There I was, relaxing, playing a good game of Freecell, pondering
that post about what a "poor stance" I had on the NPS. I don't agree
with them--but it's a free country? Why would my disagreeing upset
anyone?

Then I realized it wasn't so much the disagreement, as my 'disregard'
of their rules and regulations. Ahh, of course. How insensitive of
me. I don't get my way, so I (allegedly) do it my way anyway.
Selfish snob that I am.

But then I started pondering that. Why does the thought of
flagrantly breaking the law not bother me? I stopped hiding boxes in
National Parks because it was a hassle to maintain and difficult to
release clues that the NPS wouldn't read--not because I felt it was
ethically wrong of me to break their rules. It's not even that I
think they are stupid rules, but rather narrow-minded and created
without any input from the people it would affect the most.

They don't care about me, why should I care about them?

Should I feel guilty? *shrug* What an interesting question....

Some law-breakers have been hailed as heros for standing up against
unjustness. The underground railroad comes to mind. Brave
individuals saving blacks from slavery. I doubt I'd have the courage
to do that myself--they had some pretty severe penalities for getting
caught. Planting a box in a national park might get you a slap on
the wrist or a fine.

Bad laws *should* be broken. And the more people that do it, the
more the powers-that-be will have to listen. Civil disobedience.

Then my mind kind of wandered about the whole gay marriage thing in
the news recently. What a box of worms that is. I'll admit, I find
it enormously funny that so many people make such a big deal out of
it. I can't really say I'm a big supporter of it, but I'm not an
opponent either. Why do I give a hoot if two people want to get
married? It's none of my business. But it's so much fun to watch
the controversy. "You'll rot in hell!" "Does that mean I'll be
stuck with you for eternity?" Both sides think they have the moral
high ground.

I kind of feel sorry for the opponents, though. It seems like a
losing battle. Gay rights is moving on quite nicely. The younger
folks are more tolerant of it than the older people who are more
likely to die off first. A hundred years from now, they'll probably
look back and think what idiots we were arguing about something as
petty as the marriage between two people of the same sex. A big
whoopy about nothing.

But the opponents are still fighting against gay marriage as if they
could stop time. It's rather valient, in a sense, to fight a losing
battle. Although they probably don't realize the tide is against
them. It might be years or even decades before gays have the same
rights as straights. Certainly it'll go to the US Supreme Court
someday, and they'll find nothing in the US Constitution about
marriage being between a man and a woman. Probably say something
like 'separate but equal didn't work with segregating blacks, and it
won't work with gays either.'

It seems SO obvious to me that's what's going to happen. You can
impeed progress, but it can't be stopped. And neither can one stop
gay rights.

Of course, by now, I'm seriously digressing from my initial
letterboxing thoughts. Gay civil rights. Black civil rights.
Letterboxer civil rights. Is there really a big difference between
them? We all want to be treated like equals and get ticked when we
aren't. And if you can't change anything through official channels,
is it really so wrong to press for your rights through civil
disobedience?

I don't think so, but know others will probably disagree. Which
they're free to do. Thank God!

Wow. I need something less melodramatic to think about.

-- Ryan