Myth of Equality

Another state took the plunge into denying equal rights for all its citizens. There are now 31 states where my marriage is OK but others' aren't. Saddening. Maddening. Unexpected? Not by a long shot.  If Americans have been culturally consistent about anything since its inception some 250 years ago, it’s been oppressing someone. Anyone whose throat we can stand on we do. If we weren't enslaving people we were making damn sure that they weren't our equals. In point of fact, despite the proclamation in our most holy of documents that all men are created equal, equality is a very recent revelation for most.  Slavery may have ended 150 years ago but, it’s been less than 50 years since civil equality became a rational way of thinking. Hell, we kept our mothers, sisters and daughters out of the voting booth until just 99 years ago. For a country founded on the idea each and every citizen is entitled to the opportunity to live his/her life as he/she chooses, we've done an awful job backing up that idea with action.  There has, at no point in the history of the United States, been a period where at least one group wasn't fighting for equality.

“Fighting for equality”. What a ridiculous statement. Think about what equality means. It’s the simplest of ideas. One set of rules for everyone. That's it. It couldn't be an easier thing to give. It takes hard work to create inequity. It takes lobbying and vitriol and money and time and unbelievable amounts of effort to stare a group of people down and say, "You know all those rules we have in place already? Well, we made a whole different set for you." But, that's who we are. If we aren't crushing the hopes and dreams of some section of our society then we aren't "real" Americans. 

I just want to address some of the issues and call some people out on their bullshit if you'll indulge me for a paragraph or three.  It's just entirely too frustrating to shut up about anymore.  I honestly wish I were clever enough to create simple meme and be done with it but I'm a rambler so, ramble I must.

Gay Marriage

Let’s just get this out of the way. There is no such thing as gay marriage. The LGBT community isn't fighting for some special exception to the rules. They're fighting to be treated exactly like everyone else. Marriage is marriage. One human loving another and vowing to be together forever.

Sanctity

Really? This is still an argument? If you've ever honestly tried to use this argument and were able to keep a straight face then you're a disgusting hypocrite.  The only way to genuinely make this an argument at all is to punish those who have disgraced the institution in any way.  By taking away a right from a specific group you essentially make that right a privilege. To preserve the sanctity of that privilege you must take it away from EVERYONE who doesn't "respect" it. That means all you cheaters lose the privilege. That means all you divorcees lose the privilege. That means that everyone that has a marriage that doesn't live up to the standards we set as a society must lose the privilege. Standing on your soap box with your third wife while your mistress brings you coffee is off the table permanently.  Will that ever happen? No.  Of course not. Therefore sanctity is an opinion, and apparently a pretty elastic one.

Laws don't change minds

They sure as hell don't. But that isn't the point of laws.  They exist to protect us from ourselves. They exist to protect me from you and vice versa.  Racism, misogyny and homophobia will likely always exist. And, while that may be a bit depressing, there is little we can do about the families that raise their children to hate those who are different. We can, however, keep those types of people from being validated through legislature. You are absolutely entitled to your opinion as an American. In fact, you can go out on a street corner and scream your opinion through a bullhorn while holding up a giant sign that cleverly sums up that opinion. Unfortunately for you, and for me in many, many cases, our opinions mean next to nothing when it comes to the law. If you aren't putting anyone in danger then the law should not be telling you what to do. Bigotry will always exist and, in some ways, will always be protected (1st amendment). But, shouldn't we learn from our past mistakes and realize that bigotry should never be legislated? We've tried this before. With African Americans, with Asian Americans, with women. It doesn't work out. The righteous win in the end. If you need to think about it pragmatically, lets at least save ourselves some time and money.

Religion forbids

Yeah, it forbids you to cast judgment. It's no secret that most of the money donated to the "fight for the nuclear family" is coming from Christians. Be they evangelical or Mormon, the followers of Christ have latched onto this issue and are refusing to let go. Only problem is that they aren't very Christ like. As I said before, you are entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to read a passage in the old testament forbidding homosexuality and to allow that to inform how you feel about homosexuals (coincidentally, the previous passages proclaiming similar punishments for eating shellfish and pork are all but ignored by mainstream Christians, imagine picket lines in front of Red Lobster citing Leviticus 11:4-43). You are entitled to feel hatred toward whomever you want. However, it is not your place to judge them. You are not God and only God can judge. God doesn't need your help. Your job is to live your life as you believe your God wants you to. It is not to punish your fellow man. Judge not lest ye be judged.  I'll never understand why that isn't the easiest rule to follow.

