One small step for civil rights

So California courts decided to give gay marriage an okay. Which isn't terribly surprising. I mean, we've been here before in California. Repeatedly.

Interestingly enough, the legislature in the state of California recently voted in favor of same-sex marriage. The governator decided to veto it; in spite of his campaign promise never to exercise such a veto.

So, as I understand it, the general rule of thumb in the states is as follows:

-the actions of the judicial branch are invalid, since they are not the "will of the people", however, in California, the actions of the courts are preferrable to the legislature, so the opposite rule applies.

-the actions of the representative legislative branch is invalid, as it doesn't represent the "will of the people", except in Massachusetts, where the judicial branch is the invalid actionary member and the legislature acting to overturn their constitutionally-based decision is the proper course of action.

-the actions of the executive branch, acting against the will of the courts and the legislature is a heinous abuse of power, if it is in San Francisco or New York and the action being taken is to bestow rights upon citizens. If it is the governator of California, acting against his own campaign promises and against the elected representatives of the people, then that's an okay thing.

-In other words, it would seem that the good ol' GOP intends to implement a full chaosocracy where the majority has absolute power over the minority and can abuse them and deny them any and all rights via the voting booth, thus overturning the constitutional, representative government which has served us up until today, using the "might makes right and makes your rights invalid" theory of government. The mob mentality right now makes this the most efficient path to achieve their desired results, much as has been done in many past governments, with limited, yet hideously disasterous results.

Summary: Tearing apart the very basis of government in this country and hurtling towards ruin is okay, as long as, in the process, they make sure them faggots don't get adequate health care, family, and estate options, since that'd be disastrous.

I can't wait to see how this plays out.

"Acceptance of evolution is a sign of low self-esteem"

A creationist whackjob recently made the following, sweeping, ridiculous statement:

Most of you who believe the evolved story IMHO seem to have such a low opinion of mankind, it translates to low self esteem.

I responded as follows:

If evolution is correct, the number of individual beings which could be standing here in your place vastly outnumber all of the grains of sand, on all of the beaches, in all of the world. You're the inheritor of a genetic legacy which stretches back 3.8 billion years through the eons, and which has circled the center of our galaxy about 20 times. You're the endpoint of billions of generations of births, competitions, wars, and deaths; the only possible sequence of hereditary combinations that can possibly result in you. Your forbears have survived arguably the single greatest ecological catastrophe ever to hit the planet; when the earliest plants started poisoning the atmosphere with oxygen. Yet, your ancestors learned to use this poisonous gas to produce energy in a way that had never been attempted before; an evolutionary triumph which paved the way for the first multicellular life. Your genetic line has survived floods, freezes, and meteor impacts from the skies themselves, preserving this single genetic line through the eons to lead ultimately to you. This is a legacy you share with every living thing on earth, from the largest creature ever to have lived; the blue whale; to the lowliest prion. You share this legacy with the blades of grass between your toes and the trees that give you shade. You are a thread in a huge, amazing, incredibly diverse tapestry of living things; some of whom have clawed their way out of the seas to survive on land, some of whom remained in the ocean, and a few of whom stood on land for a few million years, ultimately said "well, screw this" and marched back into the sea. Once we add cosmology into the mix, not only does this legacy stretch to everything living, but to the non-living as well. You share your origins with the stars and planets. The asteroids which hang in space, all the way down to the loneliest hydrogen atom in deep space. All the parts that make you stretch back through the eons and have borne witness to the very birth of the universe. They have seen the birth and death of stars, supernovae, black holes and pulsars. They've seen planets torn to pieces and solar systems form. They've seen galaxies coalesce and skies darken.

The universe is much more grand, more amazing, more beautiful, more elegant and more subtle than has ever been written in any holy book, and you are here, against nigh-incalculable odds, to see it all. Just consider that for a moment.

If that's a sign of low self esteem, what the hell are your standards for a high one?

The Evil Evolutionist conspiracy has issued a directive.

Some of you may have heard about Ben Stein's latest movie. Well, the google-bombing gauntlet has been thrown down. Expelled Exposed is a project by the National Center for Science Education exposing the fraud that is Ben Stein's movie "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" and never was there a more appropriate title. You literally have to leave your brain at the door in order to believe the bullshit spewed throughout the movie.

Fortunately, I don't have to spend my time chronicling the misrepresentations, ludicrous claims and outright falsehoods of the movie. You can find them here: Expelled

Flag Desecration

So, my other country came within a hair's bredth of a constitutional ban of flag burning.

The last time this was brought up was in 2004. Also, incidentally, an election year.

Coincidence? Um, no.

But let's talk about this ban for a second. The United States of America wanted to ban the burning of the flag.

Here's the catch tho: the Flag Code of the United States of America specifically requires a flag to be ceremonially burned if it becomes soiled or damaged or has otherwise outlived its useful life.

Apparently, that kind of burning is okay, but burning it in protest is not.

In other words, the current administration is not trying to regulate the behaviour of burning the flag, so much as the sentiment voiced by said burning.

Seems to me that there was something in that whole constitution thing about some "free expression" somethingorother, wasn't there?

Now, I understand that some people are offended by the idea of flag burning. Freedom of speech, by definition, means that you're going to be offended. It means that you're going to hear things that you don't like, and don't want to hear. It means that a Neonazi can stand in the center of the village square proclaiming his hatred of all non-aryan races without fear of reprisal from the government. Freedom means acknowledging someone who stands at center stage proclaiming at the top of his lungs what you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours.

In short, the first amendment of the constitution is meant to protect all speech, not just the speech you agree with.

"Liberal" Science

So, I've been unwilling to jump on the Anne Coulter Hate-a-thon, largely because I figure that's exactly what the woman wants. But I was bought a copy of her latest book "Godless." Believe me, I wouldn't buy one of her books if I had a choice in the matter; but since someone had been nice enough to buy it for me, I figure it would be just impolite not to read it.

Unlike just about everybody else, I'm going to say absolutely nothing about her comments on the 9/11 widows. She's perfectly entitled to defame or abuse the memory of anybody she sees fit. That's the definition of freedom of speech. Likewise, I'm perfectly in my rights to point out that she's full of crap.

I'd like to take a moment to talk about Coulter's stance on so-called "liberal science."

There are basically two different areas that Coulter uses as evidence that liberals hate science: stem-cell research, and the theory of evolution.

Let's start with the former. Ms. Coulter claims that because liberals support stem-cell research, they obviously hate science.

First and foremost, it should be noted that a number of political conservatives also support stem-cell research. Guvernator Aaaaah-Nuld, for one; Nancy Reagan, for another.

Coulter goes on to write that "[l]iberals just want to kill humans."

Um, what?

The potential for stem-cell research to save lives is, in a word, enormous. The number of diseases which could be cured, the number of injuries which could be repaired, and the number of lives which could be saved by this one branch of scientific research is potentially numbered in the billions.

