We the people

I was pretty proud of my home state this past Friday when our state lawmakers decided that same-sex couples should have the same legal right to marriage as traditional couples.  And really...what's traditional these days?  Most of the folks I know are happy with the decision.  Even those who are against it, aren't "the world is gonna end" against. it.  They just would have preferred that government stay out of it, and I'll get to that point in a moment.

My mother is one of those that I know who are against the decision. She believes that a marriage is defined as being between a man and a woman.  But she also believes it to be a sacrament of the Church.  And that's where it all begins and ends for some people.  How about a man and a woman married by a Justice of the Peace?  Or a ship's captain?  Or anyone legally allowed to do so?  Is that the same kind of marriage as a couple married in a church by a priest?  The lines and the argument that marriage is a religious joining get a bit blurred in those sitiuations.

My deal is that I don't think our government should have a say in who chooses to spend their life with someone they love.  In our out of marriage.  And if a same-sex couple wants to marry under the eyes of the law of our land, then so be it. All rights should be the same for all people.  Period.  The institution of marriage isn't being harmed.  Nor are the opponents of same-sex marriage losing anything.  Except for the right to impose their will on those with different beliefs. 

But I try not to get too heated about it, because generally the other side of the aisle doesn't make a whole heap of sense to me in this particular argument.  And there is no way that little ole' me is gonna change their minds on the subject.  Hey, I'm stubborn in some of my opinions too.

Like the idea of separation of church and state was something that our founding fathers deemed to think pretty important.  Yeah, I know the term wasn't coined until after The Constitution was drafted and made law by our founding fathers.  But it was one of those founding fathers that coined the term, so there's that. And if you read The Constitution, I mean really read it, the only mention of God, gods or religion is in the following two areas:

Article I

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.

Article VI

1: All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.


2: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.


3: The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

That's it.  Just those two mentions of religion.  Oh, they signed it with a "in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven", so I'll give ya that.  A mention of "our Lord". Very nice. 

I included all of Article VI in there, but it's section 3 that states that there shall be no religious test required to serve public office in this country.  But equally important is Section 2 which states that the laws and treaties enacted by Congress shall be the "supreme Law of the Land".  Because there is that tricky Treaty of Tripoli that was ratified in 1797 that stated the following:

Article 11

As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

Seems pretty clear to me. "As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion...".  Those were our founding fathers who wrote and ratified that treaty, right?  I mean there can't be any argument about what that sentence means, right?

Anyway, I dig that folks live their lives by the Bible.  Or the Quran.  Or the Torah.  Or The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy.  Makes no difference to me.  In fact, I find it pretty commendable.  Most of the really religious folks I know are excellent people, and they will point to their faith as the reason behind that.  That's awesome.  There are times I wish I shared their faith.

But our Constitution wasn't written by God or his prophets or whomever.  It was written by people for people.

The evidence is in those first three words in the Preamble.

You know where this is headed

Chicago public officials have revealed plans for a gay-friendly high school to open up sometime in the year 2010. Personally, I think all high schools should practice tolerance which is how I define "gay-friendly", but that's another story.

I'm not so sure how I feel about this. On the one hand, gay students are subjected to tremendous pressure and ostracism from the mainstream all over the country. However, I don't know if the answer to the problem is to isolate it. Like I said up there, I think all schools should be tolerant of all students. To specifically have a school focus on one segment of the student body is a bit odd. I don't know. Then again, I don't know how it feels to be gay in a predominantly straight world. Especially at that age.

One thing I do predict, however, is that someone in the McCain campaign (and I'm not saying anyone at or near the top of the campaign, just somebody somewhere in there) will put together "education", "Chicago" and "gay" and somehow pin this on Obama. You just watch. It's gonna happen.

What do you kids think? Is this a good idea?

Other Campaign News
Obama is now being hit with affair rumors. Regardless of what some people think, rumors of an affair at this point of the election could be crippling to either candidate. Although nothing really came of the allegations that McCain cheated on his wife back in 1992. Maybe because he already had cheated on his first wife without any repercussions. With his current wife, Cindy.

And yesterday, John McCain took his most aggressive steps to distance himself from the Bush Administration. It's early and I can't find text from his Virginia rally online yet so I'm only para-phrasing here. But he stated that the country can't spend the next four years like we spent the last eight, just waiting for our luck to change. That the explosion of government spending in the failed policies of the past eight years have crippled our economy. I guess he's not going to ask President Bush to campaign for him in the next three weeks, eh? If he had been this "maverick-y" a bit earlier on then it could have weakened Obama's campaign of change somewhat. I think it's a smart move on his part, but maybe a little too little, a little too late.

Hey, we heard from Sarah Palin's future son in-law Levi Johnson over the weekend. He answered questions about his relationship with Bristol and his relationship with the McCain campaign. I admit that I was one of the kids that thought he was being pressured to marry the girl because of how miserable he looked on television. But none of us really know him or his feelings at all. This was a good start. And he said when asked about Obama that he doesn't really know anything about him and he seems like a good guy, but that he is still rooting for McCain to win. Good for him for stepping out of the Palin's shadow for a moment.

Finally, in the same stump speech I mentioned earlier John McCain said he would veto any bill that came before him that contained any "pork barrel" spending. Hmm. Didn't he and Obama just vote "Yes" on a that $700 Billion bailout that had around $150 Billion of "pork" added to it? So as Senator, he is okay with it but as President he would be against it? Hmm.

He's Super! Thanks for asking.

Weathermen are notoriously manly, and this guy may be the manliest of the bunch.

Source - here's the full link.

PS - I'll get back to hetero-blogging tomorrow - Earl

PPS - I'm playing around with my template, but don't get used to it. I may go back. I wanna expand the width of my main block and sidebar, but I'm having issues. I go into the HTML edit and I see that I can change the width of the outer wrapping, the content wrapping and the main and sidebar areas...but I just keep screwing it up. Any advice, blog-o-maniacs? (This is where Slyde will once again bitch at me about setting up your own site rather than use something like Blogger. Watch for it. - Earl)

"Excuse me...would you like me to luffa your butt?"

Thanks for all the swell comments on yesterday's post. Honestly, when I write something that long and boring I expect that no one will read it. Or they will at least do what I do when I encounter one of your long posts. Pretend to read it...find one statement to make fun of...post a highly sarcastic comment in hopes you won't notice. ;)

I'm in the middle of writing about the best "activity" vacation I was ever a part of. I define "activity" vacations as those that include a pre-planned abundance of things to do along with getting stupid drunk at the same time. These are different from my normal vacations where I do nothing much at all, except get stupid drunk. It should be posted sometime tomorrow.

For now, I will leave you with a little Slyde anecdote that he and I were discussing earlier today. He recently posted on his site about wanting to jump my bones. There was something else involved there, but that was basically the gist of the post. He's always wanted me in an uncomfortable way. Want proof?

About ten years ago I was waiting for him to come pick me up at my apartment one Saturday. We were heading out to a comic-book convention or something equally geeky, and I, of course, woke up late with a bad hangover from the previous evening's debauchery. I unlocked the front door so he could let himself in and I went to the bathroom for a shower. Right before I jumped in, I decided to lock the bathroom door. You know...just in case.

After my shower, I headed out into the living area and there he is. On my couch watching TV just like I knew he would be. He then asked me "Why do you lock the bathroom door when you take a shower when you live alone?"

I could only answer this with another question: "Why do you know that my bathroom door was locked?"

10+ years later and he still doesn't have a decent answer for me to that one.

PS - I picked a pic of the shower scene from Psycho because all the pictures that came up when I googled "gay shower" were even scarier. Wow.