Wednesday, December 14, 2005
Ford has decided to advertise in gay publications again...
Apparently the fact that while the AFA boycott garnered very little attention, the fact that Fords caving to the pressure from that hate group made it to national media attention changed some minds at Ford. Congratulations and thanks to everyone who let Ford know just how they felt about this. Now lets let the gov. of Mississippi know how we feel about Cory Maye and the justice denied him. E-mail the governor: governor@governor.state.ms.us
Hey Pentagon!!!
Now I can't be sure I am on any list, am being "watched" but if I am, I am afraid of you. I am afraid of being put in jail and being unable to provide for my son. That said I will not stop. I will not let that fear silence me. I will go to protests and both vocally and in writing say what I believe. During the Vietnam war you were playing these silly games but apparently you didn't learn; Americans don't like being spied on by our military. If your goal was to swell the ranks of the peace movement, congratulations because if I know Americans, that's just what you did. I fear being imprisoned. I fear being unable to provide for my son. I fear far more the nation I will leave my son if I shut up, if I cave into that fear. So go ahead and watch - just remember, we are watching you too. . .
Tuesday, December 13, 2005
The Death Penalty
It has been loud in the news the last few days, Tookie to be executed - now gone. I have posted about Cory Maye in Mississippi. I have been finding myself really exploring my feelings about the death penalty a lot and I think if any good comes from the coverage of Tookie Williams it should be precisely this process. I have long held the opinion that I support the death penalty in any case that is 150% proven - i.e. none of them. The risk of executing the innocent far outweighs the "value" to society. My thinking has undergone great changes in the last few days - forced to truly consider the ramifications.
It has been shown in countless studies to have no effect as a deterrent to capitol crimes. There have been no statistical differences in the number of such crimes committed in areas where one could be executed for them vs places where there is no death penalty. I would theorize that while some people may well be deterred from such a crime if their life could be forfeit, others may well fear life in prison more than execution. Whatever the reason there is no statistical justification for the death penalty as a deterrent.
Some argue that execution helps bring closure to the families of victims. While some may feel "better" knowing that the perpetrator of some crime against a loved one is dead, I suspicion many more feel no better for the vengeance society has enacted for their benefit. When we watch television and the movies showing a death chamber scene, the families getting "peace" it's easy to get swept into the emotions and feel a certain satisfaction in that resolution. I think this is mainly something that exists only in the movies. The reality is that revenge eats away at the soul. It is not peace it is a hollow "victory" whose effects regardless of anything else will not bring back the victims.
It is easy to say "if that happened to my kid I'd kill the fu^$#@!!" But that is why we have a justice system - we don't have to take that into our own hands. We have courts to decide whether a person is guilty and what the punishment should be. When we decide that the punishment should be death, though, this lessens us as a society, as a whole. We become the criminals, advocating behavior that, for all the self righteous indignation, makes us no better than them.
It has been shown in countless studies to have no effect as a deterrent to capitol crimes. There have been no statistical differences in the number of such crimes committed in areas where one could be executed for them vs places where there is no death penalty. I would theorize that while some people may well be deterred from such a crime if their life could be forfeit, others may well fear life in prison more than execution. Whatever the reason there is no statistical justification for the death penalty as a deterrent.
Some argue that execution helps bring closure to the families of victims. While some may feel "better" knowing that the perpetrator of some crime against a loved one is dead, I suspicion many more feel no better for the vengeance society has enacted for their benefit. When we watch television and the movies showing a death chamber scene, the families getting "peace" it's easy to get swept into the emotions and feel a certain satisfaction in that resolution. I think this is mainly something that exists only in the movies. The reality is that revenge eats away at the soul. It is not peace it is a hollow "victory" whose effects regardless of anything else will not bring back the victims.
It is easy to say "if that happened to my kid I'd kill the fu^$#@!!" But that is why we have a justice system - we don't have to take that into our own hands. We have courts to decide whether a person is guilty and what the punishment should be. When we decide that the punishment should be death, though, this lessens us as a society, as a whole. We become the criminals, advocating behavior that, for all the self righteous indignation, makes us no better than them.
Thursday, December 08, 2005
Mississippi "Justice" strikes again. . .
I posted the other day about a Cory Maye in Jefferson Davis County, Mississippi who has been found guilty of the capital murder of a police officer. Publicola has provided Mississippi statutes on justifiable and excusable homicide.