And that's all. It is a sad set of circumstances we find ourselves in but, I find solace in the notion that future generations are always more intelligent and compassionate then their forefathers. 10, 20, 50 years from now, our children and grandchildren will look back on our generation the same way we look back those in the pre-civil rights era. They'll be embarrassed for us. They'll wonder why there was so much hate in our hearts. They'll wonder how their parents and grandparents could let such a thing happen. It’s unfortunate that this is way it works in our country. It’s pathetic that it takes hindsight to find compassion for human beings whose only crime was being born. Our offspring will have to fix our mistakes. They'll do what we're seemingly incapable of doing. They'll do what's right.

Loyal To a Fault

Loyalty is, and should be, viewed as a virtue. In the sports world it is doubly so. We applaud those athletes who eschew the draw of the big market out of loyalty to the cash strapped franchise that drafted them. Even though we know full well that the opportunities afforded such athletes, especially those toiling in pre-internet obscurity, would be greatly increased were they willing to ditch the quiet life of the small market and head to the greener pastures and brighter lights of large market organizations. No athlete in recent history had more to gain than Kevin Garnett. He of the lithe 6' 11" frame. Defensive savant and offensive force of the rarest ilk. Guard like handle, center like size, enough intensity for the entire conference. His mindset was basketball. Winning basketball. Day in, day out, 24/7, 365. And yet, despite 14 all star appearances, 4 All NBA 1st team selections, and an MVP in 2004, he didn't make the finals until 2008. 13 years into his NBA career.

As Garnett creeps toward the top 10 in several all time categories, and as he becomes only the 3rd player ever with 20k points, 10k rebounds and 5k assists, we begin contemplating his place in the NBA pantheon. My question isn't one of where exactly he belongs on the all time list, but whether or not his loyalty to Minnesota was detrimental to his legacy.

Years from now, when those who witnessed Garnett in the flesh are dead and gone, all that will remain of him will be grainy video, box scores and his shrine in the hall of fame. NBA historians will see an incredible player who put up amazing stats but, unfortunately was not a winner. They'll see the eye popping PER and also the 7 straight 1st round playoff losses.  They'll see the sudden jump to the conference finals and the even more sudden plunge out of the playoff race entirely.

Today we question the loyalty of the Lebron's and Howard's of the league. Call them selfish for wanting a better situation. Call them cowards for joining forces with their natural rivals.  The truth is that history rewards winners. Very few care about stats of decades gone individuals. The most well thought out formula proving that the best player in 1980-whatever was....who the hell cares? The Lakers beat the Celtics in the Finals, we all know Magic was amazing, Magic was the best. Even in this very moment we question whether or not Lebron is the best player in the league because of his lack of jewelry. The fact that he's been the best player for at least the last 4 years and doesn't seem to be slowing down will be lost on future generations if he fails to win multiple titles. Something he almost assuredly would not have accomplished had he chosen loyalty over his desire to win. He has yet to earn those rings but, there is no rational argument for his not being in a far better position to compete having eschewed his hometown for a legitimate Robin to his Batman.

In the League Pass and internet based present the small market team is nearly obsolete in terms of individual marketability. There will always be players who prefer the bright lights of LA or NY, or the beaches and lack of taxation of Florida. However, the overriding factor when chosing to stay put or join another franchise is the teams' dedication to winning. And of course money (but in a trade situation money is moot and as a free agent, options are rarely limited to losing organizations).  This of course brings up the question of whether or not positioning ones self to win titles should factor into ones legacy?  We tend to give credit for off season training. Adding a post game, working on extending their range, becoming a better passer.  We even give credit for luring free agents to join them. Why not give credit for moving to a better situation competetively?

Perhaps Garnett has cemented his place in the NBA conciousness with his singular Championship with Boston in '08 but, more likely, he missed out on being considered the greatest 4 of all time. Give Garnett the rings on Duncan's fingers and the case is open and shut. Imagine Garnett in purple and gold circa 2004. Do he, Kobe and Shaq rattle off another 3-peat? 4-peat? There were countless possibilities and opportunities had he forced his way out of the Twin Cities. Alas, he chose to remain loyal to the organization that drafted him and made him the incredibly wealthy man he is today.  A moral victory to be sure. But, there is little doubt that he sacrificed his prime in the process.  Will history see him for loyal superstar he was or will all the losing as a Timberwolf forever stain his legacy?