Tuesday, November 18, 2003
Love and Marriage...
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. -- Declaration of Independence.
Unfortunately, in the US, not everyone has been equal. For quite some time, people of colour - African-Americans, Asians, Native Americans, etc.; women; and other minorities were openly discriminated against. It used to be unless you were a white, land-owning male, you had very few, if any, rights in this country.
That's changed. Practically any one can vote (if they get off the La Z Boy). Most people in the US are free to pursue their life, liberty, and happiness in any way they see fit.
Today, the Massachusetts Supreme Court handed down a ruling saying that gays and lesbians cannot be barred from marrying. Good for the Massachusetts Supreme Court! I cannot see why two people who love each other cannot marry and get all the 1049 legal benefits married people enjoy that unmarried people do not.
I've heard all the arguments posed by the far right. Allowing gays and lesbians to marry will destroy the institution of marriage. Really? How? It will redefine it, sure. Will it destroy it? Hardly. How can it be corrupted any more than it has? Total strangers get married by America. People marry millionaires on television (for love, of course. *wink*). Countless people go to Las Vegas to get married by Elvis. On top of that, about half of all marriages end in divorce. And marriage is sacred? Please! I know many gay and lesbian couples who have been in relationships lasting as long or longer than most straight people's relationships.
Contrary to what Rick Santorum and his ilk say, this will not lead to people wanting to marry their dogs or sisters. I think he doth protest too much at times. Marriage used to be, and still is in many parts of the world, arranged. Marriage was not done because two people loved one another. Marriage was a merger and acquisition process. Churches eventually got into the marriage business, too. Marriage is quite a lucrative business. Cakes, dresses, tuxedos, receptions, and all the other sundry things that go into a marriage ceremony cost a pretty penny.
I fear, though, this will galvanise the religious right (to me, an oxymoron) and have them screaming and yelling that this is a sign of the Apocalypse. They'll say the only way to stop it is to add a Constitutional Amendment stating marriage should be between a man and a woman. If I remember correctly, the last time conservatives added an Amendment to the Constitution (The 18th Amendment) it was repealed (the 21st Amendment).
For the religious right (there's that oxymoron again), there is a difference between religious marriage and legal marriage. Last time I was in a church and saw friends get married, the minister said, "By the power vested in me by the state of Texas, I pronounce you husband and wife." He didn't say, By the power vested in me by (choose one) Jesus, God, Buddha, Mohammed, Vishnu, Mother Earth, etc., I pronounce you husband and wife. He said, "...state of Texas." That is a pretty good indicator it's an issue for laws of the states, not the church.
All gays and lesbians want is that their relationships are treated equally. They want the same rights and privileges straight people have. . They want to file joint tax returns. They want to have joint insurance policies for home, auto, life, etc. They want to inherit automatically without having to write down every little thing in a will. They want to visit their partner in the hospital. They want to make medical decisions for them, if they have to. I can't list all 1,049 benefits here, but suffice it to say, they want them just like every one else. Gays and lesbians want their relationships respected just like straight relationships currently are.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. -- Declaration of Independence.
Unfortunately, in the US, not everyone has been equal. For quite some time, people of colour - African-Americans, Asians, Native Americans, etc.; women; and other minorities were openly discriminated against. It used to be unless you were a white, land-owning male, you had very few, if any, rights in this country.
That's changed. Practically any one can vote (if they get off the La Z Boy). Most people in the US are free to pursue their life, liberty, and happiness in any way they see fit.
Today, the Massachusetts Supreme Court handed down a ruling saying that gays and lesbians cannot be barred from marrying. Good for the Massachusetts Supreme Court! I cannot see why two people who love each other cannot marry and get all the 1049 legal benefits married people enjoy that unmarried people do not.
I've heard all the arguments posed by the far right. Allowing gays and lesbians to marry will destroy the institution of marriage. Really? How? It will redefine it, sure. Will it destroy it? Hardly. How can it be corrupted any more than it has? Total strangers get married by America. People marry millionaires on television (for love, of course. *wink*). Countless people go to Las Vegas to get married by Elvis. On top of that, about half of all marriages end in divorce. And marriage is sacred? Please! I know many gay and lesbian couples who have been in relationships lasting as long or longer than most straight people's relationships.
