Your result for The Political Objectives Test...

Progressive

You scored 79 Equality, 71 Liberty, and 36 Stability!

Take The Political Objectives Test at HelloQuizzy

sense of whimsy - i don't know if i ever posses this charachter trait or whether i want any.

[FONT="Verdana"][SIZE="2"]Most people by now have heard the story of the Wal Mart worker who was trampled to death by Black Friday customers who literal took the doors off the hinges yesterday, which gave an entirely new meaning to the concept of a "doorbuster sale."

What the fuck is wrong with people? Is the need to acquire a few cheap gimcracks at a slightly lower price than normal worth someone's life? I don't even understand why these sales still generate crowds so big, considering now that people can shop online from the comfort of their own homes.

After reading about this tragedy from several sources, I thought back to the events of September 11, 2001, when an approximate 13,000 to 15,000 people evacuated successfully from the World Trade Center towers. Despite it being an emergency situation where lives where clearly in danger, and where panic would have been understandable, I've never heard any reports of people being trampled to death during the evacuation. Rather, I heard several stories of people stopping to help others whose physical limitations hampered their ability to escape on their own, some even giving their own lives in such sttempts.

The memories of that day only serve to underscore just how despicable the actions of yesterday's mob of Wal Mart shoppers were.

Thoughts?

[/SIZE][/FONT]

[FONT="Verdana"][SIZE="2"]I thought I'd mention two things that I'm thankful for this year.

I'm thankful that this country woke up and elected Barack Obama to be our next president. Perhaps now I can get health insurance, despite not having a high paying job and perhaps I'll even be able to find a better job in an improved economy in the next four years.

I'm thankful that gas prices have dropped down so far after a record high earlier this year. I know it's probably temporary, but, for now, I'm grateful.

How about you? What are you grateful for this year?

[/SIZE][/FONT]

~Thanksgiving Day Massacre~

The Real Story

(Note from WoF: I originally posted this on my Modblog page Nov 2004. I took excerpts from the page linked in the title and added my own words and thoughts. I thought I had lost this, but, thanks to Chandra Moon leading me to Internet Archive I was able to retrieve it. I posted this again last year at efx2, but now I have decided to post it every Thanksgiving ... so people will remember ...)

While I was growing up, I was taught in school that Thanksgiving Day was started because a group of Pilgrims and Indians got together for a peaceful feast of thanksgiving.

Not so...

In June 1637 John Underhill, along with English, Dutch and Narranganset Indian mercenaries, and with the blessing of Governor John Endicott of the Massachusetts Bay Colony, slaughtered 700 Pequot Indian men, women and children in their village during one of their religious ceremonies, the annual Green Corn Dance...thanking the Great Spirit for such a bountiful crop.

These Native Americans were ordered by the mercenaries from the main lodge where the celebration was taking place and were shot down as they came out. Those that remained inside were burned alive! The very next day the governor declared it a Thanksgiving Day in honor of the bloodbath, thanking God for their victory.

There were no pilgrims of puritans at the Jamestown Colony. However, they did join with Native Americans lead by Powhaton from time to time as thanks for helping the settlers through the winter. The present Thanksgiving may therefore be a mixture of the tradition of the Jamestown dinner and the commemoration of the Pequot massacre.

Now...I'm not opposed to a special day for a festive gathering of families and neighbors...no matter who they are or where they came from. In fact, I look forward to it.

What I am opposed to are the continuous acts of twisting the true history of this land and teaching it to our children...from grade school to college.

My Cherokee ancestors welcomed the earlier settlers and traders with open arms and didn't mind sharing their land with them...even adopting some of the European ways. Eventually, however, they were systematically moved from their lands until the late 1830's, when they were forcibly removed permanantly by way of what is now called "The Trail of Tears" to the Oklahoma Territory.

But...that is another story I will relate to at another time.

[FONT="Verdana"][SIZE="2"]While reading [URL="http://www.alternet.org/story/108638/worried_about_thanksgiving_fights_with_right-wing_family_members_/"]an excellent article[/URL] on Alternet, I found an ignorant comment responding to this article which pissed me off. What follows is the original comment plus my response.