And I'm not overestimating the potential benefits of this technology in the least. If anything, I'm vastly underestimating its potential.

And yet, apparently, liberals hate science and want to kill humans.

If you can explain the logic behind that one, you're smarter than I am.

Coulter's thesis statement on evolution seems pretty damning, if you happen to be completely and utterly ignorant of the facts: "[l]iberals' creation myth is Charles Darwin's theory of evolution, which is about one notch above Scientology in scientific rigor. It's a make-believe story, based on a theory that is a tautology, with no proof in the scientists laboratory or the fossil record - and that's after 150 years of very determined looking. We wouldn't still be talking about it but for the fact that liberals think evolution disproves God." Note her subtle implication that one must necessarily be a libral (and in the US, there can be no greater insult) to accept the theory of evolution.

It should first be noted that a number of political conservatives subscribe to the theory of evolution; ergo, it cannot, by any definition of the term, be described as a "liberal creation myth." It's not liberal, it's not about creation, and it's not a myth.

Now, as for her claim that Evolution is a "make-believe story," with "no proof," there's really only one possible way to describe that claim: a lie. Either that, or she's completely ignorant of the, literally, thousands of fossil finds which support the theory of evolution. She's also completely ignorant of the thousands of lab experiments which have been performed which clearly support evolution.

In other words: she's either lying or stupid. There are really no other options; and I don't think that she's stupid. She writes too skillfully to be a complete moron.

I'd also like to talk about her claim that "liberals think evolution disproves God." There's really only one way to describe this claim, too: a lie. The late Pope John Paul II spoke in favor of the theory of evolution, offering an official papal concession that the theory is more than a wild and wacky idea, but actually a fact. As much a fact as the earth orbiting the sun, or that masses generate a gravitational pull.

Call me crazy, but I think it's a reasonably safe bet that Pope John Paul II believed in God. If he didn't, I think he probably would have sought out a different carreer. I also think it's fair to say that it's a bit of a stretch to claim that Pope John Paul II was a liberal by any conventionally-accepted definition of the term.

On the Dover, Pennsylvania trial, she goes on to say: "They didn't win on science, persuasion, or the evidence. They won the way liberals always win: by finding a court to hand them everything they want on a silver platter."

I know I'm having to say this a lot, but there's really no other way to describe this claim than to say that it is a lie.

Let's start with her claims on the court itself: Judge John Jones III, the judge presiding over the case, is a Bush Appointee, chosen specifically for his very conservative credentials. In fact, at the outset, the former members of the school board thought they had a slam-dunk case specifically for that reason. He is demonstratably not a judge with proclivities towards judicial activism, and upon reading his 139-page judgement, it is equally self-evident that his judgement is not a case of judicial activism. In fact, for him to have ruled differently than he did would have required a level of judicial activism which would have made a mockery of the American judicial system.

Actually, if one actually takes the time to read Judge Jones' judgment, it is very clear that he went to enormous lengths to understand the science which supports the theory of evolution, and to understand the history of the so called "Intelligent Design" theory. It's extremely difficult for me to imagine a judgment which is more diametrically opposed to any rational human being's definition of "Judicial Activism." Then again, though, the judgement is 139 pages long. Maybe Coulter just couldn't be bothered to read the whole thing. Or any of it for that matter.

No, the "liberals" didn't win because they had a court to hand them everything they want on a silver platter, they won because they had science, persuasion, and evidence on their side. Of course, it certainly didn't hurt that the righteous members of the school board lied repeatedly during the trial (also stated in the 139-page judgment; had Ms. Coulter read it). Details that Ms. Coulter studiously ignores. Instead, she lies about it and hopes nobody noticed. It's not like she couldn't access the trial transcripts or the judgement. I've offered a link to the judgement, and the trial transcripts are public record. A 30-second google search of "Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School Board" produced them. And if I'm smart enough to find them, it stands to reason that Coulter is.

Now, Ms. Coulter has every right to make all of these claims; as ignorant, misinformed, dishonest and ridiculous as they are. Lying, to the best of my knowledge, is not in itself against the law, except in specific instances: libel, slander, perjury; to name a few, however writing and publishing a book which tells lies is not in itself illegal. Morally reprehensible, to be sure, but not illegal.

Ms. Coulter is certainly skilled in rhetoric, and I wouldn't like to face her in a debate, even if I had the facts on my side (which, in the instances described above, I would); and apart from being rather heavy on the dishonesty, her book is quite well-written. It is clearly written by an intelligent woman, which is why I am very specific about my claims that she is being deliberately dishonest. I don't believe she's actually dumb enough to be that ignorant.

But you never know, I could be wrong. It certainly wouldn't be the first time.

But in this particular instance, I don't think I am.

On Constitutional Amendments

I'm trying hard to decide whether these people are completely devoid of any capacity for logical thought, or simply stupid. Heck, the idea of actually having facts to back up their blind assertions is apparently completely foreign to them.

Take, for example, this couple described in this article. They spend their vacation money to go to DC to hold up signs that say: Stop Same Sex Marriage: It Endorses Masturbation.

I think I speak for the rest of America when I say: WHAT!? Frankly, I seriously doubt any Amercan who has ever masturbated (which, I imagine, is pretty much all of 'em who ever passed the age of 12), has ever said "damn, if only gay Marriage were legal, I could do this without feeling guilty."

If you follow what the far-right has been saying in the US, gay marriage is somehow responsible for everything from drug abuse to decline in air quality.

Now, granted, it's a little hard to study this, since exactly one state in the US has been forward-thinking enough to legalize Gay marriage we don't have much in the way of sample size, but let's see what's happening in that hellhole they call Massachusetts, why don't we? Massachusetts is a pathetic dead-last in illiteracy, a pitiful 48th in per-capita poverty, and an abysmal 49th in the number of divorces. Those poor sods in Massachusetts, how can they live in such horrid conditions?

The reason I bring this up is that our esteemed president has again tried, and failed miserably, to push a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage through congress. It fell massively short of the required 2/3 majority to create a constitutional amendment. No surprise there. Frankly, I wasn't the least bit worried that the bill might pass. But frankly, the idea that the Constitution of the United States; a document I happen to take very seriously, a document which has been perverted more by the Bush Administration than just about any other; is being used as a blatant political ploy frankly turned my stomach.

Bush desperately needs to learn that the constitution is not just a piece of paper. It's not a set of loose guidelines that you can simply ignore whenever you feel like it. And it's certainly not a document meant to be used to score political points. The constitution is the document that makes America America. It's the collection of the founding principles of the nation. It's not a symbol to be perverted whenever the current party in power is lagging in the polls.

The constitution, to those who have actually read it, is a piece of history which presents everything that the US of A is supposed to represent. Freedom from tyrrany of all kinds, freedom to express onesself in whatever manner they choose, regardless of how offensive some may find it.

Freedom to be onesself, provided that they do no harm to anyone else.