Contrary to what Rick Santorum and his ilk say, this will not lead to people wanting to marry their dogs or sisters. I think he doth protest too much at times. Marriage used to be, and still is in many parts of the world, arranged. Marriage was not done because two people loved one another. Marriage was a merger and acquisition process. Churches eventually got into the marriage business, too. Marriage is quite a lucrative business. Cakes, dresses, tuxedos, receptions, and all the other sundry things that go into a marriage ceremony cost a pretty penny.
I fear, though, this will galvanise the religious right (to me, an oxymoron) and have them screaming and yelling that this is a sign of the Apocalypse. They'll say the only way to stop it is to add a Constitutional Amendment stating marriage should be between a man and a woman. If I remember correctly, the last time conservatives added an Amendment to the Constitution (The 18th Amendment) it was repealed (the 21st Amendment).
For the religious right (there's that oxymoron again), there is a difference between religious marriage and legal marriage. Last time I was in a church and saw friends get married, the minister said, "By the power vested in me by the state of Texas, I pronounce you husband and wife." He didn't say, By the power vested in me by (choose one) Jesus, God, Buddha, Mohammed, Vishnu, Mother Earth, etc., I pronounce you husband and wife. He said, "...state of Texas." That is a pretty good indicator it's an issue for laws of the states, not the church.
All gays and lesbians want is that their relationships are treated equally. They want the same rights and privileges straight people have. . They want to file joint tax returns. They want to have joint insurance policies for home, auto, life, etc. They want to inherit automatically without having to write down every little thing in a will. They want to visit their partner in the hospital. They want to make medical decisions for them, if they have to. I can't list all 1,049 benefits here, but suffice it to say, they want them just like every one else. Gays and lesbians want their relationships respected just like straight relationships currently are.
Religious Freedom
An article on Yahoo! News says that groups seek Ten Commandments protections. These conservative groups want Ten Commandments displays that are in public buildings protected. The problem I have with that is it comes awfully close to the endorsement of one religion over another.
The First Amendment to the Constitution says, "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." I have no problem if people want to wall paper every room in their house with the Ten Commandments. I have no problem if people want to make their cars rolling Ten Commandment banners. When public spaces are allowed to have the Ten Commandments displayed, it promotes Judeo-Christianity over all other religions. Are other groups going to be allowed to display their religious commandments? I'm sure if a Buddhist or Muslim judge had put granite monuments with sayings of Buddha or Mohammed that display would have been out in a split second. Or will we have walls filled with religious messages for each and every single religion in existence?
I thought one of the reasons this country was founded was because people could not freely exercise their religion in England. They had to follow what the Church of England, which was controlled by the monarchy, told them to. Basically, the people of England had three choices, follow the Church of England's rules regarding worship: worship clandestinely and risk being caught and thrown in jail, or they could get into cramped boats and sail west to a strange, new land to worship how they saw fit. Many chose door number three.
Well, we can't go west any more to a strange new land to practice our freedom of religion; they're all taken (not that that's stopped people before, but that's a topic for another post). I'm quite happy that people in the US can freely practice their religion, whatever that may be. I really wish conservatives would see that, although the US was founded by Christians, they came to the US so they could freely practice. They need to allow other to practice as they see fit and not impose their views on others. I think the influences of other religions and cultures makes the US one of the best places to live.
If we continue down the road of pushing a narrow minded view of Christianity on the people of the US, we'll wind up like the Taliban in Afghanistan. We'll impose arbitrary laws because some minister or priest interprets the Bible in a narrow, specific way. Lord help the televangelists and their poly-cotton blend suits when that happens.
An article on Yahoo! News says that groups seek Ten Commandments protections. These conservative groups want Ten Commandments displays that are in public buildings protected. The problem I have with that is it comes awfully close to the endorsement of one religion over another.