[B]Difference between so-called progressives and conservatives[/B]

[I]The difference is simple: it is the difference between a world run by progressives (think of the 70s - we have been there!), and the 50s (a world run by conservatives, not neo-conservatives!).

The 70s: terrorism run wild - the weathermen, black panthers, Badder Meinhoff gang, the IRA, PLO, etc. etc. - crime gone wild - New York murder capital, cities going down the toilet, white flight, sexual mores out the window, rise of AIDS, STDs, broken homes, damaged people, etc. etc. Drug-addled zombies everywhere. Sure, you could strap on a pair of flares, walk two blocks from Times Square, and screw some strange woman against the wall. But it was also double-digit inflation, high unemployment, bad products, etc.

The 50s: social stability, safe streets and neighbourhoods, lots of jobs, great product design - in fact the best in the world, people looked healthy - few fatties, no AIDS, low drug abuse rates, net savers and richest in the world, people respected each other, people dressed well.

We sadly are now slipping back into the 70s. We are seeing the social and economic chaos of that time coming back. Sure, we have the funky squad now in the White House, but it is going to be hell for your average person on the street. Society needs a return to the values of the 50s, not the 70s.[/I]

My response was brief and to the point:

[B]Simplistic and Misleading Comment[/B]

[I]Sure, the fifties were great, just as long as you were a white, male, heterosexual, monogamous, married, educated, middle to upper class, attractive, able-bodied, mentally and physically healthy, non-intellectual, conservative, Anglo-Saxon Protestant.

If you didn't fit all or most of these criteria, maybe not so much.

I came of age in the 70s and it was one of the happiest times of my life. [/I] [/SIZE][/FONT]

[FONT="Verdana"][SIZE="2"]While trawling the net for something to write about, I came upon an article "10 Things Not To Say On a First Date. Following below are the ten things, plus my comments about each point.

1. "My ex is crazy."

If a woman I just met told me this, my first thought would be to wonder if she wasn't a little bit crazy herself to get involved with an unbalanced person. There's plenty of time later on to talk about exes after you've gotten to know each other enough to know that the other isn't "off".

2. "I would like to get married and have kids asap."

I don't know about you, but that would send me running for the hills, post haste. But, perhaps it's a good thing to have that issue laid on the table right away, so we don't waste one another's time if we're of different minds on the subject.

3. "Who are you voting for?"

Most of the time, I'm just looking to get laid, so I avoid talking about potentially touchy subjects that might kill the deal before it even happens. As with the first point, there's plenty of time to talk about politics later on after you've gotten to know one another.

4. "Can you pay the check? I'm broke."

I can't imagine anyone being impressed with someone who gives the impression of being a cheapskate or a mooch.

5. "What's your favorite TV show?"

This one isn't so bad, even if it is a bit boring.

6. "Where did you go to school?"

This one is a variation of the "what do you do?" question. Remember, it's a date, not a job interview. You're there to have fun, not exchange resume highlights.

7. "Can I take your picture?"

Kind of creepy and stalker-ish. There's plenty of time for picture taking, which will happen spontaneously once you get to know one another better.

8. "I'm poly-(fill in the blank)"

This is one I don't agree with. I'm not monogamous and I let prospective new partners know that I'm a libertine from the get-go. If they're expecting a monogamous relationship and are not willing to budge on that point, it's better to know that right away so we don't waste one another's time and risk misunderstanding and hurt feelings.

9. "So I just got out of rehab."

Though it shouldn't be the first thing you tell a date, I'd not advise keeping this one to yourself for very long, especially if you've only recently kicked the habit. Those whose addictions are safely years in the past can of course, wait until you know one another pretty well before rattling down this particular skeleton from the closet.

10. "So ya wanna come back to my place?"

