Someone else gets it...

boortz.com: Nealz Nuze Today's Nuze: "First of all, let's get this straight. All marriage is same sex marriage...the same sex, over and over and over again. It's a long tedious meal with dessert at the beginning."

Ah... I finally get to laugh at this.... Remind's me of my uncle Chris' joke: Playboy for married guys...It's the same girl evrery fucking month for the rest of your subscription.

Homosexual Marraige

After yesterday's bombshell from GW Bush I decided to take a look at what the net was thinking on this. A Google Search for gay marriage turns up 14,900 sites. The local news spent the first 20 minutes covering the subject and the amendment. Every radio station in the country and many around the world are wringing their hands over this issue.

One might think this is a hot topic...

So I'll add my 2K on the subject. As a Married straight man I have to believe that I know something about marriage. I'll be celebrating my 10th anniverssary with my first and only wife on May 7th of this year. The idea of homosexuals getting married doesn't threaten me in the slightest. The idea of a constitutional ban on the practice does threaten me.

What is the problem with allowing two people to enter into a simple legal agreement? Why do 57% of Americans believe that this license shouldn't be granted to any two people? What is the big deal about the word Marriage anyway? Why does anyone feel that a constitutional amendment is the "right" thing to do? Wouldn't this country be better served by focussing some of our lawmakers' time on actually reforming the health care systems. Maybe a breif glance at the defeceit would be a good idea. How about the desert we took over?

In perspective, this whole situation is flat out stupid. Marriage, as far as the state is concerned, should be viewed as a simple legal status -- "Married". Along with that go a number of rights and responsibilities that are not granted to those that are not "Married". I see no difference between a contract between a man and a woman or 2 men or 2 women. The state should see no difference either.

Funny thing about marriage, half of them end in divorce these days. It's a joke to people like Brttinay Spears and others who will get married and divorced in the same week or day. The other thing is that mating for life came about when our lifespans were much shorter. Also Marriage was a tool for controlling property rights and inheritance among familys without the consent of those being married.

Marriage has changed over the years, this arguement is a purely cultural one. as our culture evolves, so should our laws. The state should take no position on the entering into a contract between consenting adults. Now on to common-law marriages... The idea that if you live with someone long enough, you become legally married. I think most of that has been abolished now, but it is and was practiced quite commonly. At one time interracial marriages were illegal.

Then there's the religious aspect of the whole word. Many cultures and religions allow for polygamy, others specifically place a time limit on marraige. The pagans call that "Handfasting" and a time limit is set at the time of the union. sometimes it is for a year, 5 years or life, but you make that choice together.

How are any of these unrecognized religious arrangements any more or less valid than one man and one woman?

Oh... By the way I hear Pundshits talking about the slippery slope of redefining marriage. "What ambout polygamy" they ask, trying to say that once this change is made, the floodgates open to destory our society. Lemmie tell you about polygamy, we have it today, it is alive and well. Anyone who marries, divorces and remaries is commiting polygamy in my book. Just because it's not at the same time doesn't make it any more or less right. There are families that have multi-spousal arrangements, they're just not recorded with the state.

Let me tell you a polygamy story. I have a friend who is legally married to one woman and lives with two others. The for of them seem fine with the arrangement, but I see a problem. As long as the sate doesn't recognize the relationship between the man and those other two women they have no rights in this relationship.

Regardless of hour you feel about polygamists, the current status leaves people unprotected.

Why does this affect anyone other than those involved? Shouldn't our laws, and justice be blind?


More Evil from Redmond...

I found this article on ZDNet.com.com on the new Microsoft campaign against Linux by way of IBM.

One of the interesting things that is buried in there is:
"Much of Microsoft's interoperability push has been based on XML, and the software giant is also trying to lock up numerous XML-related technologies. The company has applied for numerous XML-related patents, some of which could be used to lock out competing applications, according to analysts. Or Microsoft could provide royalty-free access to XML-related innovations, as it recently decided to do with the proprietary XML dialect, or schemas, used by its Office 2003 software."

Translating that to Dreffspeak: Microsoft is using every lever available to keep you locked in to the "One Microsoft Way". The only way you can view/manipulate your own data is through Microsoft software.

Golly gee williker... 6 years of the same old shit from Redmond. I find it very interesting and telling that it has taken 6 years to start the work they outlined in 1998 take a look here for the original quotes leaked...