The First Amendment to the Constitution says, "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." I have no problem if people want to wall paper every room in their house with the Ten Commandments. I have no problem if people want to make their cars rolling Ten Commandment banners. When public spaces are allowed to have the Ten Commandments displayed, it promotes Judeo-Christianity over all other religions. Are other groups going to be allowed to display their religious commandments? I'm sure if a Buddhist or Muslim judge had put granite monuments with sayings of Buddha or Mohammed that display would have been out in a split second. Or will we have walls filled with religious messages for each and every single religion in existence?
I thought one of the reasons this country was founded was because people could not freely exercise their religion in England. They had to follow what the Church of England, which was controlled by the monarchy, told them to. Basically, the people of England had three choices, follow the Church of England's rules regarding worship: worship clandestinely and risk being caught and thrown in jail, or they could get into cramped boats and sail west to a strange, new land to worship how they saw fit. Many chose door number three.
Well, we can't go west any more to a strange new land to practice our freedom of religion; they're all taken (not that that's stopped people before, but that's a topic for another post). I'm quite happy that people in the US can freely practice their religion, whatever that may be. I really wish conservatives would see that, although the US was founded by Christians, they came to the US so they could freely practice. They need to allow other to practice as they see fit and not impose their views on others. I think the influences of other religions and cultures makes the US one of the best places to live.
If we continue down the road of pushing a narrow minded view of Christianity on the people of the US, we'll wind up like the Taliban in Afghanistan. We'll impose arbitrary laws because some minister or priest interprets the Bible in a narrow, specific way. Lord help the televangelists and their poly-cotton blend suits when that happens.
Monday, November 10, 2003
Thou shalt not...
I had been curious about the religions since I was young. I had read about several of the world's religions growing up as a kid - Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Islam, Buddhism, etc. When I was a teen, I even toyed with the idea of studying a religion a year so I could understand what different people of the world were thinking religiously. I then realised it takes much more than a year to fully understand all the subtleties religions have. Many years later, I was visiting a friend of mine who live in Philadelphia. He had a Buddhist shrine set up in his spare bedroom. I asked him some questions about Buddhism, what got him interested, and the like. He told me in order to understand it more I would have to study a bit on my own and, more importantly, find a teacher (he said one cannot learn simply from books alone). So I did both. Buddhism, like Christianity, has rules and guidelines. One of these rules, or precepts, is refrain from killing any living being. Christianity's (and Judaism's) sixth commandment is "Thou shalt not kill." I've seen it written, "Thou shalt not murder."
Everything I have read about President George Bush and Governor Jeb Bush are devout Christians. As such, I would think they would try to live their lives accordingly. And their policies would follow their devout thinking.
Since I moved to Texas in May of 1997, 187 people have been executed by the state of Texas. Since George Bush first became Governor of Texas on November 8, 1994 until he was inaugurated as President on January 20, 2001, 118 people were executed by the state of Texas. His brother, Jeb Bush, was elected as Governor of Florida in November 1998. Since he became Governor, fourteen people have been executed by the State of Florida.
(Correction - 152 people were executed during George W. Bush's tenure as Governor of Texas.)
President Bush recently signed the partial birth abortion ban. Governor Jeb Bush recently issued Executive Order 03-201 that was empowered by Legislative Bill 35E hastily put through by the Florida Legislature. This allowed the reinsertion of the feeding tube into Terry Schiavo.
I don't understand the logic that says it is acceptable to execute someone who commits a crime, but not to allow a woman to have an abortion or allow someone who is in a persistent vegetative state to die according to their wishes. I understand the logic of the people who are totally pro-life - those who think executing someone, abortion, and euthanasia are wrong. I also understand the logic of the people who are pro-choice, pro-execution, and pro-euthanasia.
Personally, I am anti-abortion, anti-death penalty, and pro-euthanasia. Publicly, I am pro-choice, anti-death penalty, and pro-euthanasia. Let me explain...