I usually get laid on the first date, as I'm usually looking for a friend with benefits or a one time deal. I'm getting too old to invest a lot of time in women who aren't on the same page with me, so I routinely break this "rule" as well. Of course, I tend to only choose women who are looking for the same thing I am, so I don't often have crossed wires about this issue.

So, there we have it. Your mileage may vary, of course, on the validity or lack thereof of my response to these "rules", but it's worked for me for years.


[/SIZE][/FONT]

[FONT="Verdana"][SIZE="2"]Your result for What Planet are You From? Test...

You are from Mercury!
27% Mercury



You, my friend, are a Mercurian!

Mercury is the planet that is closest to the sun. It is the smallest planet in our solar system and it does not have rings. Because it is so close to the sun and it’s small size it’s not easy to get a view from the planet from Earth without a telescope. What’s funny is that as close as the planet is to the sun there is still ice on the planet. The craters on the planet never see the light of the sun.

Mercury is named after the Roman god known as the “Messenger.” Evidently he was busy flitting around with wings on his heels going around and talking to everyone. It was said that he could bring abundance and success, so evidently he was a guy worth listening to.

What does this mean about you?

Well, Mercurians are a very independent type. They are set in their ways and very cool. There isn’t much that can change your mind. Some people may think you are a bit egotistical, but you were born charming and are an effective communicator. You know how to react to things calmly and express yourself well. More than likely you have a very good sense for business.

You like sex and you have a very strong stamina. Because you are so cool, though, your partner may think you don’t care about them, but you do. You just don’t like getting all gushy. You can enjoy many loves in your life. You are probably also one that isn’t suited for just staying home and taking care of the hearth. You just aren’t set up for the usual marriage thing. It doesn’t give you enough freedom.

So, be free Mercurian! Not that you’ll do what I say anyway!

[URL="http://www.helloquizzy.com/tests/what-planet-are-you-from-test"]Take What Planet are You From?[/URL] Test at HelloQuizzy

I found this test oddly accurate.
[/SIZE][/FONT]

[FONT="Verdana"][SIZE="2"]It seems as if there is a holiday for everything. Today,I heard that November 19th was World Toilet Day.

Yes, you heard right. The crapper has its own holiday.

I googled it and found the World Toilet Organization website. Apparently, it's not a joke.

Among other things the World Toilet Organization seeks to provide toilets for the 2.5 billion people worldwide who do not have access to modern toilets.

It also lobbies for more public toilets in densely populated areas in order to curb the problem of outdoor urination, which would serve to reduce the number of arrests for public urination.

[CENTER][IMG]http://www.efx2blogs.com/uploads/l/libertine/2483.jpg[/IMG][/CENTER]

[/SIZE][/FONT]

[FONT="Verdana"][SIZE="2"]The other day, [B]Alternet[/B] posted an article, [URL="http://www.alternet.org/mediaculture/107326/former_news_radio_staffer_spills_the_beans_on_how_shock_jocks_inspire_hatred_and_anger/"]Former News Radio Staffer Spills the Beans on How Shock Jocks Inspire Hatred and Anger[/URL] by Dan Shelley, which went behind the scenes of one such talk radio host. My response to the article follows below.

[B]Lowest Common Denominator[/B]

Right wing talk show hosts specialize in simplistic, black and white thinking and rely heavily on ad hominem attacks.

They attract the lowest common denominator of listeners and appeal to people's basest, least civilized instincts.

I regularly monitor Neal Boortz in a "know your enemy" campaign, but I'd never call the show, as I know I'd not get a fair hearing for my views. I've seen how he "handles" callers who disagree. For one thing, he usually only lets the most inarticulate opposing callers on the air, whom he proceeds to make fun of and uses to "prove" his points. Any opposing callers who slip through who speak clearly, he prevents them from making their points by constant interruptions. He'll hang up on them if they begin to get the upper hand.

So, I know it's a pointless endeavor to call this show, or any others of the same ilk.

Rather, I make my responses on my blog, where I can make my point without interruption and where it can be read for months and years afterwards.

