Double-think [Short-short Fiction]

And what if these were excerpts from a polemic on the State of the State in America and how we persistently delude ourselves about the nature of freedom and the state of our democracy here and now, as we like to say tritely when we puzzle over just how to say what is obvious, I could assume, about place and time; but moreover, this could be understood to be a polemic on just where power lies (an interesting irony, or not irony . . . puns are abundant, are they not, unless all be knotted in the mind, confusions confounding us, contusions arising in the jousting we do both for real, in that way that art is nature, or in jest, as we do when we are inclined to see or seize the humor that lies in life, or should I say living–to live or not to live would not be the question posed that is when being is at the heart of the inquiry, all inquiring minds laying out the minefields of inquisition when asking what should be asked); and, of course, any good polemic—or should I say critique that tends toward being polemical, in as much as any piece of writing could attain being rather than merely existence . . . if you get what I am driving at—; yes, any good writing tending toward polemic in the ways, or towards the ends, I have established, or would establish (because I have not yet set what this writing is going to be, and there is that being again, but then I say writing has “being” as does the author of the wrtiting, and I have not become an intellectual twit whereby I can posture myself, of course absurdly, as one who believes or at least thinks or perhaps allows himself to imagine far too long, that the Author is dead . . . but then this would take me, if pursued, too far along on the tangent that it is to the circle of my argumentative or explicative contaiment herein . . . and so what the nature of power is when power acts powerfully in the services of power, by power and for power, that shall always be perpetual wherever the People abdicate their responsibility to themselves as the People for the slightly more lucrative role of a state-serving Public, is a concern, more than concerning this concern each of us needs to discern.

These here are excerpts from the Polemicist (a role I play? the actor prepares, he builds a character, he fulfills a role? all the pages are stages just as all statecraft is stagecraft . . .); one or another and another and another excerpt from The Polemicist would be accepted, expected  . . . and it might be important to note that he serves on the staff of a website called The Commentarian, devoted almost entirely to delivering sometimes tenchant at other times merely visceral polemics on American politics.

Okay so far?

I guess so would be assumed if I did not imagine that you, my audience, objected.

The website  also provides other forms of social commentary relevant to whom? You might ask. I do not; I have not.

The upcoming commentary as other commentaries found in The Commentarian have appeared in the blog section of the website . . . and the blogger/editor, who writes many of the pieces, signs off as POPULUS, or in Latin, The People. What this has to do with my having written what I initially set as a possibility in writing . . . and now the focus must shift to what has been written and not what will be written . . . the following having ben written, as inferred above, as a polemical piece . . . and is herein as follows:

The State in America only pays lip service to the exercise of freedom. Presidents in the State of the Union rarely ever serve more than their image. The State is incapable of respecting in the least the kind of freedom I had once believed was my birth right; I cannot believe anymore in a President of the people. Perhaps naively in my youth I believed that presidents were capable of what Obama’s most ardent supporters believe him capable of, but doubt of this has begun to supplant confidence. Perhaps my mistake was to have taken freedom for granted; I am beginning to feel like one of Barnum’s suckers. Washington does seem like the Big Tent; Capitol Hill, the White House, et cetera, other rings.

[ . . . ]

Will our civil liberties always be present? I know the slogan of the ACLU is Because Freedom Can’t Protect Itself. Good cause, good slogan, the need for vigilence is constant. But that vigilance must come from the people, not a lazy public looking for men like President Obama to do it for us. We saw Bush II and did not like what we saw; we heard Obama and liked what we heard, but hearing is never listening. We might as well shake hands with the devil anytime we let leaders in Washington keep vigilance for us.

The sense of vigilance our degraded state sponsored education can imagine is the only one that serves the interests of the state; it might be something else entirely now, in that we will not think serving the state against the people is such a bad idea. The Cave dwellers again rebel against the light of day. We do prefer our shadows to the realities outside our caves. Twitter, Facebook, TV, the mirror, all of them our caves; inside ourselves, solipsists ever.

[ . . . ]

We have grown too accustomed to a state more increasingly unfriendly, bartering our civil liberties for a false sense of security; states for all times have rewarded publicans and rarely the people. America had once almost become contrary to this. Advertisements rule our sense of the real; psychologists say that the internet has made us even more self-absorbed, more inside ourselves. Metaphysics by Madison Avenue.