By adding an amendment to the constitution which specifically limits one freedom to one group of people, the American government not only would have perverted the very freedom that the constitution enshrines and symbolizes, but they would have sent the message to the American people that they can no longer be assured of the protection the constitution guarantees. If they can deny marriage to one group of people constitutionally, then logically they can deny freedom of speech, or religion, or belief, or any of the rights assured by the constitution. A second set of McCarthy trials could, in principle, be constitutionally assured. In short, the government would be telling the American people that they could no longer look to the one document designed to protect them from the government.

The American government is founded on a very simple principle: the Constitution doesn't trust them. The power doesn't lie in the government, it lies in the document on which that government is founded. And that document places the power in the people's hands. The people have the power to choose one government over another, to hold opinions which are in the minority, to stand at center stage proclaiming at the top of their lungs what others would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of theirs. The American government was founded on the principle that it is far, far better to have a man wrap himself in the constitution so that he can burn the flag, than one who wraps himself in the flag so that he can burn the constitution.

There is a word for all of this: freedom. And we cannot promote freedom abroad by demolishing it at home.

On Abortion.

I suppose when you come down to it, my position is pro-choice.

But that's largely by default.

It's not like I'm in favor of lining up women by the thousands and performing abortions en masse. For that matter, were I in possession of a uterus, I honestly don't know if I could undergo an abortion myself. I just don't believe that it's any of the government's damned business. Until a court somewhere rules that life begins when sperm meets ova, the government has no more place telling women that they cannot have an abortion than it does telling them that they can't have a face-lift.

So, the pro-life brigade was out in force on campus yesterday. I walked right past them without acknowledging their existence, which, I imagine probably pissed them off more than anything else I said in the subsequent few minutes when one of their lackeys ran up to me.

Have I ever mentioned how much it annoys me when someone I have made very clear I don't want to acknowledge forces me to pay attention to them?

Anyhow, he ran up to me, pointing at the billboards they had set up in the quad, and began to preach about how Canada had performed umpteen billion "murders" (and yes, that was the term he used), in the last year. I wasn't really paying attention to what he was actually saying, so I can't remember what the actual number was that he used. Frankly, I don't care.

He was taller than me, and broader across the shoulders; I figured he could probably beat me up, so I decided to humor him for a little while.

"Okay," I said, "let's assume that I accept your very flimsy definition of 'murder,' what do you suggest we do about it?"

"We would like Prime Minister Harper to introduce a bill immediately to render all abortion illegal within Canada," he announced, sounding all self-righteous.

I think I've mentioned before that there are very few things that piss me off more than self-righteousness. But I kept cool. "You think the bill has a chance of passing? I mean, even if every single Conservative votes in favor of it; there's no way they'll get any of the other three parties on board."

"Well, that's no reason not to try," He insisted.

"True," I conceded, "but what makes you think that outlawing abortion will actually reduce the number of occurrences?"

"Well, if it's illegal..."

"...Then that just means that women desperate enough to terminate their pregnancy will just go to Mexico to have their abortions," I finished. "Heck, that's what happened during prohibition, and all they wanted then was a drink."

"At least it won't be happening here," he said. I could almost hear a loud snap as his spine stiffened.

"Oh, so abortion is okay, as long as it's not happening in your backyard? Nice to know that your morality has a geographic limitation," I told him.

"Are you saying we should just give up?"

"No, I'm saying that you should focus your energy on a strategy that might actually have a snowball's chance in hell of actually reducing the number of Abortions. Make the Morning-after pill available in front of the counter; make the wait time to acquire birth control pills shorter; make condoms available right next to the toothpaste; educate children from the time they turn twelve on how to protect themselves. You want to reduce the number of abortions? Fine. Try something that'll actually work," I replied. "I'm not telling you to give up your ambitions, I'm telling you to try something a little less ham-handed."

"But if we make birth control available to teens, they'll start having impure thoughts." And for the record, he actually used the term impure thoughts. I hadn't heard the term impure thoughts since I was a student in Catholic school.

"You show your average teenager a socket wrench, and they'll have impure thoughts," I countered. "What are you more afraid of; abortion, or the idea that teenagers are getting laid more often than you are? Choose your battles. This can be about abortion, or this can be about sex. Pick one."

"Abstinence-only programs..."

"...Don't work," I finished. "At best, they make teenagers wait an average of two years longer before they first have sex; and then they are three times more likely not to use any kind of protection when they do."

"But..."

"Look," I said, "I'm not unsympathetic here, but you really need to do something that's going to actually work. Outlawing abortion is ham-handed, it's a solution which won't work, and until a court rules that life begins at conception, it's very likely illegal. Education will take longer to show an effect, it may offend your sensibilities, but it will reduce the number of abortions, and it will be a sustained reduction."

I walked away. He didn't follow.

I don't know if his views changed significantly in those five minutes; but I'd like to think that maybe I gave him something to think about.

Something bothers me about this....

There's a reason why this bothers me, I'm sure.

For some reason, it really bugs me that almost 1/4 of the money Bush has promised for HIV/AIDS prevention both in the US and abroad is going to faith-based programs who seem to truly believe that HIV is God's wrath upon the promiscuous.

There's a reason, I'm sure, why I'm concerned about the fact that much of this money is going to so-called "Abstinence Only" programs which have been proven to be, in a word, ineffective. On average, while some of their pupils may wait longer before they first have sex (an average of two years), they're far less likely to use protection when they do so.

I'm sure that there's some reason that I'm bothered by the fact that this money will support misinformation about sex, safer sex, and sexual responsibility. I'm positive that there's a reason why it bugs me that the Catholic Relief services who have, as one of their stated objectives providing "complete and correct information about condoms" but will not promote, purchase or distribute them, according to Carl Stecker. Which means that they will not make the very truthful statement: "Condoms help prevent disease," since that would technically be promotion.

There's a reason why, I'm sure, it worries me that that money is going to faith-based organizations rather than to doctors.

I know that there's some reason why I'm concerned that this money is going to religious organizations to prevent the spread of HIV, rather than an organization which actually has a chance of preventing the spread of HIV.

Now... If I could just remember what that reason was....

Oh, now I remember.

Because it's fucking stupid.

Sex

Okay, now that I have your attention....

Actually, I want to delve a little more in detail on a subject that I touched on a few posts ago. Namely, why is sex such a big issue among right-wingers?

I mentioned that several members of the Family Research Council had proclaimed that making the HPV vaccine mandatory was "sending teens the wrong message."

We're talking about a pro-life, pro-family organization which has it's knickers in a twist over a vaccine which could potentially protect the lives and fertility of thousands of women in the US alone every single year; for the simple reason that HPV is (in 92% of cases) sexually transmitted (those who object to the vaccine tend to studiously ignore the other 8%). They're particularly fond of parading HPV horror stories in front of Teenagers to terrorize them into the "Abstinence is the only option" message because unlike HIV or VD, Condoms are less effective in preventing it (to use baseball parlance; you don't need a home run; first base will do).