[/SIZE][/FONT]

[FONT="Verdana"][SIZE="2"]A recent[B] Alternet[/B] article, [URL="http://www.alternet.org/sex/106606/the_thrill_of_the_bar_hook-up/"]The Thrill of the Bar Hookup[/URL] by Josey Vogels recently posed the question:

[CENTER][I]What exactly do people get out of cruising for inebriated strangers in bars?[/I] [/CENTER]

As one who has extensive experience with one-night stands, I commented on this article which follows below:
[B]
I Outgrew the Bar Scene [/B]

I used to do a lot of bar pickups when I was in college (drinking age was 18 then). As the author said, I wasn't looking for any meaningful relationships; I was just looking to get laid. But some of those one night stands turned into friends with benefits relationships and I met my ex-wife in a college bar.

But when I left college, I gave up drinking and also any desire to hang around drunks and spend time in smoky places. Thus, using bars to find new partners dropped off for me and now, I rarely enter a bar for any reason. And the older I got, the more important it became to avoid alcohol, so there is no chance of anything interfering with my "functionality".

However, the desire for the thrill of the hunt and the victory of conquest has never left me. Fortunately, however, I've found I'm able to make pickups wherever I go. Some favorite places are bookstores, the library, the supermarket, outdoor festivals, fairs, and flea markets, laundromats, and so on. Partners found in these places also yield a higher possibility than not to end in friends with benefits relationships. I prefer being sober and having sober partners, plus I tend to find more intelligent women, especially in bookstores and libraries, with whom I can also have a real conversation with.

Those readers who have hooked up for one-night stands in the past, feel free to share your experiences below.

[/SIZE][/FONT]

[FONT="Verdana"][SIZE="2"]The passage of Proposition 8 in California, which categorically defines marriage as being only between one man and one woman, was successful in part because of the LDS (Mormon) Church's mobilized support for the issue, despite Mormons being only two percent of the state's population.

According to the Los Angeles Times, monetary support for Proposition 8 from Mormons is estimated to have been about twenty million dollars. Donations from individual Mormons were in response to a letter from church leader read in all LDS congregations in California, urging members do all you can to support" the proposition by donating "your means and time." The church's position, the letter said, was that "marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God and the formation of families is central to the Creator's plan for His children."

As well as providing financial support to Prop 8, Mormons also hosted websites, formed an outreach organization: Protect Marriage Coalition, posted pro-Prop 8 videos online, and so on.

I think the Mormon stance against same-sex marriage is ironic, considering that the US government forced the LDS church to give up polygyny in 1890, as a pre-requisite to Utah becoming a state.

Perhaps if the US had allowed polygyny and other forms of polygamy to remain legal and aboveboard, we'd not be seeing these renegade Mormon groups forcing underage girls to marry old men, as the government could have applied the same rules to such marriages as they do to monogamous ones (consenting adults only).

One would think the Mormons would be especially sensitive to marriage discrimination, but apparently this isn't the case.

Thoughts?

[/SIZE][/FONT]

[FONT="Verdana"][SIZE="2"]It seems that when money is especially tight for me, things happen to make me have to spend money.

A few weeks ago, my car died, which turned out to be an electrical problem that wiped out all the remaining credit on my "car repair" credit card. A couple of weeks before that, I had to have a new battery, and a few weeks before that, a new tire.

So, naturally, I want to cool it on using charge cards until I get this crap paid down.

It's not to be, however. About a week and a half ago, my ear was itching, so I pushed that little ear flap several times to stop the itching. It stopped the itching all right -- and stopped up my ear, immediately reducing my hearing to a great degree.

I went to get some peroxisde to loosen up the wax in there, as I have a tendency to produce excess amounts of the crap, but it didn't work. After two treatments, I remained as deaf as ever. I went and bought some of that stuff specially meant for this, along with one of those blue bulbs at the drug store. Same result. I tried holding my nose and blowing, yawning, and opening my mouth as wide as I could. Nothing worked.