Justifiable:
"(1) The killing of a human being by the act, procurement, or omission of another shall be justifiable in the following cases:
(e) When committed by any person in resisting any attempt unlawfully to kill such person or to commit any felony upon him, or upon or in any dwelling house in which such person shall be;
(f) When committed in the lawful defense of one's own person or any other human being, where there shall be reasonable ground to apprehend a design to commit a felony or to do some great personal injury, and there shall be imminent danger of such design being accomplished;"
Excusable:
"The killing of any human being by the act, procurement, or omission of another shall be excusable:
(a) When committed by accident and misfortune in doing any lawful act by lawful means, with usual and ordinary caution, and without any unlawful intent;
(b) When committed by accident and misfortune, in the heat of passion, upon any sudden and sufficient provocation;"
The emphasis is mine but when you consider that it was late at night and the police were executing a warrant on Maye's duplex neighbor - not him - it becomes clear that there were clear grounds for Cory Maye's actions. His daughter was sleeping in the same room when a man in assault gear breaks in the door. Maye has no reason to believe that this is a cop - he was sleeping - why wouldn't he fear he and/or his daughter is threatened? They live in a "bad" neighborhood. I lived in a bad neighborhood for quite a while and would probably use deadly force if someone in black kicked my door in when I was asleep with my son with whom I share a room. I don't have a gun as handy as Mr. Maye but I have practiced getting it and removing the safety lock in past years. I do so no longer but have considered it at times. I do know that I would use any means possible to defend my child in such a circumstance as Cory Maye was placed in when the police mistakenly broke down his door.
Radley Balko has called the circuit court clerk for Jefferson Davis County, Mississippi and while he has yet to read the warrant had the clerk check - she did not see Cory Maye's name on the original warrant that the police were serving when they broke into his house. He had no record. He was a dad defending himself and his child. He has been sentenced to die.
Justifiable:
"(1) The killing of a human being by the act, procurement, or omission of another shall be justifiable in the following cases:
(e) When committed by any person in resisting any attempt unlawfully to kill such person or to commit any felony upon him, or upon or in any dwelling house in which such person shall be;
(f) When committed in the lawful defense of one's own person or any other human being, where there shall be reasonable ground to apprehend a design to commit a felony or to do some great personal injury, and there shall be imminent danger of such design being accomplished;"
Excusable:
"The killing of any human being by the act, procurement, or omission of another shall be excusable:
(a) When committed by accident and misfortune in doing any lawful act by lawful means, with usual and ordinary caution, and without any unlawful intent;
(b) When committed by accident and misfortune, in the heat of passion, upon any sudden and sufficient provocation;"
The emphasis is mine but when you consider that it was late at night and the police were executing a warrant on Maye's duplex neighbor - not him - it becomes clear that there were clear grounds for Cory Maye's actions. His daughter was sleeping in the same room when a man in assault gear breaks in the door. Maye has no reason to believe that this is a cop - he was sleeping - why wouldn't he fear he and/or his daughter is threatened? They live in a "bad" neighborhood. I lived in a bad neighborhood for quite a while and would probably use deadly force if someone in black kicked my door in when I was asleep with my son with whom I share a room. I don't have a gun as handy as Mr. Maye but I have practiced getting it and removing the safety lock in past years. I do so no longer but have considered it at times. I do know that I would use any means possible to defend my child in such a circumstance as Cory Maye was placed in when the police mistakenly broke down his door.
Radley Balko has called the circuit court clerk for Jefferson Davis County, Mississippi and while he has yet to read the warrant had the clerk check - she did not see Cory Maye's name on the original warrant that the police were serving when they broke into his house. He had no record. He was a dad defending himself and his child. He has been sentenced to die.
All right folks, Ford has caved to bigoted hate groups - time for a Boycott
I don't always agree with John Aravosis but he provides an excellent forum for media stories about the right and their abuse of the American way of life. Another reason for my appreciation of John is his commitment to equal rights. He primarily talks about gay rights but he shares in my belief in equal rights for all Americans, and the people of the world. Right now those rights are under fire from yet another corporation - Ford. This attack takes a very interesting form in that Ford has decided that gays don't have the right to be advertised to in gay advocacy formats in the U.S. Also they have decided to stop including open homosexuals in there advertising.
This policy comes after negotiations to end the boycott by the American Family Ass. This story has been picked up by a number of media outlets in recent days. Now I am trying to get into the habit of not posting a lot of links and using this blog as a forum for opinion. I am going to add more links in the side bar so folks can look into the sites and sources I use for news and look into things themselves. In this case however I am kind of ticked - well really ticked.
