The American Revolution Still Goes On

On April 18th, 1775, at Lexington Green, in Massachusetts Colony there were farmers that stood up for what they thought was right. Though they still thought of themselves a Englishmen they felt that they did not have a voice in their government back in England, and wanted that Right to have representation and a voice. They started a revolution, though at first it was a Civil War, that would lead to a new and independent country that was separate from and more on tune to the beliefs of its constituency. Therefore the American Revolution started here in Massachusetts, and here we like to think that we were the birth place of Liberty. Even the Constitution of the United States is modeled after the Massachusetts Constitution.
The American Revolution did not stop there though, and spread through out the colonies. Nor did it stop with the end of the Revolution. Nor did it stop as a model of American government. Boston was the Athens of America (and still is).
In the early 19th Century C. E., it was in Massachusetts that the injustice of Slavery was first spoken out against. That cry went out through the country and finally ended in the end of Slavery in the United States.
Again, Massachusetts has lead the American Revolution. It was here first that the Right to Marry the one you love, whether it be the same sex or the opposite made no difference, and the same rights that heterosexual married couples have were given to those of the same sex. Now New Jersey has joined the revolution too. Bravo New Jersey.
The fight has not been won by any means. The revolution did not end with those first days in 1775 but continued for years. And there was opposition too even then. Loyalists wanted to stay loyal to the English crown and did everything to stop the movement. Likewise when the injustice of Slavery was loudly proclaimed there were voices that called loudly for it, saying there was Biblical justifications for it.
Likewise, there are those that justify the opposition of same sex marriage with Biblical justification, but they take out of context the words and use them to continue the justification of their reasons for the continuation of discrimination as they did in the South for Slavery and the oppression of the Black community in the last century. But if you read the text accurately and use the original sources not the mistranslations of the King James version, you will find that something entirely different is meant. The Old Testament prohibition that is interpreted to be against same sex love is really a prohibition against that of relations with a man that belonged to the priestly class of another religion, a Pagan religion. These men were considered as sacred in their own religion and therefore were not Jewish, in the sense of their worshipping Yahwah.
Likewise in the New Testament there is no mention of homosexuality by Jesus, but he does emphasize having a loving nature. He does condemn hypocrisy and intolerance. It is in the letters of Paul that you see that homosexuality is mentioned and that is usually quoted out of context to suit the purposes of those that are in opposition to same sex love. A closer and in context reading of the text will show he says that Jesus says nothing on the subject and that in his opinion it is wrong. In his opinion. Now it was in his opinion that he says that women are inferior to men and incapable of understanding the word of God. That is blatantly misogynistic. We know that is not true, women are as capable of thinking and understanding as are men.
Another line of irrationality is presented in the idea that giving the right of equal right of marriage will degrade the institution of Marriage. Let me take the religious aspect of that that it is a threat to freedom of Religion. First of all, Marriage is not a religious institution to begin with. It is a civil institution first. You must go to the State to get a license first before you can get married. Without that document, you are not legally married no matter what church or how many churches you are married in. It is a civil marriage first then a religious marriage second, for you can be as legally married by a Justice of the Peace as by a minister who also needs the sanction of the State of perform the service.
Secondly, how can the marriage of a same sex couple degrade your marriage. It only happens if you perceive it that way, and it is a matter of personal perception. It was similar to the argument to keep Blacks from being next door to you. It is your perception that is the matter not what is next door. If there is something wrong with you marriage it has nothing to do with what is going on outside of it but between the two of you.
Therefore I commend the State Legislature for their actions and say that the American Revolution still goes on.
Hermes