Friday, May 19, 2006
The book didn't, and I doubt the movie will, change any of my attituded toward the church or Christianity in general. It is a NOVEL and the film is a popcorn movie. If your faith is shattered because of some escapist entertainment, or if Mel Gibson's gore-filled snuff film inspired your faith, I have but one thing to say to you:
So the Deliverance wing of the Senate GOP (along with a few red state Dems) want to make English our "national language." Isn't that special. There is a cheap joke about the president now having to master the language in there somewhere, but seriously, how pathetic of an attempt at pandering to the mouthbreathers of society is this? Why don't we just call it the "Let's Make Government Less Efficient While I Get This Cross a Burnin' Act?"
I find this particularly interesting given that we Americans (sadly, your humble correspondent is included) are about the worst industrialized country in the world when it comes to languages. As business becomes more global, so many of us here remain English-only speakers. When my wife was in Paris, I encountered hotel switchboard operators that effortlessly switched from French to perfect English. But here--at the INTERNATIONAL terminal at O'Hare Airport, there is not ONE directional sign in another language. The "information" officer was a surly rent-a-cop who only spoke English, and when foreign nationals didn't understand him (who would have anticipated that at the INTERNATIONAL terminal????) his response was to speak in English, only louder.
Official English, the national anthem in Spanish, gay marriage, service academy prayers, even our old friend flag burning--I love seeing priorities in the right place. Good thing we don't have any real problems to address.
Tuesday, May 16, 2006
What nonsense. First of all, Bill, keep your feline-dissecting hands of the constitution. That document is not the place for misguided social engineering (how did Prohibition work for you?)
And just exactly how is marriage under attack? Now, in the interest of full disclosure-- I am married to a WONDERFUL woman, I've been married for a long time and I like being married. That said, it is difficult to come up with a convincing argument as to why the government should be in the business of sanctioning relationships in 2006. Legitimacy is not a concern for property succession, the institution is no longer (if it ever was) the regulator of sexual activity, DNA can show parentage and so on and so on.
HOWEVER, let us assume that the government WILL continue to legally sanction relationships. I have not heard a compelling argument about why this LEGAL relationship should not be extended to same-sex couples. Let us dispense immediately with religious arguments. We are talking about the legal enforcement of a quasi-contractual relationship and what is recognized by a religious group should play no part in that.
Also let's lose the truism, marriage is between a man and a woman because it's, well, between a man and a woman!
The slippery slope also has to go. If we allow gays to marry, then next comes polygamy, men will marry sheep, someone will walk down the aisle with their Harley, women will marry Tom Cruise--oh wait.
What utter nonsense. Did marriage to one man or woman generate polygamy? In terms of lines to draw, I think
2) Consenting adult
3) Human spouse per person
is pretty easy without slip-slidin' away.
And spare me the "sanctity" of marriage. For one thing, "sanctity" has a religious connotation. Beyond that, though, when the divorce rate is around half, Anna Nicole Smith marries a not-yet-buried corpse, Brittany Spears has two days of wedded bliss before bailing, sell "sanctity" somewhere else.
Monday, May 15, 2006
"Those who say they love God and hate their brothers and sisters are liars; for those who do not love a brother or sister whom they have seen cannot love God whom they have not seen."