massachusetts, in two parts.
part one—plymouth, massachusetts
[eric's entirely incorrect history of thanksgiving]
thanksgiving is a overly-soppy faux-nostalgic american holiday which didn’t really exist until the 1800’s, when abraham lincoln decided americans needed a four-day holiday in november.
in, like, the 1600s, some pilgrim lads escaped the religious persecution [and crazy 17.5% vat taxation] of england to settle in the new world—america. they arrived onto what would later become plymouth, massachusetts, and brought their communicable diseases and anglo-centric racism along with strange square-buckle shoes and [even then] a posh yet pretentiously strange accent.
these pilgrims were having big trouble surviving. there were no pubs, no chippies, no kebab shops. luckily, some locals [natives! they called them] came round and taught the pilgrims how to grow crops, use fertilizer and navigate the mcdonalds drive-thru. they thanked their saviors by throwing a lame party, forcing the indians to eat their bland english cooking and look at slides from their lame trip across the atlantic.
a few years later, the pilgrims decided that north america wasn’t big enough for both cultures, and drove all of the indians out. first towards the west, then just crammed all the different tribes into preserves reservations. now the indians, still incredibly bitter about destroying their culture and heritage and murdering countless of their ancestors, slowly get theirs by setting up fashion outlet malls and casinos and pulling over speeding tourists on their reservations.
oh, right, and thanksgiving, well, is a chance for americans everywhere to gorge themselves on polysaturated snacks, different types of meat, and sit around and pretend to like one another before the holidaze really kick in. for some families it’s an important tradition. for mine it was a chance for everyone to poke fun at one another, eat entirely too much food [not just turkey and stuffing, we're talking tamales and fried chicken] and feign interest in college football.
part one—homo, massachusetts
[eric's entirely lopsided analsys of the massachusetts 'gay marriage' ruling]
last week, the massachusetts supreme court decided that the state’s law limiting marriage to opposite-gendered [don't you like that?] couples was against the state’s constitution, which ensures equal freedoms to all. they instructed the state legislature that they have six months to fix the law. the state legislature may nobly change all of the marriage statutes to allow same-gendered couples to get married. more likely, unfortunately, they will choose to create an amendment to the state constitution to limit marriage to straights only. i mean, they still do the whole punxsutawney phil groundhog day thing. fer real.
let’s assume that they allow for gay marriage in massachusetts. the united states was founded on the basis that all states must recognize each other’s laws. however, some 20 bigoted states have already pre-emptively enacted legislation in their own states, explicity recognizing only opposite-gendered marriage. assuming massachusetts agrees to expand marriage to same-gendered couples, this means that one by one each of the bigoted states laws will have to be taken up to the supreme court to be overturned.
but, currently [and this will come as no surprise] the bush administration is pushing forward the defence of marriage act which would actually create a permanent, unerasable amendment to the u.s. constitution explicitly defining marriage as between a man and a woman. obviously motivated by fear and some twisted sense of morality, the administration is pre-emptively acting to make it impossible for states to set their own legislation.
remember prohibition? what a great idea that was… and, hey, it’s still on our constitution. how embarassing for us as a country. if i hear one more person complain about the sanctity of marriage, i’ll shoot them in the head. and, written on the bullet, in reeeeeeeeally small wording will be statistics about marriage, divorce, domestic abuse, single moms and, if i have any space leftover, i’ll squeeze in passages from the bible which clarify what was really said about sodomy and the gays.
marriage, from any government’s point-of-view, is a legal institution which provides benefits to loving couples, encourages them to better society and procreate.
stuffing
i’m ashamed by my pilgrim ancesters that started raping and pillaging 400 years ago in massachusetts, but am very pleased by the pilgrims pushing for my rights and the rights of those i have yet to rape and pillage.
night to afterhours to posh penthouses to disco naps, the whole time eric with cocktail glass in hand and cute boys in tow. so it has been decided.
[scarlet!, as mike might say], i had a decent, shmooze-free conversation with heaven paul, and, [censored]
