would be a mite more vocal. Ignoring people who disagree with us doesn't make the disagreement go away, wouldn't you agree? My support for “the Biblical definition of marriage” doesn't stem from just a religious viewpoint even though I am a Christian (I believe you know that) but from a historical one as well.

Civil rights become preferential rights and then only-we-have-rights.

When we are bending and tweaking the law of the land (not “God's Law”; that is such an overused term, Meagan, though I want to believe we both are against theft, murder, and impertinence) for a minority minority group – would I be generous saying the “practicing” homosexual population of the United States is about seven percent, close to twenty-one million people? – it won't stop. A body in motion tends to stay in motion unless acted upon by a greater force, does it not.

And never mind the fact that marriage is ALREADY discriminatory – at least in the United States, you can't marry yourself, marry a blood relative, or marry someone below a certain age (though I understand the last two vary depending what state you're in). The will to expand the legal definition of marriage is not going to end whatever the nine Robes in Black in Washington officially decide. Quite honestly, I see why Justice Kennedy says these cases should have NEVER gotten there.

What do I think you're asking for with [marriage] equality that you don't realize?

I think you're asking for the right. I think you're asking for the recognition. I think you're asking for the citizenship without the residency requirement – wait, that's another issue. (Though perhaps if I had expressed support for “the Biblical definition of citizenship” we wouldn't have quite this pleasant conversation.) Hm, somewhat ironic that both groups of activists are converging on a building emblazoned “Equal Justice Under Law”. Equality may very well be what you get – but will it be just?

All I mean to say with that post – Meagan, please believe me when I say it's not a not-in-my-backyard gut reaction – is that, regardless of whether or not YOU support the one-man to one-woman (I believe it's nine states and the District of Columbia where man to man or woman to woman) legally sanctioned (for now, though truth be known I've heard of no one seeking to invalidate one-man one-woman marriage) definition of marriage – I do. And it's a big responsibility as well as a humongous joy.

And here I stand, David