I've had this problem several times over the course of my life, and I've had to go to the doctor to have it irrigated when the usual home remedies do not work. I really needed the home remedies to work this time, because I don't want to go to the doctor and spend more money now.

Because I don't have any health insurance, it's not a matter of paying a low deductible. I have to pay full price every time I see the doctor, so I try to limit it to the bare essentials and even then, I put it off as long as I can.

But I can't stand going around half-deaf much longer. Things sound strange and it's hard to judge from which directions sounds are coming from. Some things sound louder than normal, while other things are almost unintelligible.

So, I suppose I'll be taking a trip to the doctor on my next two days off and blow some more money than I don't have.

Sigh.

I'm hoping that Obama puts health care reform at the top of his agenda come January, so that I will one day soon not have to be stingy with my health.

Thoughts?

[/SIZE][/FONT]

[FONT="Verdana"][SIZE="2"]Rev. Jay Scott Newman of St. Mary's Catholic Church in Greenville, SC has told his parishioners that they should refrain from receiving Holy Communion if they voted for Barack Obama because the president-elect supports abortion, and supporting him "constitutes material cooperation with intrinsic evil." He went on to say that "those Catholics who do so place themselves outside of the full communion of Christ's Church and under the judgment of divine law. Persons in this condition should not receive Holy Communion until and unless they are reconciled to God in the Sacrament of Penance, lest they eat and drink their own condemnation."

Oh, where to begin?

First, using his pulpit to threaten parishioners because of their political choices is inappropriate. It's all well and good to talk about his church's opposition to abortion, but to couch it in political terms is another thing entirely. It is enough for him to talk about the Catholic church's position on abortion, then to leave voters to vote based on their own consciences.

Second, responsible voters choose a candidate according to a wide range of issues, not just a single issue such as abortion. If one uses abortion as the only litmus test for an acceptable candidate, we must remember that Hitler was against abortion, but that hardly made him a worthy candidate to vote for.

It's also interesting to note that Obama opposes the death penalty -- which agrees with another official position of the Catholic Church.

So, why then is Newman being inconsistent and hypocritical by not cautioning voters who voted for pro-death penalty candidates and demanding penance out of them? Does he consider some official Catholic positions on various matters to be more important than others?

Fifty-four percent of Catholic voters in SC voted for Barack Obama, a state which ended up going to McCain in the recent election. It's quite possible that concerns about the economy, health care, the war in Iraq, and so on, took precedence in influencing their choice of candidate, rather than imposing their church's stance on abortion on the American population, most of whom who are not Catholic, through secular law.

Thoughts?
[/SIZE][/FONT]

[FONT="Verdana"][SIZE="2"]This is an excerpt from FDR's 11 January 1944 message to Congress on the State of the Union. Too bad he wasn't able to get it passed -- it sounds pretty good to me. I'm hoping Obama can work on some of these during his time in office.

[I]It is our duty now to begin to lay the plans and determine the strategy for the winning of a lasting peace and the establishment of an American standard of living higher than ever before known. We cannot be content, no matter how high that general standard of living may be, if some fraction of our people—whether it be one-third or one-fifth or one-tenth—is ill-fed, ill-clothed, ill-housed, and insecure.

This Republic had its beginning, and grew to its present strength, under the protection of certain inalienable political rights—among them the right of free speech, free press, free worship, trial by jury, freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures. They were our rights to life and liberty.

As our nation has grown in size and stature, however—as our industrial economy expanded—these political rights proved inadequate to assure us equality in the pursuit of happiness.

We have come to a clear realization of the fact that true individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence. “Necessitous men are not free men.” People who are hungry and out of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made.

In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all—regardless of station, race, or creed.

Among these are:

The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;

The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;

The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;

The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;

The right of every family to a decent home;

The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;

The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;

The right to a good education.

All of these rights spell security. And after this war is won we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being.