[ . . . ]

I do believe we were freer at a time before Reagan and Bush and Iraq one and two, and certainly the post 9/11 world; which is not to say that Bush II was worse than Johnson or Nixon. We were smarter, more literate, better educated and more willing to commit to social change in a tactile not only tangible way. Today, drug dealers, criminals, pop stars all party with the President and we somehow miss what’s happening. We have come a long way from the old New Left, even further from the Old Left, but let’s not lament yet.

It was the old left that informed many of the men I had come to listen to when I was a boy, my first lessons in American Democracy, politics, freedom, the exercise of liberty, which was never license (a confusion I see popularly spreading). But then my fantasies of the old left might not be as accurately conceived as they should be; among the old left, I include the Teamsters of the thirties and I know too many bosses who deserve the Nietzschean lessons from the Geneology of Morals.

[ . . . ]

I remember the Revolutionary slogans from the time of our Founding Fathers, whereby one stood out: The Tree of Liberty is Watered with the Blood of Patriots, and if I might add, sometimes that of the moneyed and power elites . . . le sange impur. But who gets to say when the shooting stops, or how many is enough? What Reign of Terror is next? Fear is fear not yet anticipation; anticipation not by necessity desire.

[ . . . ]

What did Jefferson mean about our obligation to liberty when he wrote in “The Declaration of Independence” that a people desiring freedom are obligated to throw of their chains? What are the inferences to be made in today’s economy and from close examination of power politics? In this America who is there Democracy for? I know that the rich get richer; I know we have a degraded sense of the possibilities of each man’s future riches, mainly because we have confounded possibility and probability. We tolerate the rich because we believe they do something for their money; they are not an idle rich aristocracy, no. But outside of drilling for oil, raping lands, putting protected land at risk of ecological disaster, what then do the rich do? Goldman Sachs was at the head of the 1929 market collapse and was there again in 2008. And they are Obama’s biggest supporters. Obama is not likely to bite the hand that feeds him and his pompous forked-tongued wife, which does not put me in the camp of the Republican Barbarians storming the gate of civilization . . . no? That’s an inaccurate assessment? 

Now the question should be–or, at least one of the questions that could be asked is if this is a finger on the pulse, or if this is the bile of one writer venting his spleen . . . you must decide for yourselves, my hypocrite readers, my brothers and sisters, all; I will not help in this way. How ambivalent I am is one thing you might guess at without help from me. What the position of the polemicist is is something you can discern without help from me. Whether I agree with him or not is not something you are going to get from me, or even should get from me, perhaps the first inkling of where I stand, or is it only could stand, might stand if x, y, or z, pertaining to my position on the should or not should of what I should give you as narrator or expositor of this, and who the author is in relation to these other roles inside a role inside a role, and so on . . . what?


Consensus, Non-Sensus; the Polemic of an Angry Man

Consensus, non-sensus . . . we can all disagree in this pseudo-democratic nation managed by power elites bent on keeping the masses semi-educated and semi-literate–but consensus in the end is the mandate. To disagree with mandated consensus is to become excommunicate and anathema, socially. If the President were Pope, I’d be excommunicate, I would have long ago become anathema. But the dogma of all Americans acting Americanly has itself reached a reinforcing consensus; after we disagree in any verbal exchange, itself only another ping ping match of monologues, we must come to some point where we all agree that everyone is partly right and partly wrong. There is no real democratic dialogue in America? Does this point to the, possibility that there is a fake democratic dialogue in America, one that masquerades as the truth of democracy in action? Of course it does. How do you not see that it does; I can see clearly that it does–do you really need me to reiterate this? Singular vision; no one really sees for everyone, for anyone, what we see–what I see I have to make clear for you to see.I can only make clear for you what I see by words, with words, through words, what fore-position is necessary for these words to have their appropriate effect?

If we had dialogue, real trenchant democratic dialogue, we would not need to scramble for consensus after extending our disagreements into tangentially drawn monologues, themselves more reminiscent of our collective psychosis in matters of reality, what is real (itself popularly drawn into another consensus managed by the media, themselves controlled by sponsors selling products we most likely do not need); yes, our sense of reality is more so this than anything resembling a healthy expression of democracy at work in a world where people see for themselves and discern for themselves more closely aligned with a Self managed by a literate thinking adult rather than an undereducated protracted adolescent who remains a semi-literate receiver of media packaged idea-bites until the day he dies. But then, democracy is rule, or law, by the people; yet, all we have in America, as far as the media or the government are concerned, is a Public–and this Public is not the People as in Jefferson’s We the People, but a people in service of the State. The people are managed as a public and not as a people because the latter are independent of the State, the former are always in the service of the State, as I have said elsewhere within this Pages section, in other essays. This has become one of my most ardent politically scientific motifs. How do any of us maintain enough focus to see clearly what we think we see clearly by what we apprehend, by what we hear, what we think, what we read, what we have been told, put in form to understand–you do remember that information is all about IN formation?