John mentioned that the Jaguar affiliate of Ford was rather angry with Ford. So when I sent out e-mails to Ford and it's affiliates I was very polite to the folks at Jaguar sending them a even nicer letter than I did the rest of my list. Here is what I wrote to them:
I am sorely dissapointed in Ford's decision to remove Jaguar's advertising from GLBT publications. I have been iffy on Fords in the past but I have bought them - no more. I also hoped that at the point in my life when I could afford one I would own a Jag - I have dreamed of it. If this policy is not reversed I will not even consider it an option any more. I am not yet able to buy a car in that range but I am growing a small business and will within the decade. I realize that one sale lost isn't that big of a deal to you but I pray I am not the only one - and it is rather a big deal to me. Please, pressure the execs at Ford to reconsider this bigoted, hatefull policy - it is beneath you all. And for the record so you understand that this is an issue that effects more than the LGBT community, I am not gay - I just feel very strongly about equality for everyone - including the right to have you trying to sell them cars.
This was their response:
Dear DuWayne Brayton,
Thank you for contacting Jaguar Cars.
We were sorry to learn of your dissatisfaction regarding our projected advertising plans.
Jaguar has decided not to advertise in gay publications in 2006. The decision was taken entirely for business reasons, and reflects a sharpening of our media focus and pressure on our marketing budgets. We have chosen to work with much fewer print title partners across the board next year. For instance, Jaguar will cut the general market print titles it uses from 56 in 2005 to 34 in 2006 (equivalent to a reduction of 40%) and it will reduce automotive enthusiast titles by 25%. Obviously, marketing plans for future years beyond 2006 have not been determined.
Jaguar values diversity among all of our constituents and pride ourselves on strong and clear values – respect for our customers, communities, employees, suppliers and dealers; acceptance of our differences; inclusion of different people with different perspectives; and integrity to always do the right thing. We value all people – regardless of their race, religion, gender, sexual orientation and cultural or physical differences. This is a strong commitment we intend to carry forward with no exception.
We can only hope that, perhaps in the future, you will give us a chance to restore your confidence in Jaguar.
Sincerely,
Colleen Hogan
Jaguar Cars
If you have any questions or require additional information, please feel free to contact us at 1-800-4-JAGUAR, option 9, or by e-mail.
Why are you so angry? you might be thinking. Well, Ford has now admitted that they made this decision based on negotiations with the AFA rather than the claim that they did it for strictly business purposes - before Jaguar sent me this e-mail with Fords previous lie intact.
After I finish writing this poast I will be writing a snail mail letter to Jaguar, letting them know that I do not appreciate being lied to. And I will explain that the only way to get my business - ever will be to change this hateful and bigotted new policy. It is loathsome that they would choose take away the rights of gays to simply be targeted for marketing - not to mention ridiculous. Here is Jaguar's web contact page when e-mailing choose customer relations center as the subject and other as the sub-catagory. This is their snail mail contact which would carry more wieght than e-mail:
This policy comes after negotiations to end the boycott by the American Family Ass. This story has been picked up by a number of media outlets in recent days. Now I am trying to get into the habit of not posting a lot of links and using this blog as a forum for opinion. I am going to add more links in the side bar so folks can look into the sites and sources I use for news and look into things themselves. In this case however I am kind of ticked - well really ticked.
John mentioned that the Jaguar affiliate of Ford was rather angry with Ford. So when I sent out e-mails to Ford and it's affiliates I was very polite to the folks at Jaguar sending them a even nicer letter than I did the rest of my list. Here is what I wrote to them:
I am sorely dissapointed in Ford's decision to remove Jaguar's advertising from GLBT publications. I have been iffy on Fords in the past but I have bought them - no more. I also hoped that at the point in my life when I could afford one I would own a Jag - I have dreamed of it. If this policy is not reversed I will not even consider it an option any more. I am not yet able to buy a car in that range but I am growing a small business and will within the decade. I realize that one sale lost isn't that big of a deal to you but I pray I am not the only one - and it is rather a big deal to me. Please, pressure the execs at Ford to reconsider this bigoted, hatefull policy - it is beneath you all. And for the record so you understand that this is an issue that effects more than the LGBT community, I am not gay - I just feel very strongly about equality for everyone - including the right to have you trying to sell them cars.
This was their response:
Dear DuWayne Brayton,
Thank you for contacting Jaguar Cars.