Give a Christian Conservative the choice between sex and death, and they'll choose death every single time. No sex for unmarried people, no HPV vaccines, no condoms for gays ('cause it's obviously better for them to get AIDS than to use a condom; God obviously never liked them anyway), no emergency contraception, no birth control pills, no abortions for anyone. When a 13-year-old girl in Florida (identified in the newspapers only as L.G.) was pregnant and wanted to terminate the pregnancy (at her doctor's suggestion), Christian soldiers rose to, quite literally, drag the girl kicking and screaming into the delivery room, tie her to the table and force her to undergo what I understand is an extremely painful process; and yes, I realize that there wouldn't have been much actual dragging, kicking or screaming involved, but I don't think I'm exaggerating by much here. Even when it was proven and accepted by the court that carrying the child to term had a threefold greater chance of killing both her and the child than the abortion would, they still insisted that the child had to be born. Pro-life my ass. Fortunately, a federal judge disagreed and allowed the abortion to proceed. The judge, specifically chosen for his conservative views, was labeled as an activist.

I think we can pretty much give up on the idea that the Pro-life, Pro-family end of the political spectrum has anything to do with the "life of the unborn" (setting aside, for the moment, whether the unborn actually is life). This is about sex; and more specifically, keeping sex firmly coupled to reproduction, at least as far as women are concerned. If they were truly protecting "the life of the unborn," they'd be handing out condoms at street corners, they'd be dishing out birth control pills and morning after pills en masse. They'd actually listen when more "liberal" (if you use the term loosely) elements of society suggest that the way to reduce the number of abortions is to educate people on making sex safer. Instead of making emergency contraception available right next to the toothpaste (which, I can pretty much guarantee, would reduce the occurrence of abortion), they applaud pharmacists who refuse to fill out prescriptions, and doctors who don't tell rape victims about emergency contraceptives. And yet interestingly enough, while they may offer lip service to the "low" (actually over 95%, if used properly) effectiveness of condoms; for some reason they're not interested in reducing their availability in order to keep the boys chaste.

This isn't about abortion. This isn't even about reducing the number of abortions, this is about the possibility that (horror of horrors) sex could be fun. That's why they object to abortion, to any form of contraception other than abstinence, to same sex marriage, and to just about anything that could make sex less risky. If word got out that there are reasons for having sex that have nothing whatsoever to do with producing spawn, women could no longer be forced to assume the role that Christian conservatives seem to believe that they should: a brood mare for the state.

Now, I admit that I don't have much in the way of solid data to back this up. At best, this is a hypothesis; but you have to admit that there is a certain internal consistency in the suggestion that maybe this has less to do with abortion than it does forcing women to produce babies.

When did "liberal" become a dirty word; Part II

I feel the need to clarify that I don't consider myself to be liberal. Actually, I call myself apolitical. I vote for the person who I believe best represents me (even if that happens to be nobody). In fact; I don't even vote for parties in federal elections; I try to remain as ignorant as possible of what a given party platform is, and focus upon the individual I'm voting for. That's probably part of the reason why I'd vote for my current MP, if I were actually planning to vote in the next Canadian Federal Election (which I'm not). Not because he's a member of the Conservative party; but because he's doing a decent job as MP.

For my Canadian readers, I also feel the need to specify that when I mention liberals and conservatives, I mean lower-case "l" and "c" respectively; I'm talking about the political view, and not the political party.

And finally, I feel the need to quote someone smarter than me; so I will:

What do our opponents mean when they apply to us the label "liberal?" If by "liberal" they mean, as they want people to believe, someone who is soft in his policies abroad, who is against local government, and who is unconcerned with the taxpayer's dollar, then the record of this party and its members demonstrate that we are not that kind of "liberal." But if by a "liberal" they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people - their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties -- someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a "liberal," then I'm proud to say I'm a "liberal."

John F. Kennedy said this in what was arguably a more enlightened time; when being labeled as a "liberal" wasn't the political kiss of death that it apparently is today.

But seriously; why is being labeled as a "liberal" such a bad thing? It's such a bad thing, apparently, that they've had to come up with a whole new name for themselves: "progressives." Liberals ended slavery in America; got women the right to vote; got African-Americans the right to vote; they gave same-sex couples the right to marry in Canada and in Massachusetts (and hopefully, coming soon to a neighborhood near you); they created medicare; they passed the Civil Rights act and the Voter's Rights act; they ended segregation.

Now, I feel the need to again clarify, I'm not a liberal; but frankly, many who eargerly label themselves as such have accomplished some pretty decent things. All of those things I listed above: they were actively blocked by conservatives.

In the interest of fairness, conservatives have also accomplished great things. Nixon ended the Vietnam war, Reagan ended the cold war, Bush (Sr.) ended Iraq's occupation of Kuwait and then did something that Bush Jr. hasn't yet figured out how to do: he went the hell home. Nobody likes to send their country to war, but at least Bush Sr. had a decent excuse for doing it.

I've had some people ask me what my political views are: my answer is pretty simple: I do what makes sense. I don't believe that "because it's always been done this way" is a good reason to keep doing it. Sometimes "the way it's always been done" is still a good way of doing things; sometimes it isn't. Either way, I don't belive that we can make decisions based upon tradition. Saying that we need to keep doing something in one particular way because that's worked in the past is, frankly, stupid. For example: I support government-sponsored daycare; something which is viewed as a typically-liberal position, provided that there is a requirement that those using the service have a job while they're using it. Frankly, I'm not gonna pay taxes so that someone out there can unload his or her kid, then sit at home and watch Oprah. But, if provide daycare service to people who are not working because they have to stay home and take care of the kids; we now have people who are making taxable revenue; thereby increasing government income, allowing the government to provide more services like government-sponsored daycare.

I like to call myself a "reasonist." I do what's reasonable; no more, no less.

Compassionate Conservatives

Am I the only one who's starting to think that one of the identifying characteristics of people who identify themselves as "compassionate conservatives" is a complete and total lack of compassion?

Recently, the Family Research council has denounced the possibility of vaccinating teenagers against two different strains of Human Papilloma Virus; which, combined, could prevent approximately 70% of all cervical cancer. This vaccine has the potential of saving the lives of 3700 women in the United States alone every single year; and the FRC has gone on record claiming that they don't want it offered to teenagers with their standard set of immunizations.

Why? Because HPV is sexually-transmitted. The FRC and Focus on the Family have both released statements voicing concerns that vaccinating teenagers could be the equivalent of telling them that it's okay to have sex. Neither have openly denounced it just yet, but neither wants the vaccine given to adolescents around 13 years of age; which happens to be exactly when it's most needed.

In a telephone interview with the Washington Post, Reginald Finger, a former medical analyst for Focus on the Family said: "There are people who sense that it could cause people to feel like sexual behaviors are safer if they are vaccinated and may lead to more sexual behavior because they feel safe."