What we have instead of democracy is a Public interest, a Public good, always managed in its images by the media, whether it is broadcast, print or social; whether by Hollywood or by Government PR, or by Madison Avenue–yes, Mad Men, all. It is absurd; it is grotesque–what is? This demand for consensus we hold as one of the foremost dogmas of our social interaction, our version of the democratic process. How we must all reach consensus in the end of any discussion has been paraded before us as the foremost basic tenet of democratic action–more so, as democratic being. There is not a thread of coalition drawn up in the paradigms of these consenses, though; that would at least have some residue of democracy working.

This idea of consensus that has been permitted to take root in our mainstream idea of Democratic being has nothing to do with and mostly opposes democracy, again, rule by the People and not the State serving Public. There are appropriate places when the People are to perform services for the State, but that is only for a State that still imagines itself in service of the People, which our State is not, and has not thought itself responsible for, since Kennedy demanded that we ask not what our country can do for us, but what we can do for our country, a very sophisticated way of saying the State was no going to do anything for us, but that we had to do for the State and ourselves while the State increased its service of and for the monied and power elites.

Democratic action always benefits from more democracy; the only cure for the ills of democracy is not fascist policies or other brands of totalitarianism or dictatorship–and these latter two can be joined with capitalism. The idea that Capitalism cannot be totalitarian is a mistake. The only cure for the ills of democracy is more democracy, but the democracy practiced must maintain a loyalty to the People, Jefferson’s We the People, not We the Public. The Romans, believe it or not, understood this implicitly: the two words Populus (the people) and Publius (the public) were not synonyms in Roman Political Science.

The kind of consensus that societal norms demand is thus the kind of thinking and acting one finds in totalitarian societies. Do not imagine that it has not already happened here, this kind of totalizing that totalitarian governments enforce. We used to say that when fascism comes to America it will come as Americanism–the real horror is that it is not fascism or Nazism or Zionism or Bolshevism, but America’s brand of totalitarian rule, Americanism, a totalizing will to turn the People into a State serving, thus a Power serving and thus Money serving Public fed by crumbs from their tables. Without it being any of the former mentioned four isms, Americanism will be a new totalitarianism.

Totalitarianism is totalitarianism (truth revealed in tautology). I am not trying to be facetious, no more than a Buddhist is when he says good is good, bad is bad and both exist . . . because they do and there is no reductionism in this in the way we mean to make pejorative any attempt to streamline our focus on what the nature of political things are. America is the new Totalitarian Bourgeois Capitalist Super State in a world that once had the Soviet Union as its ironic counterbalance. I still do not get why so many people who are being reamed by power and money recoil when you say that the only thing the Power elite will understand is the guillotine, is murdering their families–I just do not get why so many people are willing to trade decency, morality, compassion and kindness and hope and happiness for complacency and peace. At what price peace, I ask again, friend Thomas. The pain we endure . . . do you need to be decent to the Devil to prove you are a good person? Why shouldn’t the People burn Satan’s legions at the stake?

Human Rights and Harvard Yard [A Short Story]

A Harvard Undergraduate

Makes a List Sitting on a Yellow Chair

in the Yard Near Massachusetts Hall

where Emerson Once Slept


Any sane and rational discussion of Gay Marriage will have to address basic human rights as the primary concern for how and where gay marriage fits in our society–and it does fit in our society, irrespective of what the Know-Nothing Party Trumpets as its alarums for our future.  All other foci are ancillary to the primacy and ultimacy of gay marriage as a human rights issue; and it is the human right to choose we are talking about when we talk about Gay marriage; it is the human right of self-determination, and  the human right of sole proprietorship over body we are also talking about. Just as the Know Nothing Party of Donald the Trumpeter Angel of the new Right’s Paradisiac Millennialism are talking about the abolition of civil rights for some as a way to fix the political and economic problems of America, as if Nazism was the solution for Germany’s problems, irregardless of how much German Industrialists as well as American Oil Companies got behind Hitler, and Mussolini before him. All together wrapped up in the issue of gay marriage are all of our civil rights.