We were sorry to learn of your dissatisfaction regarding our projected advertising plans.
Jaguar has decided not to advertise in gay publications in 2006. The decision was taken entirely for business reasons, and reflects a sharpening of our media focus and pressure on our marketing budgets. We have chosen to work with much fewer print title partners across the board next year. For instance, Jaguar will cut the general market print titles it uses from 56 in 2005 to 34 in 2006 (equivalent to a reduction of 40%) and it will reduce automotive enthusiast titles by 25%. Obviously, marketing plans for future years beyond 2006 have not been determined.
Jaguar values diversity among all of our constituents and pride ourselves on strong and clear values – respect for our customers, communities, employees, suppliers and dealers; acceptance of our differences; inclusion of different people with different perspectives; and integrity to always do the right thing. We value all people – regardless of their race, religion, gender, sexual orientation and cultural or physical differences. This is a strong commitment we intend to carry forward with no exception.
We can only hope that, perhaps in the future, you will give us a chance to restore your confidence in Jaguar.
Sincerely,
Colleen Hogan
Jaguar Cars
If you have any questions or require additional information, please feel free to contact us at 1-800-4-JAGUAR, option 9, or by e-mail.
Why are you so angry? you might be thinking. Well, Ford has now admitted that they made this decision based on negotiations with the AFA rather than the claim that they did it for strictly business purposes - before Jaguar sent me this e-mail with Fords previous lie intact.
After I finish writing this poast I will be writing a snail mail letter to Jaguar, letting them know that I do not appreciate being lied to. And I will explain that the only way to get my business - ever will be to change this hateful and bigotted new policy. It is loathsome that they would choose take away the rights of gays to simply be targeted for marketing - not to mention ridiculous. Here is Jaguar's web contact page when e-mailing choose customer relations center as the subject and other as the sub-catagory. This is their snail mail contact which would carry more wieght than e-mail:
Jaguar Cars, Attn: Customer Relationship Center
555 MacArthur Boulevard
Mahwah, NJ 07430-2327
555 MacArthur Boulevard
Mahwah, NJ 07430-2327
I pray for and thank you for your support in this. Equal rights is the responsability of all of us. This is America, if we deny anyone the right to be who they are we ave all lost it. And keep in mind that equal rights are not special rights they are only the same rights the rest of us enjoy.
Wednesday, December 07, 2005
Why it's time to leave Iraq
I have had a lot of conversations about the war in Iraq lately and then heard a soldier's letter to O'riely this evening. The theme I keep getting is that we need to stay - that we are winning. The problem I have is that we are fighting a war against the Iraqi people as a whole - not the insurgents. They want us to leave and stop killing them. Instead of defending them against tyranny we have become the tyranny.
The other them I run into is that if we leave the genocide is just going to start again. This is where the UN needs to step in and help clean up the mess we have made. All that we are going to achieve in Iraq at this point is to keep the Haliburton feeding trough open for business. If we stay Iraq is going to continue to spiral into civil war and disintegrate. If we leave there is a chance that the UN can step in and facilitate that disintegration in such a way that the killing may stop. I am not nieve enough to say this is a certainty but it is better than the alternative - thousands more dead American kids, hundreds of thousands more dead Iraqis and proof to the world that we are a rogue nation.
With the pre-emptive military policies of our current administration we would bomb Iran, bomb Syria and really sink ourselves into an untenable position in the Middle East. The bush regimes policies will only continue to lead to more and more death and instability in the region. We need to say that enough is enough. We need to demand that our "president" pay for his crimes.
I am not saying I am a fan of the Iranian regime. They are ruthless, inhumane, a totalitarian regime that is flat out evil. That does not mean we can just go in and destroy them the way we have Iraq. If we are going to push for regime change in Iran it has to be done considerably differently than we went about it in Iraq. We need to learn from our mistakes and try not to destroy everything in order to remove the current government - one we are responsible for. We may not have put them in power directly but they are there due to our interference installing the previous totalitarian regime. A lot like we installed Saddam in Iraq.
As for attacking Syria - they have new leadership that has yet to get a chance to form a new government. He was educated in the west, by many accounts didn't intend on being the ruler - he got it by default when his brother was killed. I am not going to say he is going to be a savioer to Syria but I think we need to see what is going to happen before we decide to bomb them into submission. The Middle East policies of the bush regime are broken and directly embroiling us into decades of death in that region. . .