Now, maybe I'm a little nuts, but isn't that like saying "we should only sell bicycle helmets to people who are planning on riding their bikes into a brick wall?"

Now, interestingly enough, both Focus on the Family and the FRC have been very vocal in the Pro-Life end of the spectrum. Again, I stay out of that particular debate simply because I don't believe that it can be boiled down to a black/white, pro-life/pro-choice debate, but suffice it to say that they seem to think that allowing abortion under any circumstances whatsoever is tantamount to murder.

So why is potentially allowing thousands of women to face the possibility of death or infertility suddenly okay?

If you want to reduce the number of abortions, the way to deal with it isn't to make abortion illegal, it's to educate the people who may potentially have them. Teach them about birth control; abstinence; teach them to be responsible for themselves sexually; and if they choose to have sex, make sure that they're safe about it.

But as far as they're concerned, that's no good, 'cause it still allows for the possibility that (gasp) people might actually have sex! So, they oppose just about anything that could make sex less risky: birth control pills; condoms; morning-after pills; HPV vaccines; I don't know, but I'm pretty sure that if you looked for it, they probably opposed use of Hepatitis vaccines too. As far as they're concerned, abstinence is the only option; which means that they're either seriously delusional, or they have their kids under 24-hour surveillance. The point is that if this vaccine is sending the "wrong message" - that we expect that they'll have sex - what's the "right message?" That we care more about their maidenhead than their lives? Why are those who are so adamant that abstinence is the only way to go so convinced that fear is the only way to promote abstinence? If not gettin' it before marriage is such a wonderful thing, it seems to me that the last thing you'll have to do is terrorize teenagers into not doin' it.

See, I really didn't get the reason why the far right wing have this unhealthy obsession with sex. They don't seem to want anybody havin' it. They oppose homosexuality; not because being attracted to someone of the same sex is wrong, but because they might actually have sex with someone of the same sex. They preach abstinence, rather than promoting the teaching of responsible sexuality. The overwhelming message: SEX CAN RUIN YOUR LIFE! While flatly rejecting just about any medical advancement that goes even partway to ensuring that sex doesn't ruin their lives.

It wasn't until a friend of mine provided me with a rather brilliant hypothesis. It's so simple, so elegant, and rather beautiful in its simplicity.

They're not gettin' any; and what they're gettin', they're not enjoyin'.

I have to admit, I don't have any data to back this up. For all I know, they could spend their evenings banging the hell out of the local college football team; but you have to admit that there does seem to be a fair amout of sexual frustration inherent to the far-right. Seriously: what issue have they been more vocal about than sex? They're against homosexuality, but not against the idea that someone could be attracted to the opposite sex; they tend to focus on the act itself. They're not against people dating, they're just against the idea that the daters may be having sex in the process. They're not against sex after marriage; but they object to any kind of birth control being used. And they've gone to the point where they are so adamant that nobody have sex before marriage that they've endorsed so-called abstinence-only programs; tax-funded programs which promote abstinence, and only abstinence. How do they do it? You guessed it: fear mongering; even if that fear is completely unfounded. For example, contrary to research, these programs insist that "touching another person's genitals can lead to pregnancy," that "there's no such thing as 'safe' or safer' sex," and (this is my personal favorite) "loneliness, embarrassment, substance abuse, and personal disappointment can be eliminated by being abstinent until marriage." I hope I don't actually have to say this, but for the record, not one of these are supported in the least by any empirical data.

In short, the only reason why sex is really an issue is because the far right sees a need to make it one. Why, I'll never know. Guess there are a few things that even I don't get.

Something which, for some reason didn't occur to me before

So I was thinking about the recent presidential election and I recalled one particular interview that was held just outside one of the polling stations on CNN. The woman who was about to vote announced, proudly, that she was going to vote for Bush.

When asked why, she immediately responded: "because I believe that the lord wants him to be President."

For the sake of argument, let's assume that the Lord, in fact, wants a smirking alcoholic, C-student, chimpanzee cheerleader to be president. Has anybody considered the possibility that maybe this wasn't a blessing?

Reading your bible, you'll find that the Old Testament God was pretty keen on the whole concept of smiting. He comes off a little nicer in the New Testament and the Koran, but my point stands. The Flood; the plagues of Egypt; the Tsunami; Bush.

If we postulate for the sake of argument that the Lord, in fact, wants Bush to be president; doesn't it make far more sense that this is much more a punishment than it is a blessing?

Maybe that's just me.

Make it STOP!

So, Terri Schiavo.

I know, this all happened months ago, but for some reason there are people out there who just don't want to let it end.

Why is it that this one case got so many people in an uproar? Why, even to this day, do we have people invoking her name to rise against (gasp)... Actually, what, exactly, are these people against? Seriously, let's think about this long and hard. What, exactly, went on in the case of Terri Schiavo? This wasn't an abortion (in most states, including Florida, abortion is illegal in the 174th trimester), this wasn't a case of euthanasia. This was merely a case where the doctors, and the next of kin decided that the best course of action was to terminate all life-continuing measures.

Something which has gone interestingly unmentioned in this particular case is that every doctor who attended to Ms. Shiavo agreed that removal of the feeding tube was the best course of action. The doctors, clearly, were willing to end treatment if the patient if the next-of-kin decided to do so (he did not, incidentally, decide to do so until about eight years after she went into a persistent vegitative state); and it's the assessment of every court-appointed physician who saw her that she was in an irrecoverable state. Granted, the Schiavo's parents hired their own physician who announced that with proper therapy, she could recover; a finding which is directly contradicted by the post-mortem; so I frankly question the doctor in question's qualifications.

Moreover, something which was curiously unmentioned either in the media circus which surrounded this unfortunate woman, or in the aftermath, was the fact that every single judge agreed that Michael Shiavo, her husband, had established conclusively that his wife would not wish to be kept alive under these circumstances. Instead, what did they focus on as Mr. Schiavo fought to let his wife die? The fact that he had a new girlfriend (a huge deal was made of the fact that it was out of wedlock) and a couple of kids.

Give the man a fricking break! His wife had been in a coma for fifteen years!

The question nobody seemed to bother asking was why Michael Schiavo didn't just divorce his wife and walk away from the whole situation, in spite of not one, but two multi-million dollar offers to do so. When they found that he couldn't be bought off, they suddenly started playing the PR game; going to enormous lengths to make it seem as if he was a horrible, abusive, borderline murderous human being who would have taken immense pleasure from the idea of torturing his wife to death. And no, I'm not exaggerating in the least.

So why, in spite of offers totaling over eleven million dollars, media pressure, and outright slander from the far-right wing did Mr. Schiavo not just walk away and let it end? Why didn't he just let her family decide what was best for their daughter? Hell, in his position, I gotta admit that's probably what I would have done; and I would have been wrong.