If I were to get a woman pregnant, the cause was the contribution of 50% of the genetic material the effect is the child. I would take responsibility for my contribution of 50% of the genetic material and, if need be, raise the child on my own; provide support for him or her, etc. I would not tell a woman I did not know that she can or cannot get an abortion. That is something she will have to decide on her own with the input of her religion and family.
In the case of the state executing someone, the killing of the person who committed the crime will not bring back the person they killed. It may not even provide closure for the victim's family. If we lived by the concept of "an eye for and eye, a tooth for a tooth, we would be a blind, toothless nation.
I think a person should be allowed to die if they are in a persistent vegetative state or the quality of their life has been degraded so much by a disease that they can no longer function on their own; they simply exist. A good example of this is the highly controversial Terry Schiavo case. Thirteen years ago, Terry Schiavo suffered a heart attack that left her severely brain damaged. Since Terry Schiavo did not have a living will, her wishes may never truly be know. Terry Schiavo's husband, Michael, has said Terry talked to him and said she would not want to live on a machine. Her parents disagreed and mounted an extensive public campaign to keep their daughter attached to machines because they claim she is not in a persistent vegetative state and can be rehabilitated. Both sides had much to gain and lose. I personally think the rule of law should apply. Too many people have used Terry Schiavo for political gain. While I do feel for the loss of the Schinlders, the Terry they knew no longer exists. I'm not even sure if they are hoping so much for a recovery that anything they see Terry do will fit that bill. As of now, Michael Schiavo Schiavo is Terry's legal guardian. I hope both he and Terry's parents will figure out what's best for Terry.
Part of my thinking is influenced by the Buddhist concept of karma. Karma has been twisted a bit by the media. Simply, the law of karma, says only this: "For every event that occurs, there will follow another event whose existence was caused by the first, and this second event will be pleasant or unpleasant according as its cause was skillful or unskillful." A skillful event is one that is not accompanied by craving, resistance or delusions; an unskillful event is one that is accompanied by any one of those things. (Events are not skillful in themselves, but are so called only in virtue of the mental events that occur with them.) (From
Laws of Karma)
I find it interesting that people can be pro-life in the case of fetuses and people on life support, yet pro-death when it comes to people on Death Row. To me, it says that "Thou shalt not kill." applies on in certain cases. How devout can one be if it is okay to kill (or allow someone to be killed) by the state in some cases, yet not in others?
I had been curious about the religions since I was young. I had read about several of the world's religions growing up as a kid - Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Islam, Buddhism, etc. When I was a teen, I even toyed with the idea of studying a religion a year so I could understand what different people of the world were thinking religiously. I then realised it takes much more than a year to fully understand all the subtleties religions have. Many years later, I was visiting a friend of mine who live in Philadelphia. He had a Buddhist shrine set up in his spare bedroom. I asked him some questions about Buddhism, what got him interested, and the like. He told me in order to understand it more I would have to study a bit on my own and, more importantly, find a teacher (he said one cannot learn simply from books alone). So I did both. Buddhism, like Christianity, has rules and guidelines. One of these rules, or precepts, is refrain from killing any living being. Christianity's (and Judaism's) sixth commandment is "Thou shalt not kill." I've seen it written, "Thou shalt not murder."
Everything I have read about President George Bush and Governor Jeb Bush are devout Christians. As such, I would think they would try to live their lives accordingly. And their policies would follow their devout thinking.
Since I moved to Texas in May of 1997, 187 people have been executed by the state of Texas. Since George Bush first became Governor of Texas on November 8, 1994 until he was inaugurated as President on January 20, 2001, 118 people were executed by the state of Texas. His brother, Jeb Bush, was elected as Governor of Florida in November 1998. Since he became Governor, fourteen people have been executed by the State of Florida.
(Correction - 152 people were executed during George W. Bush's tenure as Governor of Texas.)
President Bush recently signed the partial birth abortion ban. Governor Jeb Bush recently issued Executive Order 03-201 that was empowered by Legislative Bill 35E hastily put through by the Florida Legislature. This allowed the reinsertion of the feeding tube into Terry Schiavo.