The other them I run into is that if we leave the genocide is just going to start again. This is where the UN needs to step in and help clean up the mess we have made. All that we are going to achieve in Iraq at this point is to keep the Haliburton feeding trough open for business. If we stay Iraq is going to continue to spiral into civil war and disintegrate. If we leave there is a chance that the UN can step in and facilitate that disintegration in such a way that the killing may stop. I am not nieve enough to say this is a certainty but it is better than the alternative - thousands more dead American kids, hundreds of thousands more dead Iraqis and proof to the world that we are a rogue nation.
With the pre-emptive military policies of our current administration we would bomb Iran, bomb Syria and really sink ourselves into an untenable position in the Middle East. The bush regimes policies will only continue to lead to more and more death and instability in the region. We need to say that enough is enough. We need to demand that our "president" pay for his crimes.
I am not saying I am a fan of the Iranian regime. They are ruthless, inhumane, a totalitarian regime that is flat out evil. That does not mean we can just go in and destroy them the way we have Iraq. If we are going to push for regime change in Iran it has to be done considerably differently than we went about it in Iraq. We need to learn from our mistakes and try not to destroy everything in order to remove the current government - one we are responsible for. We may not have put them in power directly but they are there due to our interference installing the previous totalitarian regime. A lot like we installed Saddam in Iraq.
As for attacking Syria - they have new leadership that has yet to get a chance to form a new government. He was educated in the west, by many accounts didn't intend on being the ruler - he got it by default when his brother was killed. I am not going to say he is going to be a savioer to Syria but I think we need to see what is going to happen before we decide to bomb them into submission. The Middle East policies of the bush regime are broken and directly embroiling us into decades of death in that region. . .
A post from the agitator. . .
I rarely get over to Balko's blog but I noticed this somewhere else and just had to mention it. Yet again we have a victim of the War on Drugs and a broken justice system. This is about a man on death row for shooting a cop. The cop broke into his apartment - the second in a duplex housing a drug dealer. When the officers came in he feared for his 18 month old daughter sleeping in another room. He shot and killed the first person he saw - an officer dressed in assault gear - not identifieing himself as a police officer. This is a sick and twisted case - read it and weep - I did.
To explain my beliefs
I will cross post this to my other blog as it is what I started it for.
As a Christian I believe it is not my right to judge others - that is God's job. I have a responsability to live my life in accordance to God's word and reflect Christ in me. I must do my best to be the sort of man that makes people want to emulate me. I am not perfect - Lord knows I'm not but I try and usually do reflect the joy and love given me by the Holy Spirit. I know some people who claim the bible renounces homosexuality and those who say it doesn't - that is between a person and God. When a person prays and meditates up[on God's word and allows the Holy Spirit to so fill them that the things of man are washed out of them the Spirit will put upon their hearts what is right.
I do know that the bible tells us that there is no greater sin than to drive a person away from the truth of God. The bible also tells us that greater than hope, greater than faith even is Love. This is what I choose. The best way to drive a person from God is to judge them and foster hatred of them. This is unforgivable as it imperils those who have been pushed away from ever knowing God's love.
Love does not judge. Love does not choose this person over that. Love is unconditional. I am learning to think first of love when people upset me, to pray for them rather than curse them. The more I do this - the moe I truly live love in every way the more the pains and worries of the world slip away - the stronger I feel.
When it comes to secular law I believe that it is just that - secular. When any church interposes it's will on secular law it demeens both the Church Family and society as a whole. God gives us free will to be what we will. When churches force their way into the secular that free will is taken from all and makes us slaves incapable of reaching for ourselves the joy of Christ. I do not believe our nations founders left one theocracy to found another. They went so they might worship in their own way. Worship is between a person and God so too is sin - it is not to be interfered with by our government. . .
As a Christian I believe it is not my right to judge others - that is God's job. I have a responsability to live my life in accordance to God's word and reflect Christ in me. I must do my best to be the sort of man that makes people want to emulate me. I am not perfect - Lord knows I'm not but I try and usually do reflect the joy and love given me by the Holy Spirit. I know some people who claim the bible renounces homosexuality and those who say it doesn't - that is between a person and God. When a person prays and meditates up[on God's word and allows the Holy Spirit to so fill them that the things of man are washed out of them the Spirit will put upon their hearts what is right.
I do know that the bible tells us that there is no greater sin than to drive a person away from the truth of God. The bible also tells us that greater than hope, greater than faith even is Love. This is what I choose. The best way to drive a person from God is to judge them and foster hatred of them. This is unforgivable as it imperils those who have been pushed away from ever knowing God's love.