Gay Marriage in our more sensitive and intelligent discussions (–and I do understand how sensitive and intelligent are synonyms in some contexts of use) will address how laws that have been made to oppose universal Human Rights do not void these fundamental rights, and the people in Oklahoma will have to adjust to the idea that a democracy and freedom itself cannot be determined by a tyrannous majority. The excessive demand for equality has left us–all of us– with the heinous consensus that no one’s opinion is greater better saner more intelligent or rational than any other. With this we only have left either the Will to Power or one or another tyrannies of the majority. You do understand this, don’t you? I do not wish to assume that you do not;I just do not have the faith that others have in the general intelligence, the overall level of education, or the quality of our literacy, irrespective of how many shell games we play with our quantitative analyses with regards to our state of literacy or alphabetics, if I am to be more accurate.


All sensitive discussions will also be part of a grander metaphysical discussion concerning the universality of human rights for all people everywhere irrespective of belief system or class, irrespective of race or gender or gender identification or re-gendering, no matter how we come to define gender and gender roles, and whether or not there needs to be more than one gender, although there may still only be two sexes–and this idea of sex is the biological one, although there are instances of one person being both? Sex here is also not an indication of sexuality. We will have to address the affront that Sharia Law poses for democracy and freedom, irrespective of how much my fellow Harvard students do not want to oppose culturally enforced misogyny because they feel as if they have no right to oppose misogyny when it has grown out of a culture not our own, and it would be a transgression of their respect for freedom to tell Muslim men that they cannot violate a woman’s basic human rights when Sharia Law or culturally inherited laws guarantee men a repressive role socially and by family over women–respect for diversity does not disallow me from opposing oppression, repression or tyranny regardless of how much any of the three are wrapped in “product-of-culture” rhetoric that my fellow undergraduates seem unable or unwilling to handle correctly—talk about politically incorrect? If all things are relative, there will be nothing for anything to be relative to; do not try to tell me that there are no universals concerning freedom or democracy or basic human rights because if you did I would have to assume you were an idiot, as I would for anyone who told me that I had to make a space for Sharia Law here in the United States because I would have to understand that Sharia Law were a product of or a relevant means of governing within a Muslim world view, and that would just have to be the stupidest things I could ever hear, and you who say it probably wonder why we are suffering as many conservative backlashes against our freedoms as we do. As semi-literate and ahistorical as too many who count themselves liberals in American have become, it is no wonder . . . I have to pause.


We do know that human rights cannot be restricted to political philosophy alone, that Human Rights have metaphysical valence too. And I do know how too many of my fellow undergraduates here in The Yard have succumbed to one or another received anti-metaphysical idea . . . especially the lot of you taught by professors and TAs who haven’t looked at a document more than five or maybe ten years old in any of their research,papers or assignments. The idea that there are no universals of course affects how we manage democracy, freedom and even how we get to control or counterbalance Power, Money, the State. Ask anyone on campus what We the People means, could mean, has meant, will mean, might mean in opposition to the State or to we becoming a state servingPublic in place of The People. I cannot pause tolisten to the stream of inanity couched in just enough buzz words to indicate the person speaking the inanity is a right thinking liberal, a received idea thinking liberal, a dogmatically controlled liberal parroting what other imbecile liberals on campus spew . . . and we wonder why the conservative barbarians are at the gate. Let us let the Visigoths in, why not? We have been mistaken and horribly prejudiced against the barbarian hordes. The Vandals and the Ostrogoths have culture too–and I am not using the word culture in its older more traditional prejudice, but in its most recent anthropological sense. I am just saying we can evaluate cultures and decide intelligently. I mean, if we were to find a tribe of people who every full moon gathered at night in a field and in a circle shoved feather duster handles up their asses to then cluck and strut in that circle like roosters; this would be their culture. Let us now do it in suit?

In as much as Gay Marriage remains fixed as a human rights issue, Gay Marriage demands a re-examniation of the institution of marriage, and that is not so much marriage today (although it does insist we do so), but marriage as it has been over time, historically. Gay men and women have basic human rights and one of them is the right to co-habitate with another adult consensually. It is universally true that Gay Marriage is a Human Rights issue and must be decided as such, and defended as such by intelligent, articulate liberals who are not afraid to say that Human Rights are universal irrespective of culture.


Individuals often find themselves opposed to Gay Marriage based primarily on how the language we use to speak about marriage, to name the roles in marriage, to identify the partners in marriage, has left us with an archaic understanding of marriage that was once beneficial to harnessing women within an agrarian world view and a view of society rooted in patriarchy and patriarchal oppression (and how so many of my fellow undergraduates here at Harvard have forgotten this and have forgotten their obligation to defend this is beyond me, maybe as much as it seems the obligation is beyond them).