I don't understand the logic that says it is acceptable to execute someone who commits a crime, but not to allow a woman to have an abortion or allow someone who is in a persistent vegetative state to die according to their wishes. I understand the logic of the people who are totally pro-life - those who think executing someone, abortion, and euthanasia are wrong. I also understand the logic of the people who are pro-choice, pro-execution, and pro-euthanasia.
Personally, I am anti-abortion, anti-death penalty, and pro-euthanasia. Publicly, I am pro-choice, anti-death penalty, and pro-euthanasia. Let me explain...
If I were to get a woman pregnant, the cause was the contribution of 50% of the genetic material the effect is the child. I would take responsibility for my contribution of 50% of the genetic material and, if need be, raise the child on my own; provide support for him or her, etc. I would not tell a woman I did not know that she can or cannot get an abortion. That is something she will have to decide on her own with the input of her religion and family.
In the case of the state executing someone, the killing of the person who committed the crime will not bring back the person they killed. It may not even provide closure for the victim's family. If we lived by the concept of "an eye for and eye, a tooth for a tooth, we would be a blind, toothless nation.
I think a person should be allowed to die if they are in a persistent vegetative state or the quality of their life has been degraded so much by a disease that they can no longer function on their own; they simply exist. A good example of this is the highly controversial Terry Schiavo case. Thirteen years ago, Terry Schiavo suffered a heart attack that left her severely brain damaged. Since Terry Schiavo did not have a living will, her wishes may never truly be know. Terry Schiavo's husband, Michael, has said Terry talked to him and said she would not want to live on a machine. Her parents disagreed and mounted an extensive public campaign to keep their daughter attached to machines because they claim she is not in a persistent vegetative state and can be rehabilitated. Both sides had much to gain and lose. I personally think the rule of law should apply. Too many people have used Terry Schiavo for political gain. While I do feel for the loss of the Schinlders, the Terry they knew no longer exists. I'm not even sure if they are hoping so much for a recovery that anything they see Terry do will fit that bill. As of now, Michael Schiavo Schiavo is Terry's legal guardian. I hope both he and Terry's parents will figure out what's best for Terry.
Part of my thinking is influenced by the Buddhist concept of karma. Karma has been twisted a bit by the media. Simply, the law of karma, says only this: "For every event that occurs, there will follow another event whose existence was caused by the first, and this second event will be pleasant or unpleasant according as its cause was skillful or unskillful." A skillful event is one that is not accompanied by craving, resistance or delusions; an unskillful event is one that is accompanied by any one of those things. (Events are not skillful in themselves, but are so called only in virtue of the mental events that occur with them.) (From
Laws of Karma)
I find it interesting that people can be pro-life in the case of fetuses and people on life support, yet pro-death when it comes to people on Death Row. To me, it says that "Thou shalt not kill." applies on in certain cases. How devout can one be if it is okay to kill (or allow someone to be killed) by the state in some cases, yet not in others?
Sunday, November 02, 2003
Don't Look Behind the Curtain
President Bush recently had one of his ultra-rare press conferences to tell the media they needed to start reporting on the all the good stuff that was happening over in Iraq. While I agree with Dubya that schools, over-priced bridges and roads, and electricity that's only 1/3 of what it should be does need to be reported. However, that news will always be overshadowed when American soldiers, marines, airmen, and sailors get killed. While I'm too young to have been in Viet Nam, I have read many articles and books on the Viet Nam War and my father served over there. Telling people "good news" when Americans are coming home in body bags never works.
Today I read that .15 Americans were killed and 21 were wounded when the helicopter they were in was shot down by a missile. They were on their way to go to Baghdad to catch a plane to go to R&R. I hope this doesn't lead to a pattern of escalation. I can just see the next thing the resistance will try is to shoot down a plane loaded with troops heading off to R&R. One missile is all it would take.
