The Knights of the Auto Order Proudly Present: The Auto Body Estimate: Vol. II, #105, August 2011
Our youngest, Peter, is two. As such, he's not always rational and reasonable. Last night at dinner he asked for applesauce. After coaxing a "please" out of him, Becca complied. Inspired by the big scoop on Peter's plate, Erik (his big brother) asked for applesauce too. As Becca served Erik, Peter became enraged. Now, let's be clear: Erik's receipt of applesauce in no way impacted how Peter's would taste, or how much Peter might receive. Nevertheless it made Peter furious that Erik could have some too.
I wonder if a similar mindset occurs in people who believe our government should prohibit gay marriage.
I've never understood how forbidding others to marry protects the institution of marriage (or how this should be our government's job). Do those who oppose these marriages see any meaningful distinction between their objections and those posed by people who fought against mixed race marriages? When the history books are written are they comfortable landing on the same side of the equation as folks who fought against segregation and women's rights? Really?
But maybe I'm just not thinking this through. Perhaps it would/ /be best if the government decided who should be allowed to marry. They could prohibit artists marrying artists, requiring them instead to marry accountants so at least one partner could balance the checkbook. They might also forbid people from marrying if they plan to hyphenate their last names and the results aren't really funny. For example, Schvinghammer-Kunklestrum would be acceptable, while Newton-John would not.
I've probably spent more time on this topic than I should, especially since what I'm really steamed up about is Minnesota's recent state shutdown. Here I place my blame, however ignorant I may be, equally on the Democratic governor and both the Republican and Democratic legislators. I believe they ALL put partisan bickering and political posturing above Minnesota's best interests. Their job was to reach compromise in the time allotted and they didn't do their job (instead they spent months bickering about a gay marriage amendment).
I think we should create a new law stipulating that if you are the governor or a legislator in office when a government shutdown is caused by your inability to compromise, you should be guilty of a felony, and subsequently ineligible to hold public office again. In an effort to save on incarceration costs, I'd suggest instead that the lot of them be required to pitch in equal shares in repaying every person, office, and business that was financially impacted by the resulting shutdown. Why not?
Now that I've solved one of our leading social struggles and circumscribed partisan bickering, we can all turn to a more pressing divisive issue, namely, deciding which of the two remaining summer Auto Body gigs you should attend. What? More than one gig? Yes!
On Thursday, August 18 we'll return to Saint Paul's own O'Gara's Garage for an EARLY SHOW. We'll play from 8:00-9:30 followed by Tony Ortiz (formerly of the Monroes, best known for their 1980s single "What Do All the People Know"). For five bucks you get new Auto Body Experience songs, great sound, lights designed for purposes other than Christmas tree decoration, free parking, and the opportunity to return home in time for a good night's sleep (if you're into that sort of thing). Plus they serve booze.
Then, on Sunday, August 28 we'll play at the Lake Harriet Bandshell in Minneapolis from 2:00-3:30 PM. It's a free show, for all ages, at a great outdoor venue. Plus they serve ice cream. If you're like the Yohos you'll want to enjoy a trolley ride while you're there too.
So how should you decide which of the last two gigs of our summer tour to attend? You don't have to. Stop the partisan bickering, and get married to the idea of enjoying both gigs. That's my plan. In fact, I'll be giving free applesauce to everyone who does (just don't tell Peter where you got it)!
Love, Scott Yoho, Grand Pooh Bah, Knights of the Auto Order
PS: Becca, who didn't squander her high school study time by playing in rock bands, points out that the "Dog in the Manger" fable is an apt metaphor for Peter's behavior. In this fable a dog is lying in a manger, on top of some grain he doesn't eat. Nevertheless, he guards the grain from the horse, so no one eats. The weird thing is that the acronym for the Defense of Marriage Act is DOMA, which sort of sounds like a shorthand abbreviation of Dog in the Manger. Coincidence? Perhaps not!Return the Estimate Index...