These constructs no longer have a place in our world, and not because of how new we have become, but because they have maintained a mode of thinking that is no longer verified by reality–in fact, they have helped shape our thinking about the sexes in a way that remains today contrary to the full emancipation of women and has only helped foster respect for and support of a hierarchic orientation between men and women, with women on the bottom; perhaps why the missionary position was culturally enforced? If it was in fact ever prescribed. Nevertheless, the missionary position is also the chimpanzee position when chimpanzees copulate, so I really do not know where today’s missionaries stand or lie with respect for how humans should orient themselves when they sexually copulate? How people like to fuck consensually should never have been a consideration of any government, any hierarchy of order, and should not be a concern in any democratic society.).



I hesitate to call anyone opposed to my views idiots or imbeciles or mental defectives of another order; and not out of politeness. You can intelligently disagree with me, butI do hold certain truths to be self-evident, and I know how this puts me in opposition to many of my classmates. I just had a girl break up with me because of my defense of metaphysics, my belief in certain universals and absolutes, and my articulation of views she described as horribly debased and transcendental. The latter she inflected as if she were saying pedophile. I didn’t even want to call her a cunt  I do think one or another of the former assignations, idiot or imbecile from time to time.

How a Letter from an Editor of an On line Literary Review Becomes Fiction; or, You Should Know the Boundaries between Fiction and Non-Fiction

. . . is a letter from an editor of an on-line literary review. The opinions are herein those of the Editor-in-Chief, a role the Publishing Editor likes to assume separately from that of Publishing Editor. He has complete control over content. The follow has been abridged by me.

[ . . .]

All social interactions are fair game (pardon the cliche) within the confines of the critical essays intended for social commentary. Responses herein to the questions that arise, or the questions I have anticipated some might ask, are not in themselves answers. The distinction between answering and responding ad which is enaged when and how and to what result or for what purpose is the subject of another essay herein included in its Pages section, the chief section of this review, not the blog, although the later has as much to do with critique, often in other forms, mostly, another length (but where length dictates form and style, this is significant).

[. . .]

The Review has offered, does offer and will offer criticism, explication, commentary, exposition, even Jeremiads, which do not chiefly answer as much as they address, perhaps by redressing grievances or making pronouncements, perhaps grandiloquent ones, on social woes.

[. . .]

I do acknowledge that as the Publishing Editor of this review, I cannot help but shape what this review will sound like, or what it will appear as, when readers access its texts. I am the chief writer–I am the only writer–everything herein is I. The Review, c’est moi, I think have already said.

[ . . . ]

Gay Marriage (a few points made by an opponent of darkness) [Flash Fiction]

A letter to the editor of an on-line literary magazine published by the editors, as they agreed, because of its succinct power.

Let it be re-iterarted that all efforts at re-defining marriage are paramount to furthering our understanding of where Gay Marriage fits in the social equation of couple-unions today–and it does fit, that is, more easily than many of us on either side of this pro/con issue are likely to understand or admit. Opinions are opinions, and facts are facts, but intelligent, rational thinking is other than tautological.

To say Gay Marriage is marriage is not enough. But then to say with categorical impunity that marriage is only a union between a man and a woman is equally insufficient. The protection of all of our basic human rights requires us to be more intelligent than we allow ourselves to be, to be better educated than we are expected to become in the systematic under education fostered by our school systems across the country, as well as each of us achieving a much higher level of literacy than we are able in a society that enforces semi-literwacy as literate-enough and doubt as the highest possible form of wisdom.

To be gay or not to be gay should not be a question. How is it that anyone still imagines that it could be? But then there is no Truth; there aren’t even any number of minot ‘t’ truths. The only thing we are left with is the will to power, one or another form of tyranny in the left hand or the right.

Bee Hive Nation [Flash Fiction]

A journal entry by a parent of a public school student, the public schools in Brooklyn in the City of New York, after a parent meeting at the school his child attends, and at a time when semi-literate and under-educated can masquerade as literate enough and educated in itself educated by those who are the guardians of our future by being the educators and intellectual mentors of our children–the horror!

Reading at an advanced stage of literacy is not a requirement for political participation in America, but then bread and circuses is not new to the American state and governments have supported innumerable variations on representative government without the masses either literate or participating. The people are taught to read through many of the organs of the state, thereby insuring a level of advanced under eduction at an inflated value. Inflation permeates everything in our lives as soon as we tell ourselves we have to learn to live with economic inflation. Economics hits home too hard not to affect the things we do and the ideas we think day in and day out.