America’s own rightful place in the world depends in large part upon how fully these and similar rights have been carried into practice for our citizens[/I].[/SIZE][/FONT]

[FONT="Verdana"][SIZE="2"]As many of you might know, I have several "mirror blogs" on different blog hosting sites. Several days ago, I posted what I thought was a fairly low-key post about personality type and political orientation. It didn't get a lot of response here or on my other blogs, but last night my [URL="http://confessionsofalibertine.blog-city.com/personality_type_and_political_orientation.htm"]Blog City version of this post[/URL] got a scathing comment from a far right neocon, whom I presume can't be much older than 22 or so, based on this maturity level.

I responded, but not in the way he wanted me to. Rather, I followed my father's old strategy of "killing him with kindness". What follows below is his comment, then my response. You might wish to re-read the original post, so you can see precisely how much his comment was out of context

[B]Anthony said:[/B]
[I]
You liberals disgust me. Liberals are driven by Satan and lie constantly. I'm a conservative right-wing Republican, yet I do not see in any way that reflected in my MBTI "personality type" Apparently I'm a INTJ. But I am a Physics and Electrical Engineering Double Major.

See, you jackasses to me make no sense.... on any issue. Name one issue you liberals are fanatical about. Abortion? The holiest sacrament of liberalism? You're going to tell me it's a constitutional right for a mother to plunge a fork into a baby's brain? Liberals are more upset when a tree is chopped down than when a child is aborted. Even if one rates an unborn child less than a full-blown person, doesn't the unborn child rate slightly higher than vegetation?[/I]
[B]
My response:[/B]

[I]Anthony, your comment proves my point. Thanks for being so helpful.

It is possible to disagree with people without resorting to ad hominem attacks -- getting all worked up like you did in your comment is rarely productive -- it doesn't convince anyone to convert to your opinion.

You'd do much better persuading people to adopt your opinion if you remained objective, factual, leaving the drama and emotion out of it.

Thought a liberal, the traditional conservative does not "disgust" me. Rather, I see them as a person who cares about issues like I do, but has drawn a different conclusion than I have. I may think they're wrong and/or misguided, but I have no need to demonize that person in order to convince myself that my opinion has merit. It's not necessary.

Man, you don't know me, so your level of hostility is uncalled for. I'm not going to debate you on ANY issue, because your comment has shown you don't care a thing about civilized debate. You need to chill out and lighten up a bit. It will do your blood pressure a world of good and you'll live longer,

Good luck on managing the anger problem.[/I]


If this person is typical of young Republicans, then they're in deep, deep trouble. I also seriously doubt he's an INTJ by the level of emotion generated in his post toward someone he doesn't even know and who never once mentioned abortion in the post commented on.

Thoughts?

[/SIZE][/FONT]

[FONT="Verdana"][SIZE="2"]About a month ago, 66 year old Joseph Prudente was sent to jail. His crime?

Having a brown lawn.

That's right, he was sent to jail for [I]brown grass[/I]! Prudente, who lives in a Home Owner's Association neighborhood in Florida has been having money problems recently and was barely able to afford keeping up with his mortgage, let alone spending money on lawn care.

I was surprised to see someone jailed for what is a civil matter; I don't understand why the HOA did not take him to civil court. Or better, why they couldn't have worked with him, considering his circumstances. It's not as if brown grass is the crime of the century.

Personally, I'd never live in a HOA community; I couldn't hand over my privacy and freedom to a bunch of neighborhood Nazis who see nothing wrong with putting a sick old man in jail over brown grass. You'd think the man had killed somebody by the way they reacted

Fortunately, the story has a happy ending. Some citizens in his community saw a newspaper article about his plight and decided to do something about it. Two companies donated new sod and several volunteers came to Prudente's home to tear out the old grass, put in new, put in mulch and flowers and replaced his broken sprinkler system. Prudente was released from jail once the HOA had verified that the work had been done.

Even though I believe that HOAs are evil incarnate, the response from his community renews my faith in humanity, after all.

Thoughts?

[/SIZE][/FONT]

[FONT="Verdana"][SIZE="2"]In his first post-election press conference, when asked about what kind of dog he and his wife plan to get for their daughters, Barack Obama said, referring to his daughter Malia's allergies, " "Obviously, a lot of shelter dogs are mutts like me. So whether we're going to be able to balance those two things, I think, is a pressing issue on the Obama household."