Well, I think we can probably pretty much reject the idea that he's an evil, abusive, murderous human being who wants to torture his wife to death; as the far right wing contends. And, after fifteen years, I don't think anybody would likely hold it against him if he decided to divorce his wife and walk away. So what stopped him? Why did he fight so hard and for so long to let his wife die?

The only answer that makes any sense at all is that he truly felt that he was doing the right thing. In spite of the, shall we say, uncharitable image that was painted of him on the news, he held steadfastly to his belief that he was doing the right thing. It would have been easy for him to respond to slander with slander; to descend to their level; but he didn't. Instead he fought the only way he knew how; he worked his way through the courts. In fact, of all the people involved in this; from the family, to the doctors, to the special interest groups to the president; he's the one person involved who actually acted with any human decency whatsoever. I truly believe that for the level of slander he experienced in the final months of his wife's life, Mr. Schiavo deserves a formal apology. I don't, however, expect that he'll get one. The far (extreme) right is kinda funky that way. They don't like to admit that they're wrong... ever.

The real tragedy of this is that an event which should have been private; the death of a loved one, became so brutally public. One man's reputation was dragged through the mud, congress got involved; for naught, really, since when they decided that federal courts could rule in this one particular case, the federal court promptly decided that they wouldn't. Kudos. And realistically, this was all over a woman whose life was, by any reasonable measure, over. I'm sorry, this is truly a tragedy for her family, but it's true. So while the media announced that congress was "acting to save Terri Shiavo's life" (and as an aside, I ask you: what liberal media?), congress was really acting against what no fewer than three court judges in various courts had decided were Terri Schiavo's wishes.

This has been a tragedy, not only for the Schiavo and her family, but for America as a whole. I wish for both sides of this dispute comfort and peace now that this is all over. As for those now trying to invoke her name to paint a new face on "compassionate conservativism;" well, I'm not sure whether I believe in heaven and hell or not, but if I did, I do believe that this level of false compassion exhibited by the far right in the United States would be enough to determine which direction they're headed.

When did "liberal" become a dirty word?

Before I begin, want to make very clear that I don't consider myself to be a liberal. I don't consider myself to be conservative. I do, however, consider myself to be a free thinker. The simplest way I can think of to put my beliefs is that I don't believe that "because it's always been done this way" is a good enough reason to keep doing it. Which, I suppose, makes me nonconservative, by definition. On the other hand, I also believe in smaller, responsible government; I believe in spending what we have, not what we want to have; all of which are traditionally conservative views. I believe that we need to be careful with our funds, but progressive in the social arena. I believe in a woman's right to choose; but that the husband should be allowed some say in the matter. I believe that government should be small, but not so small that it can fit into its citizen's bedrooms. As I understand it, that puts me pretty much smack-dab in the middle of the political spectrum.

Next, I want to point out that I personally reject the whole concept of labels. I'm Drew MacCannell; I'm not "Straight, White, Male, Biophysicist." Although all those things apply to me, they aren't who I am.

But a lot of people in the political arena, particularly in the US, have been demonizing their opponents by slapping the label "Liberal" on them; but for some reason that I cannot fully ascertain, slapping the exact opposite label carries no such stigma.

One of the worst things that can happen in any political campaign is to be painted as an extremist at either end of the political spectrum; and with good reason: extremists of all political slants are kinda scary. What worries me, is what, exactly, is labeled as "extremist."

The US is currently in the midst of a political quagmire as they try to decide who will step into Sandra Day-O'conner's seat on the Supreme court. Bush has nominated Harriet Miers; which is actually a far more reasonable choice than I'd dared to expect from our illustrious president; her lack of judicial experience notwithstanding. Her political views seem to be largely middle-groundish. She's in favor of gay rights (although she hasn't voiced any opinion on same-sex marriage yet); she's danced around the issue of abortion; she seems to favor separation of church and state. Although, I hasten to add, she's got no judicial experience; ergo it is nearly impossible to determine her views on many issues simply because we have no rulings to base such an assessment upon.

Far more interesting that Miers' actual views on the issues is the reaction of Bush's conservative base. Somewhat surprisingly, a number of Conservative groups; not the least of which being Focus on the Family, have been absolutely adamant that Miers is not what they're looking for. They went on to invoke current sitting justice Antonin Scalia by name, announcing that they wanted another justice with his views installed.

Now, I'm scared.

Antonin Scalia is quite possibly the single most terrifying Supreme Court Justice currently sitting on America's highest court. To describe him as conservative is a massive understatement of his actual views. He has repeatedly voted against Roe v. Wade, and has risen several times against the separation of church and state, the rights of minorities (including gay and lesbian couples). He was one of only two who voted against the supreme court decision that a gay man could not be arrested for sexual activity within his own home.

And what really scares me is that asking for another Scalia on the supreme court seems to strike much of the political clout in the US as perfectly reasonable.

How did it happen that being even marginally liberal somehow meant that you hated everything that America stands for; but being radically conservative didn't? How did it happen that being slapped with the label "liberal" was the ultimate kiss of death for your political future, but being slapped with the label "conservative" wasn't?

As previously mentioned; my political views sit, as I understand them, pretty much in the middle; but in the US, I may as well be a radical left-winger. There's a view which is becoming scarily prevalent, that you're either conservative or you're not. It seems as if it's suddenly becoming acceptable to shift to the extreme right wing, to the level of extreme protectionism, homophobia, and barely-veiled racism, but if you shift to the left of Alan Keyes, you're a radical leftist.

Suffice it to say, my trip down to the states this christmas will be interesting.

Ponderings of a Radical Left-winger.

I've always considered myself sort of apolitical. Entirely apolitical, actually. Conservative, Liberal, whatever. I didn't vote in the last Canadian federal election because it was basically a choice between moran A or moron B. Although, I confess, my opinion of my MP has gone up a few points since he decided to come down in favor of gay marriage, against the official position of his party; and the bulk of his riding. Good for him.

I did, however, vote in the US election last year. Although, admittedly, neither candidate was a particularly good choice; it was pretty clear to me that Bush was a bad one. Not to put too fine a point on it or anything, but Bush frankly scares me. I didn't vote Democrat because I have any particular love of the Democratic party. I didn't vote Democrat because I hate the Republican party. I voted for Kerry because I hate Bush. There's a difference. There's something really scary about the single most powerful man in the world thinking that he owes God for getting him out of alcoholism and a couple of DUI indictments. Bush, who came in under the label of "compassionate conservative" has shifted significantly to the point of being a "Right Wing Freak of Nature."

Actually, come to think of it, the whole political spectrum has shifted to the right in the US. As I mentioned before, I consider myself to be a middle-of-the-road political type; but by many people's standards (I'm related to quite a few of them), I'm a frothing, radical, left-winger.

How did it happen (and, not to put too fine a point on it, it has happened) that you could shift as far as you want to the right of the political spectrum; to the point of blatant homophobia, extreme protectionism, arduous Bible-thumping, and barely-veiled racism; and still be part of the mainstream; when if you shift to the left of Alan Keyes, you're a radical left-winger.

