Log in

No account? Create an account
bear by san

March 2017



Powered by LiveJournal.com
bear by san

Kiss me quick, Zippy, and make me forget I'm a Libertarian--

Actually, I don't trust humanity enough to make a decent libertarian. Is there a political party whose chief tenet (not George, see below) is a cynical but mostly humanitarian belief that mitigating the damage is a noble endeavor?

So... near as we can tell....

...if Kerry didn't read it, and Bush didn't read it...

...nobody actually read George Tenet's National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq before the vote, except the guys whose job it was to brief Congress, who may have skimmed it, kinda?


Who's driving this thing, anyway?

Just think, George. You could have been a first-time novelist and gotten just about the same effect. *g*

And, in other news... I don't think I need to talk about same-sex marriage here when John Scalzi can do it for me.

These marriages aren't theoretical. They're not open to debate. They exist. To be opposed to them is to be opposed to marriage. I don't know why people opposed to the anti-gay marriage amendment and other such nonsense aren't doing more to point out that very obvious fact.

Really. Everything I would have said, only better. Do you suppose he'd write my next book for me?

Real Live Preacher, on the other hand, can be counted on to make my day a little more humane. Today, he discusses ways of using the Bible-- as a tool, as a weapon, as a fulcrum, as a means, as an end, as a trump card.


You know, its not just that the marriages exist for me. It's this simple: lesbians, bi-sexuals, homosexuals, whoever, they're all humans beings, and like us, for the most part, productive, law-abiding citizens.

Now, when someone rapes a child, kills a person, commits arson or just breaks a law, does anyone ever suggest that they lose their right to marry someone who loves them, however misguided the union might be? No. Because marriage is not rooted in religion or morals. It's rooted in the fundamental right of every human being to form a visible, incontrovertible bond with someone they love. If we see nothing wrong with rapists, murderers and criminals getting married, how the hell can we deny state district attorneys, judges, nurses, fathers and mothers who happen to be gay the same right?

I wish all these 'marriage is the foundation of our society' proponents would admit that marriage as a ceremony, until fairly recently in history, was reserved for the rich. That the wedding march is barely a hundred years old. That unions between people existed long before some pilgrims landed on a shore, and that people got married before their were Christian priests. In other words, Christian religion, much as I follow and believe it, has no monopoly on marriage. And if there was never any need to define it in exclusive terms before, why should there be any need now?

Because you feel uncomfortable with it. That's why.

Well, too bad. Get used to it. It's already here.
The Cynical Humanist Party: Calvin/Hobbes in 2004.

We need icons.

I'll make some tonight. *g*

Both Calvins and both Hobbeses, I assume.
I see an animated icon, yeah, that does exactly that. *g*

Heee! We may start a trend.
I want an icon! I miss Calvin and Hobbes. =)
I'll do an icon or two tonight, and put them up for grabs.
Yes, wasn't that a wonderful posting by the Preacherman?
There are days when I think he may be the only good reason to get on the Internet. *g*


You might enjoy: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/16/opinion/16FRAN.html

Failure Is Not an Option, It's Mandatory By THOMAS FRANK

About the recent excitement in Washington...

Re: hmm



I don't know why people opposed to the anti-gay marriage amendment and other such nonsense aren't doing more to point out that very obvious fact.

What I find most hypocritical about this attempt at changing the Constitution is that the same people who want to keep gays from marrying 'to protect the children' have done absolutely nothing to outlaw adultery and divorce, two thing that, unlike gay marriage, actually impact heterosexual families.

I mean, seriously -- if you're going to launch a pointless crusade to save marriage, at least attack the things that actually affect it.

Re: Hypocritical...

if you're going to launch a pointless crusade to save marriage, at least attack the things that actually affect it.

Like unemployment and lack of jobs, maybe? *g*

Re: Hypocritical...

Like unemployment and lack of jobs, maybe?

What? That's crazy talk! ;-)
I think I know what the response to Scalzi's argument is. He's saying that an amendment to ban gay marriages would tear apart thousands of existing gay marriages, but I suspect the response would be that those marriages never had any validity to begin with, and were the result of judicial error, so they aren't marriages to be torn apart.

The fact that this would be an ex post facto application of a law doesn't seem to matter.

The fact that a marriage is a civil contract, and that they're denying adult citizens the right to enter into legal contracts, doesn't seem to matter either.

And the very best end run is the proposed law that would deny the courts the right to rule on a law's constitutionality. In the highly unlikely event that this one ever gets passed, it would last about ten microseconds under court challenge. There's a reason we have three branches of government, and an independent judiciary. Didn't these folks ever take grade school civics?