I have never agreed with President Bush's reasons to go to war. President Bush told the world Iraq had Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) and would use them. He claimed Iraq had nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons. Of course, when the hunt for the WMDs looked like David Kay and his inspectors weren't going to find anything, the threshold was lowered to the level of "they were thinking about having WMDs and they had them at one time." Now I can think about having a billion dollars all day, but that doesn't mean I have it right now. When I was a kid I had a Tonka truck. That doesn't mean I have one now.
I don't think we should have rushed into Iraq with the faulty intelligence we had. Bush should have tried to be a uniter, not a divider. He squandered the good will of the world. I'm not sure if he honestly thought this through or if he relied on people like Rummy, Cheney, and Condi to tell him what to do. We may never know. What's done is done.
Don't get me wrong, Saddam Hussein was a terrible guy. He killed many people, including Iranians and his own people - Shia Muslims, Kurds, etc. Sometimes with the US's blessing, sometimes with equipment he bought from Europe, Russia, and the US (among other places). I'm glad he's no longer in power. However, being a leader of a country who oppresses and kills your own populace rarely means the US is going to rush in and stop it. If it did, we would be in so many countries around the world.
My condolences go out to all those who passed away on the helicopter and their families. I hope the resistance in Iraq does not ratchet up the violence and try more bold and daring attacks. I hope we mend the fences we tore down with other countries around the world when we basically flipped them the bird and told them they were either with us or against us. I fear that until the situation in Iraq becomes better, the rest of the countries of the world will not want to send their sons or daughters to die in Iraq. However, the US needs to work with the rest of the world to solve the problems of Iraq. There is an expression I was once told, "Many hands make small work." The more inclusive we can be, the better the situation will become.
President Bush recently had one of his ultra-rare press conferences to tell the media they needed to start reporting on the all the good stuff that was happening over in Iraq. While I agree with Dubya that schools, over-priced bridges and roads, and electricity that's only 1/3 of what it should be does need to be reported. However, that news will always be overshadowed when American soldiers, marines, airmen, and sailors get killed. While I'm too young to have been in Viet Nam, I have read many articles and books on the Viet Nam War and my father served over there. Telling people "good news" when Americans are coming home in body bags never works.
Today I read that .15 Americans were killed and 21 were wounded when the helicopter they were in was shot down by a missile. They were on their way to go to Baghdad to catch a plane to go to R&R. I hope this doesn't lead to a pattern of escalation. I can just see the next thing the resistance will try is to shoot down a plane loaded with troops heading off to R&R. One missile is all it would take.
I have never agreed with President Bush's reasons to go to war. President Bush told the world Iraq had Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) and would use them. He claimed Iraq had nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons. Of course, when the hunt for the WMDs looked like David Kay and his inspectors weren't going to find anything, the threshold was lowered to the level of "they were thinking about having WMDs and they had them at one time." Now I can think about having a billion dollars all day, but that doesn't mean I have it right now. When I was a kid I had a Tonka truck. That doesn't mean I have one now.
I don't think we should have rushed into Iraq with the faulty intelligence we had. Bush should have tried to be a uniter, not a divider. He squandered the good will of the world. I'm not sure if he honestly thought this through or if he relied on people like Rummy, Cheney, and Condi to tell him what to do. We may never know. What's done is done.
Don't get me wrong, Saddam Hussein was a terrible guy. He killed many people, including Iranians and his own people - Shia Muslims, Kurds, etc. Sometimes with the US's blessing, sometimes with equipment he bought from Europe, Russia, and the US (among other places). I'm glad he's no longer in power. However, being a leader of a country who oppresses and kills your own populace rarely means the US is going to rush in and stop it. If it did, we would be in so many countries around the world.
My condolences go out to all those who passed away on the helicopter and their families. I hope the resistance in Iraq does not ratchet up the violence and try more bold and daring attacks. I hope we mend the fences we tore down with other countries around the world when we basically flipped them the bird and told them they were either with us or against us. I fear that until the situation in Iraq becomes better, the rest of the countries of the world will not want to send their sons or daughters to die in Iraq. However, the US needs to work with the rest of the world to solve the problems of Iraq. There is an expression I was once told, "Many hands make small work." The more inclusive we can be, the better the situation will become.