Love does not judge. Love does not choose this person over that. Love is unconditional. I am learning to think first of love when people upset me, to pray for them rather than curse them. The more I do this - the moe I truly live love in every way the more the pains and worries of the world slip away - the stronger I feel.
When it comes to secular law I believe that it is just that - secular. When any church interposes it's will on secular law it demeens both the Church Family and society as a whole. God gives us free will to be what we will. When churches force their way into the secular that free will is taken from all and makes us slaves incapable of reaching for ourselves the joy of Christ. I do not believe our nations founders left one theocracy to found another. They went so they might worship in their own way. Worship is between a person and God so too is sin - it is not to be interfered with by our government. . .
Peter Singer and my own beliefs on Gay marriage. . .
I recently picked up "The President of Good & Evil" by Princeton proffesor of ethics Peter Singer. I just read the preface to the new edition in which he discusses bush's beliefs on states rights. I have been criticized in another blogs comments for my strong belief in states rights because it was "code" for allowing states to set there own civil rights laws or lack thereof. I would like to address this first. The US constitution clearly puts forth equal rights for all people - it has been interpreted differently but unless you claim certain people aren't people it more than justifies federal civil rights laws. The example Pro. Singer used was bush's initial attitude was that gay marriage was a states issue - but when the Mass. Supreme Court legitamized gay marriage suddenly bush decided to push for a federal constitutional ammendment to define marriage as being between a man and a woman.
I should clarify before I continue that I am a Christian. I also believe in equal rights for all people - not just straight people, not just white people and not just the wealthy. It is my belief that if the federal government were to get into this discussion of gay marriage at all it should be with the attitude that no state should be required to recognize the legal marriages of other states. It has no business defineing mariage at all.
On a state level I believe that the criterea should be one of two things.
1. That for legal purposes any couple seeking the legal bond of marriage and the benifits it offers should be allowed to do so. I was listening to a women who is the child of a gay father. She has talked with many people including children over the years about being the child of gays. A number of children she has spoken to since this debate regained national prominance wer not, until they saw it on the news, aware that their gay parents were not in fact married. There ae over ten million children in this country with same sex parents. What politicians and religious leaders do and say directly effect all of these children. This is not some abstract debate too them - it is their lives being debated.
2. Short of allowing anyone and everyone to marry the State should refuse to legaly recognize any marriage. It is a religious institution and thus should be treated as such. The seperation of church and state is a bullwark of our religiously tolerant society - therefore if marriage should be legaly denied anybody it should be legaly denied to all. Removing marriage to the bounds of non-secular law is the only way this country can claim equality for all peoples. If one wishes to embark upon the institution of marriage it should be up to the church to decide whether that couple should marry - not the state.
I have grown up in a society where the divorce rate is more than half of all marriages. When I hear people talking about defending the sanctity of marriage I retch. Heterosexual couples have done more to destroy the sanctity of marriage than queers ever could. I have spent years swearing off the idea of marriage because I saw it as a joke - produced by straight people. There was no sanctity, it wasn't sacred. I have since decided that I was mistaken. That those who entered marriages so lightly were not truly married. They had the legalities down but it was all a sham. The most distructive force in marriage is in fact the legality of it. It needs to be removed from the legal arena to settle back into the religous arena.
I do believe that anyone wishing what are now the current legal benifits of marriage should be allowed to enter civil unions - even those who have been married by their church. Denying people the legal benifits of a loving relationship is wrong no matter what ther beliefs or sexual preferences. But saying that marriage is the way to achieve those ends is truly the destructive force eating away at the sanctity of marriage.
I should clarify before I continue that I am a Christian. I also believe in equal rights for all people - not just straight people, not just white people and not just the wealthy. It is my belief that if the federal government were to get into this discussion of gay marriage at all it should be with the attitude that no state should be required to recognize the legal marriages of other states. It has no business defineing mariage at all.
On a state level I believe that the criterea should be one of two things.
1. That for legal purposes any couple seeking the legal bond of marriage and the benifits it offers should be allowed to do so. I was listening to a women who is the child of a gay father. She has talked with many people including children over the years about being the child of gays. A number of children she has spoken to since this debate regained national prominance wer not, until they saw it on the news, aware that their gay parents were not in fact married. There ae over ten million children in this country with same sex parents. What politicians and religious leaders do and say directly effect all of these children. This is not some abstract debate too them - it is their lives being debated.