Public education as we have it in New York City is an example of this kind of inflation, but then an inflation that is contingent with the overproduction we have in education where all are special, any can be talented, and semi-literacy meets the demands of a society that produces little of what it consumes, underpays and enforces wage slavery around the world to feed its greed, its tape-worm driven gluttony. Is there any reason for anyone anywhere in any business or industry to get the annual bonuses that investment bankers on Wall Street get; is there any reason for the CEO of ABC to get 72 million a year? Readers need not apply. Notice, though, that it is Public education. The public are always the people in service of the state. When functioning as a public, which the people must do sometimes, they are not functioning as the people. These are two distinct and categorically separate political entities. They are often mutually exclusive in their functions.

Yes, office cubicles resemble more the cells in a beehive than they do anything else; perfunctory level jobs for life for perfunctory performing drones, all of them increasingly more and more underpaid as top-level executives have become the new oligarchy in America. Our lifestyle is our hemlock, if any one of us should be brave enough to stand Socratically against our media sophists and the oligarchy of CEOs countrywide. But then we don’t read anymore, and our knowledge of classical antiquity has evaporated, so any allusion to the terrible forty of Athens or the death of Socrates passes as does a ghost.

He says he wishes things were different, but then I think that if things were different, he might not know what to do with himself, and as badly as things seem in his point-of-view, he would not know what to do with himself, as I have already said, if things were going as well as he imagines he wants them to go. I remember having remembered something of what I had learned about Byron, about how it was not the result that was as important to him as it was the struggle for what he believed that was opposed by much of his contemporaneity, how the Romantic dos not want a successful romantic revolution as much as he wants a perpetual one. This of course does not take away one iota of truth contained in his critique.




A Human Rights Issue Says a Man in the Blog Section of his On-line Social Commentary Website [Flash Fiction]

“Humanity, a Journal of Social Commentary”


Gay Marriage is a Human Rights Issue


A blog entry by an anonymous man publishing in an on-line social commentary web-site called “Humanity, a Journal of Social Commentary. Just who he is is not important, or at least I am saying that it is not important in spite of what you might think about writers and authors and gender and ethnicity or race or faith or belief or economic status or region of habitude or time of day or whether or not if he or she or it is eating and why cannot the author or the writer or the blogger or the whatever you have in your idiolect to call what he or she or it is or they are and why cannot one be they if I am we he can be they, no? Whatever, however, whenever, wherever. What the f@#$ could knowing that it is fall and the leaves are visible falling in the wind the day he wrote this tell you about this piece, and whether or not the me who is writing here, not the real world person who is my author writer not exactly the same persona that is he who is the editor . . . 

March 17th, 20xx. Gay Rights are Human Rights.

Human Rights are unalienable and inviolable irrespective of what the society does in violence or by law against the free exercise of a person’s or a people’s Human Rights. Human Rights are everyone’s birthright whether the laws of the society support them or not, whether the backwardness of religion or theological constructs impede the full exercise and/or recognition of these Basic Human Rights.

Gay Marriage stands at the forefront of what we say about ourselves with relation to a person and his or her personhood. There is a logic to  what we say irrespective of whether or not we perceive this logic, or have or have not considered it before hand. Gay Marriage has something to teach us about our socio-political philosophy of individualism and/or individuality. What are the limits of this individuality or philosophy of individualism.

Any intelligent discussion of Gay Marriage will inevitably have to discuss whether or not a political philosophy of individualism is viable in face of staunch opposition to the free exercise of a person’s basic human rights, or if our way of defining it or explaining it is adequate to the task of defending the basic human rights of all persons in as much as we would have to defend each person. Whether how we define this individuality and/or individualism in our society has very much to say on the issue of Basic Human Rights, we will see, but only if we remain literate enough and educated enough, with a sufficient awareness of our history. What can we articulate and defend without hypocrisy?

I hold what I have said herein about Gay Marriage to be basic human truths, and self-evident ones. The Basic Human Rights of gay couples and their civil rights are not debatable points–human rights and civil rights never are. Moreover, we cannot pretend to be a free and democratic society while we remain stuck in an anti-democratic framing of marriage–that is, of what it is, and who gets permission to enter the social institution.

It is nice to know that there are persons—that there is a person who so thoughtfully examines issues that face us as a society and have an impact on how we live as individuals and how we live socially, together; no? Whether you do or do not think so is no never mind to me; I am  not here to garner consensus in order to pretend that I know what I think I believe.