Seriously, let's take a look a what I, apparently a radical leftist, believe in: I believe in providing health care for our citizens, especially children; I believe in allowing two people of the same gender to have legal recognition of their relationship; I belive in allowing women the medical option of teminating their pregnancy; I believe that it's abhorrent that in order to be a serious candidate for presidency in a country which is supposed to have separation of church and state, you have to be a religious person; I believe in fairness and equality for all citizens, regardless of race, religion, age, gender or orientation; I believe in not allowing the elderly to rot after they retire, in providing them with some help in their declining years; I believe in my right to cry when I watch Bambi without being called a pansy; I believe in my right to do what makes me happy, provided that I harm nobody else; I believe in the right of someone else to announce at the top of their lungs that they think that everything I believe is stupid; and most of all, I believe that the purpose of law is to protect one's rights, not to limit them. If these things make me a radical left-winger by someone's very warped standards, so be it; I also believe in their right to slap that kind of a label on me.

Supreme court to hear case on Ten Commandments

(insert sound of Drew's head smacking his desk here)

I have said this before, and I will say it again. I have nothing whatsoever against religion in any form. I have no issue with people of strong faith. I have no issue with faith in general, provided that faith isn't blind.

At the same time, I firmly believe that faith and government should be separate entities. No one faith has any right to force their beliefs on those who do not believe in that faith, and likewise, the government should not demonstrate any form of favortism towards one faith in particular.

In short, faith should be a private thing, not a public one.

Right now, the US supreme court is hearing a case wherein the question is whether a state courthouse should be permitted to display stone tablets listing the ten commandments.

I find it very depresing that this is even being debated.

The argument being made in favor of keeping the tablets in place is that "the Ten Commandments are the moral foundation for American law."

Let's consider this for a moment:

The ten commandments, translated from the original Hebrew:

1. I am the Lord thy God, who brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery. Thou shalt have no other gods before Me.

Let's start here, shall we? This is a direct contradiction to the first amendment to the bill of rights which states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

Not a good start for the argument that the Ten Commandments are the foundation of American law.

2. Thou shalt not make unto thee a graven image, nor any manner of likeness, of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; Thou shalt not bow down unto them, nor serve them; for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate Me; And showing mercy unto the thousandth generation of them that love Me and keep My commandments.

Graven image is not terribly well defined. It could be argued that a monument displaying the ten commandments would directly contradict this commandment.

At any rate, there is no law in the US which prohibits this.

Zero for two.

3. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain; for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh His name in vain.

No law exists in the United States which prohibits this. In fact, prohibition of such speech could be construed (within reason) as a violation of free speech; in direct contradiction to the bill of rights.

4. Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work. But the seventh day is the Sabbath in honour of the Lord thy God; on it thou shalt not do any work, neither thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates; For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day, and hallowed it.

First off, we don't know when the Sabbath day is, exactly. Ask the seventh day adventists, and you'll get a different answer than when you ask the Catholics.

Second, no law exists which prohibits working seven days a week.

Zero for four.

5. Honour thy father and thy mother; in order that thy days may be prolonged upon the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee.

No law exists which states that you have to honour your father and mother. No law exists which states that you have to even like them. In fact, you can legally divorce your parents and declare your independence from them.

Zero for five.

6. Thou shalt not kill.

Okay, we now officially have one commandment which is actually supported by US law. Of course, the commandment not to kill is not original from the Ten Commandments. Actually, it's been a law pretty much as long as human beings have had laws.

One for six.

7. Thou shalt not commit adultry.

Generally frowned upon, but not illegal in any juristiction.

8. Thou shalt not steal.

two for eight.

Of course, not stealing has also been a law pretty much as long as human beings have had laws, so it's hardly original with the ten commandments.

9. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.

May or may not be illegal, depending upon the context.

False witness, when placed upon the witness stand is perjury; when printed (only in public, and only if it serves to defame the character of an identifiable individual), is libel; when spoken (only in public, and again, only if it can be shown to defame the character of an identifiable individual), is slander.

Otherwise, false witness is pretty much legal within the US.

10. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house; thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's.

As of this date, no person has ever been successfully prosecuted for coveting.

So, as of today, recapping, a total of three of the ten commandments are actually endorsed by American law. One of those is only supported in very specific cases (9th) and the other two (6th and 8th) are not exactly original with the ten commandments.

Not exactly a stellar argument.

--Drew

Boiling a frog

We've all heard the metaphor of the boiled frog. You throw a frog into boiling water and it jumps right out, but if you put a frog into cool water, then slowly heat it up, the frog will stay there until it boils to death.

Okay, so I bring this up because it's coming to my attention that the US is in serious danger of turning into a theocracy. Granted, this won't affect me that much, because I don't actually live in the US. But I am an American. I'm proud to be American. I'm proud of my country and what it stands for, and I am, frankly, afraid of where this could go.

One of America's founding principles is the separation of church and state. The country exists on the principle that no person should be forced into a specific set of religious beliefs, and that the government should act free of any religious bias.

The fact is that this is less the case than it was five years ago.

There's been an increasing movement in the states to rewrite national policy based upon Religious docterine. It is one thing to have strong religious beliefs. I have nothing against people with religious beliefs. It's quite another to use those beliefs to dictate law and policy. This, I do take issue with.

Take our not-too-bright president, for example. When one is unseating a dictator in a primarily Islamic country (and for the moment, I don't really want to get into whether or not it was right or wrong to invade Iraq), and fighting a war on terrorism against a group of Islamic Fundamentalists who follow an extreme interpretation of the Koran, about the dumbest thing you can do is to claim that your actions are taken in the name of God. Thousands of Christians are killed every year by Islamic extremists, simply for being Christian. 9/11, the Holocaust, the Crusades... All justified, to some extent or another, as being in the name of a given deity. None of them turned out terribly well. To claim that your actions are "in the name of God" makes you no better than the people who perpetuated those atrocities.

Now, one of the issues that I personally feel very strongly about is gay marriage (which confuses some people who have very strong fundamentalist beliefs, since I'm not gay); I'm completely in favor of it.... at least until someone can give me a non-religiously grounded reason why I should be against it. Nobody has yet; and I can think of no reason, either philosophically, scientifically, or legally why the right to marry should be denied to homosexual couples. Even the Religious arguments against it are based upon very questionable translations and interpretations of the Bible. Yet, in a country where the Church and State are supposed to be completely separate entities, a motion was successfully proposed (and, thank God, struck down) to define marriage according to biblical statutes. However, I don't think it's going to end that easily. I think that we're likely to hear a lot more about the Federal Marriage Amendment. It should be noted that the last person attempting to protect the sanctity of marriage by constitutional amendment was Seaborn Roddenberry in 1912. I'm not going to give any links here, I'm just going to leave it to you to look him up. Suffice it to say that anti-gay-marriage activists seem convinced that this time, it's somehow different.