2. Short of allowing anyone and everyone to marry the State should refuse to legaly recognize any marriage. It is a religious institution and thus should be treated as such. The seperation of church and state is a bullwark of our religiously tolerant society - therefore if marriage should be legaly denied anybody it should be legaly denied to all. Removing marriage to the bounds of non-secular law is the only way this country can claim equality for all peoples. If one wishes to embark upon the institution of marriage it should be up to the church to decide whether that couple should marry - not the state.
I have grown up in a society where the divorce rate is more than half of all marriages. When I hear people talking about defending the sanctity of marriage I retch. Heterosexual couples have done more to destroy the sanctity of marriage than queers ever could. I have spent years swearing off the idea of marriage because I saw it as a joke - produced by straight people. There was no sanctity, it wasn't sacred. I have since decided that I was mistaken. That those who entered marriages so lightly were not truly married. They had the legalities down but it was all a sham. The most distructive force in marriage is in fact the legality of it. It needs to be removed from the legal arena to settle back into the religous arena.
I do believe that anyone wishing what are now the current legal benifits of marriage should be allowed to enter civil unions - even those who have been married by their church. Denying people the legal benifits of a loving relationship is wrong no matter what ther beliefs or sexual preferences. But saying that marriage is the way to achieve those ends is truly the destructive force eating away at the sanctity of marriage.
They took my grandpa off support
He died at 8:15 pc last night. He was on dialasis when his liver started to fail as well - he would not have survived the night even on support. He was a Christian. . .
I am at a loss on how to explain this to my 3yr old son. He only met him once for a collective 15 hours or so but when we talk about all the people we love his great grandpa always comes up. Strangely enough a few times over the last couple of weeks he has specificly mentioned him during our bedtime prayers. Usualy we are specific about his moma, me and him - the rest of our friends and family are lumped together except where there are specific needs. I hope this is a sign that talking about this will be easier than I am expecting.
Now I am trying to sort out my feelings about this. Though we never realy had a relationship I think I can honestly say that I did love him. I think I saw him a collective 3-4 days in the last 20 years but he was my grandpa and a part of my history. I do regret not knowing him better. When I said he wasn't a good man I miss-spoke. He was a solitary man who held his feelings close in as many in his generation (and even this one) did. And while he wasn't much for expressing his love of others my mom has made clear that he did in fact love us. While I never had the chance to make peace with him in a meaningful way my mom and her sibs did.
My grandpa was a linemen on the Alaskan pipeline. He sent years running over 200 miles of pipe through the Alaskan wilderness. After he retired he ran a small toystore for a few years then went to work in Texas overseeing pipeline construction - after he was forced out he went to work for another union and supervised even more pipeline. I believe he was 78 when they finaly made him retire. He had three pensions from two unions, social security and was either working or trying to find work up until his death.
He was a workaholic who couldn't, well, express his feelings. He was a less than ideal father. He was a less than ideal grandpa. But I shall miss him and regret never truly getting to know him. . .
I am at a loss on how to explain this to my 3yr old son. He only met him once for a collective 15 hours or so but when we talk about all the people we love his great grandpa always comes up. Strangely enough a few times over the last couple of weeks he has specificly mentioned him during our bedtime prayers. Usualy we are specific about his moma, me and him - the rest of our friends and family are lumped together except where there are specific needs. I hope this is a sign that talking about this will be easier than I am expecting.
Now I am trying to sort out my feelings about this. Though we never realy had a relationship I think I can honestly say that I did love him. I think I saw him a collective 3-4 days in the last 20 years but he was my grandpa and a part of my history. I do regret not knowing him better. When I said he wasn't a good man I miss-spoke. He was a solitary man who held his feelings close in as many in his generation (and even this one) did. And while he wasn't much for expressing his love of others my mom has made clear that he did in fact love us. While I never had the chance to make peace with him in a meaningful way my mom and her sibs did.
My grandpa was a linemen on the Alaskan pipeline. He sent years running over 200 miles of pipe through the Alaskan wilderness. After he retired he ran a small toystore for a few years then went to work in Texas overseeing pipeline construction - after he was forced out he went to work for another union and supervised even more pipeline. I believe he was 78 when they finaly made him retire. He had three pensions from two unions, social security and was either working or trying to find work up until his death.
He was a workaholic who couldn't, well, express his feelings. He was a less than ideal father. He was a less than ideal grandpa. But I shall miss him and regret never truly getting to know him. . .
Monday, December 05, 2005
My grandpa had a massive heartattack last night. . .