His description of himself as a "mutt", which was made casually in good humor, is an allusion to his biracial heritage, of having a black father and a white mother.

This self-reference indicates to me that President-elect Obama will take a common sense approach to racial issues, free of touchiness and without carrying a chip on his shoulder. We can safely assume that he won't blame every criticism of his administration, opposition, or setbacks on racism. Barack Obama will not play the race card at every opportunity, though I'm sure he'll effectively address any instances of real racism.

Many have said that he's the first African-American president, which is true. But it's not the whole truth. He's the first biracial president, just as much white as he is black, and he represents the white side of his heritage just as much as he does his black side.

Mutts like me. America has always prided itself on being a melting pot -- we're all mutts of one sort or another. It's part of what has made this country great and will continue to be.

Thoughts?

[/SIZE][/FONT]

[FONT="Verdana"][SIZE="2"]California has passed Proposition 8, which yet again repudiates same-sex marriage, returning it to a legally unrecognized status. Religious conservatives, who supported Prop 8, made much of the idea of "preserving the 'sanctity' of marriage".

But they're wrong. It wasn't the "sanctity" of marriage that was up for a vote; it was the legality of it.

The idea of sanctity has a religious base, thus is not subject to any law in a country that has the separation of church and state. It is a highly personal and private thing and properly is defined by whatever religious, ethical, or personal tradition one may believe in. It has never been the business of the government, nor should it ever be.

The legality of marriage, on the other hand, has nothing to do with religion in our country and never has. This is shown by the fact that getting married by a judge, a justice of the peace, or other non-clergy member is legal, where a wedding performed in a church or other house of worship without a civil marriage license is not a legal marriage, though it is a religious one.

Legal marriage has to do with practical benefits bestowed by the government, period. It doesn't concern itself with the emotional aspects of marriage or anyone's idea of sanctity. That's a wholly personal matter, up to those involved and whatever ethical beliefs they have to provide privately.

Even the Bible says to render unto Caesar (government) what is Caesar's, and to render unto God what is God's. Legalizing same-sex marriage, then, is "rendering unto Caesar", and has no effect on "what is God's".

Legal same-sex marriage will not affect religious marriage in any way. Houses of worship will be free to offer or deny religious weddings to same sex partners as they always have, as it will not affect their legal rights to be married in any way.

It just boggles my mind that such a basic right was put to the population to vote on, where people are likely to vote against the right to same sex marriage based on religious beliefs, that they think it's "icky", and other reasons that are properly considered to be legally irrelevant. Interracial marriage, for example, was finally legalized in all fifty states by a Supreme Court decision, and was never subject to voting from the general population. If it had, I'm guessing it would still not be legal in all fifty states.

And though I would vote in favor of same sex marriage (and did two years ago, unsuccessfully), I personally believe it's none of my business. I do not think it's my place to decide on the basic civil rights of fellow citizens, as same sex marriage does not affect my rights or my life any way, positively or negatively, Those who voted "yes" to Prop 8 based on religious reasons have effectively imposed their religious beliefs on the rights of others, which violates the separation of church and state in my opinion.

If it were up to me, I'd just abolish legal marriage altogether for everyone, as I don't think it's the government's place to define, legislate, or promote any form of private, personal relationship between consenting adults. As a non-monogamous heterosexual, I strongly believe this.

The practical rights and benefits that currently come with marriage could be granted under Domestic Partnerships that would focus wholly on such practical benefits that come with sharing a household on a long-term basis, and would be granted without regard to the nature of the personal relationship of those involved, sexual or non-sexual. That would be private, as it should be. Marriage would then be defined by those involved and optionally by whatever faith, personal, or ethical tradition those involved might have and would be unrelated and irrelevant to whatever legal benefits one would have as a Domestic Partner.

Thoughts?

[/SIZE][/FONT]