There have also been quite a few cases in the courts in the past years (some of which have made it as far as the US Supreme Court) to force science classes in public schools to teach what has been (rather unscrupulously) called "creation science," and to present the arguments against evolution (none of these motions suggest presenting the arguments against creation "science;" apparently that would be too even-handed). All of these motions have been struck down, so far, on the grounds that "creation science" has no scientific basis whatsoever. The proponents of creation "science" have made a big deal about the fact that the scientists themselves say that Evolution is just a theory. While true, this ignores two other facts: 1) Gravity is also a theory, but nobody's gluing their feet to the floor and 2) creation "science" doesn't even have a scientific theory; for that matter, it doesn't even have a falsifiable hypothesis; all it has is the assumption that the Bible is literally true. I'm reminded of a scientist by the name of Gallileo who came up with the outlandish suggestion that the Earth was not the center of the universe...

Ladies and gentlemen, the water's boiling. I just hope that we, the frogs, have the wisdom to move it off the stove.

Whew. That was a close one.

With the recent striking down of the Federal Marriage Amendment in the US senate, I must confess that some measure of my faith in the democratic process has been restored. Had it passed, I would have officially have lost all of it.

Now, again, I'm neither gay, nor married; so I speak to some degree from ignorance here, but I had a chat today with a (married) friend of mine who had the following to say when I asked him whether he felt that allowing homosexuals to marry devalued his marriage:

Marriage is about love. People form lifelong bonds because of love. Our society's fear comes from connecting sex to that. Some people have dogs, and love them, never have sex with them, but they provide companionship for their whole lives and never get married... but how is that different than companionship? The real thought process for me was this; it is a right of people to get married if they love each other. The church says you cannot do that, thus ignoring that the basis for marriage is lifelong partnership, usually solidified by love. Now, I can see how the church wants to maintain that it is the authoritative body on marriage, and I can even respect that from a "we were here first" standpoint - that argument, believe it or not, works for me.

He went on to say:

But marriage is now both a religious (NOT spiritual) status and a legal status. Unless the church wants to run the entire legal system (god, or whatever, help us!) they have to share that marriage is also a legal, secular attribute and therefore can be given to homosexuals. Now, if our legal institutions want to deny people of that ability, we might as well tell blacks to get back in our ktichens and make us food. All in all, I don't feel threatened at all by gay marriage, I think it would be great if ANY couple could be as happy, fulfilled and comitted as I (we) am (are).

My response: Amen, Brother

Seriously, he'd basically said (far more eloquently, it pains me to admit, than I could) exactly what I'd been trying to say for a very, very long time. What seems to have been lost in this whole issue is that at the end of the day marriage is about love, period. What we (and by "we," I mean everyone) need to realize is that love comes in all shapes and sizes. Parent-child, man-woman, I-mankind, and yes, man-man and woman-woman.

Love is about being a part of something greater than one's self. I attended a sermon on a Valentine's day a while back, wherein the preacher said something that has resonated with me for a long time (and considering the fact that I'm not religious, that's saying quite a bit). She said: "Look upon those you love in wonder, for you are looking at the face of God." Regardless of whether you happen to believe in God, isn't that really what we're all looking for? Gay, straight, whatever. I think we're all looking to be a part of something greater than ourselves. If someone happens to find that in the face of someone of the same gender, what right does the government, the church, or anyone, really, have to deny it to them?

Simple solutions

My dad and I got into a bit of a discussion on the whole "Sanctity of Marriage" issue. Since we both think generally in the same way, it can't really be described as a debate, but it was a discussion on the subject matter.

My dad actually came up with a remarkably simple solution which, I think, would basically sweep away any arguments that would come up.

The solution is twofold:

1) make Marriage an institution which is specifically religious. And give them the power to marry whoever they feel they should, and to restrict it as they see fit.

2) begin another institution which has a different name (it doesn't really matter what you call it, as long as you call it something other than "marriage"), and which will be the legal and social equivalent of marriage. This institution will apply to all "marriages" not performed by a religious institution whether they be same-sex or opposite-sex unions, and will be unrestricted on those terms. Religious institutions will have no power over this type of union.

When you think about it, this solution makes a lot of sense:

1) it makes the people who are ranting about the "sanctity of marriage" happy because any homosexuals who "marry" won't have something which is called a marriage. It'll be the exact equivalent of a marriage, and will likely be referred to as a marriage in casual conversation, but it'll technically be something different.

2) it makes any homosexuals who wish to marry happy because they will have the exact same legal rights as a heterosexual who wishes to enter into a non-religiously based union.

3) it makes the churches happy because they have the power to refuse to marry two people on whatever grounds they see fit. If they say they're only going to allow opposite-sex marriages; fine. If they say that they'll also allow same-sex marriages; also fine. If they decide that they're not going to marry people with blond hair, so be it. It's up to them; but they only have this power over unions that are performed within their church.

The only downside to this plan arises if a same-sex couple absolutely wants a religious union. The majority of churches will likely refuse to perform such unions, at least for now. But that's likely to change, eventually, as the various faiths begin to accept homosexuality as a valid lifestyle.

Hmmm. Maybe I should write this up and send it off to the PM...

More things I don't get.

I did my weekly cleaning of my spam folder today and I found I had two messages from the same crazy fundamentalist Christian group. One of which was screaming about the evil of Homosexuality, the other which was screaming about the evil of abortion.

Then it occurred to me: is there another class of people on earth who has fewer abortions than Homosexuals?

Seriously, we have an entire class of people who are practically guaranteed never to have an abortion. You'd think that the two would make natural allies.

Before I go on here, I want to make absolutely clear that I have no issues whatsoever with the Christian faith, or any faith for that matter. However, I feel that an importand divisoin must exist between Religion and Government. There are, admittely, people in Canada who disagree with this assessment. I don't think that a book written thousands of years ago, which has been translated and retranslated countless times, and often with contradictory meanings, can necessarily tell us much about how to run a country today.

But narrowing it down significantly, it's my experience that the people who are truly fundamentalist, who can quote the bible with vehemence to condemn some heinous sin, and who insist that every passage in the bible must be interpreted literally, show a remarkable ignorance of what the bible actually says.

For example, it's a commonplace occurrence for people to demonstrate at various Gay Pride rallies about how much "God hates fags." When was the last time you saw people demonstrating in front of a Red Lobster proclaiming that God Hates Shrimp?

Don't get me wrong, the bible has a number of very valuable lessons to teach, but it is not, and should not be seen as the final word on any given subject. If you're going to condemn someone based entirely on a biblical passage, then you should endorse the selling of one's daughter into slavery, or lighten punishment for rape, or condemn the eating of shrimp. There are a number of passages in the bible which are either horribly violent, blatantly racist, or borderline pornographic. Not a lot of people know about those passages of the bible, however. If you're going to condemn a group of people based upon the Bible, you should have a good understanding of what the bible actually says.

Okay, down off the soapbox...