My mom told me the progmosis isn't very good - she's flying out to Pheonix today to be with him.
It gives me a lot of mixed feelings. My grandpa isn't a very good man - he wasn't a good dad nor much of a grandpa either. But he is a part of my history and I haven't ever had the chance to realy know him. I suppose I do love him but he never tried to convince me I should. In fact I don't recall him ever telling me that he loved me.
The thing is I decided a long time ago that I should get to know him - that it was important that I do. Back when I was hitch-hiking the country I thought a few times about visiting him - but I never managed to get to it - even when I was as close as 113 miles from his home - I couldn't be bothered to see him. Now it's likely I will never get that oppertunity.
It is hard to grasp that the oppertunities I have to know and make peace with a few of my family members I am not close to are rapidly slipping away from me. It is upsetting in the least that I have procrastinated with even something this important. It is indicative of my personality that I should do so - and wrong. I hope and pray for the strength and ability to raise my son to be a very different man than myself. Oh sure, I have some great qualities but where do they take me - I live in poverty, I am destroying my body to live this well and I have failures of health due to my own rampant drug and alchohol use as a younger man.
It is amazing that the onset of what will likely be the last few days of a man I hardly know, my grandpa, have opened up a vast panorama of introspection - with an intensity I usualy try to avoid. . .
It gives me a lot of mixed feelings. My grandpa isn't a very good man - he wasn't a good dad nor much of a grandpa either. But he is a part of my history and I haven't ever had the chance to realy know him. I suppose I do love him but he never tried to convince me I should. In fact I don't recall him ever telling me that he loved me.
The thing is I decided a long time ago that I should get to know him - that it was important that I do. Back when I was hitch-hiking the country I thought a few times about visiting him - but I never managed to get to it - even when I was as close as 113 miles from his home - I couldn't be bothered to see him. Now it's likely I will never get that oppertunity.
It is hard to grasp that the oppertunities I have to know and make peace with a few of my family members I am not close to are rapidly slipping away from me. It is upsetting in the least that I have procrastinated with even something this important. It is indicative of my personality that I should do so - and wrong. I hope and pray for the strength and ability to raise my son to be a very different man than myself. Oh sure, I have some great qualities but where do they take me - I live in poverty, I am destroying my body to live this well and I have failures of health due to my own rampant drug and alchohol use as a younger man.
It is amazing that the onset of what will likely be the last few days of a man I hardly know, my grandpa, have opened up a vast panorama of introspection - with an intensity I usualy try to avoid. . .
Saturday, December 03, 2005
Friday, December 02, 2005
mr bush is Trying to Turn America into a Rogue State
Let me reiterate, the Iraqi government wants us out. They have legitimized the killing of US troops. The bush regimes answer; to call the insurgents terrorists and refuse to leave. bush Has flat out said he will ignore the wishes of the soveriegn Iraqi government, the American people and even members of his own regime - "We will stay the course."
At home he wishes to wittle away at our liberties and privacy, our religious freedoms and rights to due proccess. He is allowing policy to be made by religious fundamentalists and trying to give our tax dollars to religious groups. This makes the US more like Iran than the land of the free and the home of the brave. We just seem to get farther and farther away from the "America" I grew up with in school. . .
At home he wishes to wittle away at our liberties and privacy, our religious freedoms and rights to due proccess. He is allowing policy to be made by religious fundamentalists and trying to give our tax dollars to religious groups. This makes the US more like Iran than the land of the free and the home of the brave. We just seem to get farther and farther away from the "America" I grew up with in school. . .
Thursday, December 01, 2005
Still our "President" insists on his course
The Iraqi government has legitamized the unsurgency, the American people want us to pull out, Condi said we'll pull out and the Iraqi government is demanding a staged withdrawl - having us out in 2 years. Yet our "great leader" insists we will stay the course. Rummy identifies the insurgents as terrorists - something the Iraqi governement claims is not the case. A whole passel of draft dodgeing cowards call decorated warriors cowards - yet I dare say they would discourage their own kids from going into this war. Funny that, no one in this administration had the courage to go to war themselves but they so easily send our children to fight and die or be maimed, don't want to take care of those wounded and then dare to call those who have been to, sent their children to war and ask that we pull out cowards. In fact they cal seventy some percent of Americans cowards. At least Nixon had the courage to resign in disgrace instead of being forced from office kicking and screaming - mr. bush will likely be the first president of this nation to actualy be removed from office. He truly is the worse president ever.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)