TWO CENTS (AGAIN)

It's reared its ugly head again. Coincidentally (yeah right) the "religious right" has raised the "same sex marriage" issue during a presidential election year. Now you and I know that the real reason for this is to put a fire under the asses of the fundies to get them to the polls so they'll vote for the republican for president, but others may actually think this is an issue on its own, so I'd like to summarize a few points I blogged in 2004 -the last time the "govt.-out-of-your-life-conservatives" decided to shove government into the lives of some.

1. As far as the government is concerned ALL marriages are technically "civil unions". The separation of Church and state in the 1st amendment prevents any other possible arrangement. The fact that the title "marriage" has survived to name the bundle of rights governments protect is due to "tradition" (habit) and (in)convenience. The title however does not change the nature of what it is -a protection of a bundle of civil and legal rights granted to honor/encourage monogamy. Constitutionally, all civil and legal rights must be granted and protected equally for all and for the government to deny them to anyone based on race, gender, religion, ethnicity, nationality or sexual orientation is invideous discrimination and cannot stand. Personally, I think government should get out of the business of "marriage" all together and simply call ALL marriages "civil unions" regardless the gender of the couples.

2. I believe that last sentence to be true because (and here we go) I believe that "Marriage" is a *religious* institution. For this reason marriage needs neither to be "saved" nor "protected" because it stands irrespective of the actions of government. My Catholic faith teaches that "marriage" is the union of one man and one woman into "one flesh" and that the union and is granted/sanctified by God. That doctrine is simply unaffected by whether or not civil authorities decide to grant same sex couples civil and legal rights. Moreover, our constitution makes it impossible for the govt. to determine how churches define marriage. My wife and I got both a license from the state and a certificate from the Catholic Church, however the former was not dependent on the latter and the latter cannot be compelled by the former. Governments can no more force churches to perform or recognize same sex marriages than churches could force governments to enforce church doctrine. Jesus said "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's". Separation. of Church. and State.

3. Voting down a legislative measure that would allow discrimination is completely consistent with my faith because it is preventing an action not initiating one. Here in California the latest incarnation of this fad is Proposition 8 which was originally called the "California Marriage Protection Act" but was more accurately renamed "Eliminates the right of same sex couples to marry" by Attorney General Jerry Brown to reflect the fact that the California Supreme Court has held that same couples have a constitutional right to marry under the California Constitution. This measure would change the California constitution, in contravention of the Court's decision to recognize the right, to divest that right only for certain individuals, therefore voting "no" on it doesn't establish any right or action that hadn't already been granted or done -i.e. it doesn't "sanctify" the court's decision because the court was merely reaffirming the state constitution.

Let's be clear -the only reason the gay-bashing crowd have proceeded in this manner is because if a measure is proposed as a mere statute, it must be "tested" against the constitution (federal and state -the federal is the "floor" so states can grant more rights than the federal constitution, but they cannot grant less). If it is determined to be unconstitutional it must be stricken down. Any measure added to the constitution however becomes a part of it and by definition cannot be unconstitutional.

A lot of money has been poured into the "Yes on 8" campaign and a lot of lies and deception have been alleged by that group to further their cause -let's hope the people of California aren't as stupid as they were when they were conned into enacting the 3-strikes law. (but that's another story. )

IT'S THE IDEOLOGY STUPID

Sweet music reported by the NYT yesterday:

"Strategists for both parties say Republican House and Senate candidates are being hurt by the dip in support for Senator John McCain at the top of the ticket, frustrating Republicans who had initially viewed Mr. McCain as a strong asset who could appeal to independents and even moderate Democrats and protect Republicans in a tough year."

This is after the shunning that guppies have given W for the last year ("Bush? Bush who?").

Why?

Because the ideology these buffoons subscribe to is bankrupt, phony, immoral and unpatriotic, and they know it and can't find a rock low enough under which to hide.

Let me reveal one of my core beliefs (which I'm having trouble putting into a succinct maxim --any ideas?): You're going to pay somewhere along the "line".

Somewhere in the normal arc of a person's life -you (we) will be forced to contribute financially to that persons well being. Think about it, these are just some of the ways you'll have to pay (depending on the person's life-path):

pre-natal care
neo-natal care
SCHIP
Preschool
school
juvenile detention/treatment facilities
college scholarships/grants/subsidies
military/medical/veteran/funereal
govt. backed loans
hospitals
drug treatment
occupational therapy
Psychiatric facilities
disaster relief
food banks
increased health insurance premiums to offset non-prevention and indigents
business/agricultural/ tax subsidies
arrest /prosecution
prison
social security
medicaid/medicare
burial/cremation

This is just a cursory list and doesn't even take into account infrastructure costs to get us all around. At some point on the continuum whether we like ot or not, we will collectively pay for one or more of the above. I.e. somewhere along the line you're going to pay -even if it's just to dispose of a person's corpse.

Any ideology which ignores this fact is to put it politely -kidding itself. (putting it impolitely requires too many expletives for this page's sensibilities). Even if you claim we as a people shouldn't be paying for "those (insert your favorite sin/epithet here)" because of their life choices, we will. Some of these services can of course be privatized but without government support they are only available to those who by hook or crook can afford them -and it's nearly guaranteed that those who can afford them "on their own" are able to do so because of the labor/sacrifice/charity of those who couldn't.

Moreover, economically it's more efficient to pay for them preventively than as a solution to a crisis when the costs are exponentially more.

Now don't misunderstand me -I'm not saying that those whose industry or ingenuity has made them money don't deserve it or that all should have the same level of services -that would be communism. I'm saying that in a society in which we've decided that all people are created equal and in which we've agreed that all have inalienable rights we have a moral and logical imperative to ensure that the above services are available to all regardless of their income, and any idiology that seeks to redistribute wealth by depriving some of access to the above is not only doomed to failure, but selfish unpatriotic and should be criminal.

We now see the results of this ideology daily as headlines, and try as they may they can't hide from it anymore.

Anyone who decries the inevitability of taxes and the providing of these of services is therefore not only a hypocrite, but a traitor. We are the government. Ours is a government of the people, by the people and for the people, therefore if you hate "government" you necessarily hate We the People.

The Republicans are finally being called on this and that's why it doesn't matter who is at the top of their pyramid -it's toxic and they can't escape it anymore.

SHE WANTS TO PLAY?

She wants to play?

Fine, let's play:

HE ASKED FOR IT

Grampy is getting desperate:

• The Alaskan Bimbo is parroting anew the William Ayers bullsh*t.
• The introductory speaker at her rally in FL dropped the Hussein-bomb today
• Bill Kristol tries to reintroduce the Reverend Wright lies. Asshole.

So Ok. that's the way Grampy wants to react to his numbers circling the drain? It's not as if he doesn't have a past that warrants questioning. So here we go: