06.18.09
Posted in Uncategorized at 10:18 am by Josh
We should first consider that one of the founding principles of the United States of America was a church and state separation. With such a principle applied in practice, we may then say that the government should have no say whatsoever in how a church chooses to recognize marriage, and the church should have nothing whatsoever to do with whether the government chooses to recognize same-sex unions. As marriage recognized by American law can take place outside of a church just as well as inside, we cannot bring religion into the discussion, as we are not a religiously affiliated country. Thus for the purposes of government we do not need to consider if the church recognizes same-sex unions or not.
We next must consider what effect the government’s recognition of marriage has on the people so to decide whether or not it would benefit same-sex couples to be recognized in a similar union. To be brief, the governmental benefits are, for the most part, only tax-related. There are no laws currently in place which mandate an employer to recognize a spouse in terms of health care, dental insurance, etc. However, it may be generalized that were the government to recognize same-sex unions, insurance companies and employers would have very little wiggle room to avoid the same recognition and equalizing of benefits across the board. With this in mind, the government should recognize same-sex unions to encourage equal benefits for everyone.
This, however, brings in the question of equality for all people, not just all couples. For if the argument is one that all people should have equal governmental benefits, then we cannot use marriage or unions as a basis for recognition, for there are some who are neither married, nor engaged in a same-sex partnership, and shall never be. Thus if we are to argue that all people must have an equal opportunity for one thing or for another, then the criteria must be a milestone reasonably and forseeably achievable by all people, regardless of marital status or living situation. Though many people find a life partner, it cannot be deduced that all people will, while it can be deduced that all people will reach the age of fifty, or that if they do not, they should not have a care one way or the other whether they’ve received a tax benefit, health care coverage, etc. So we cannot say that people are treated equally unless the legislation is based on something like age rather than domestic living situation.
We may therefore say that by providing benefits for married couples, it is implied that such a government prefers or encourages co-habitation over a solitary dwelling. If this is the case, then the government, as we’ve seen, has already chosen to treat people differently based on domestic status, and if such a distinction can be made as to what sort of domestic arrangement is held by a person or persons, then it follows logically that said government may also set up rules which dictate what they will recognize as an acceptable domestic arrangement, for they’ve already been given the power to say that one way of living is preferable to another. Thus, the government should be able to define what it recognizes as acceptable co-habitation.
At last, we must consider if the government remains within the doctrine of a separate church and state. Currently, the American government explicitly states that marriage is between a man and a woman. Some will argue that this mixes church and state, but this is false because the Defense of Marriage Act does not state that marriage is between a man and a woman because the Bible instructs us so. One may infer that America’s Christian roots have led to laws which reflect Christianity, but it cannot be stated as fact and if it is not a fact, then there is nothing to debate because a government must make laws based on something, and unless that something is explicitly stated to be associated with the rules of a religion, then we must conclude that the rules are only what those officials whom we have elected into office believe to be the best rules to govern the people. Thus we may also conclude that the government has every right to define marriage as between a man and a woman, and co-habitation as a man and a woman living together and that this does not mix the offices of church and state.
Finally, it must be noted that the institution of marriage is one that was designed to symbolize one person’s commitment to another. Because a government does or does not recognize that commitment does not mean that the commitment cannot be made. If the argument for government recognition of same-sex unions is for benefits alone, then we’ve already seen that the argument must extend outside the boundaries of any unions for the argument to hold weight in a secular, non-religious community. If the argument is the desire to have a symbolic representation of one person’s commitment to another, then you may gather with friends and family, exchange vows, exchange rings, or do whatever seems best to you, and you shall still have that symbolic representation, for marriage existed long before governments became involved with excessive paperwork and regulations. It is not necessary for a government to recognize commitment unless you expect to receive some benefit or another in return.
Permalink
05.21.09
Posted in Uncategorized at 15:59 pm by Josh
“Cheney argued that the Bush administration “didn’t invent” the authority exercised in the war against al Qaeda and others. He said it was clearly granted by the Constitution and legislation passed by Congress after the September 11 attacks.” ~Dick Chaney
Maybe I’m jumping to conclusions here, but didn’t the Bush administration propose the legislation that Congress passed after September 11, thus inventing the authority Mr. Chaney is (not surprisingly) washing his hands of? And I may not be much in the criminal justice field anymore, but I really don’t recall any part of the Constitution that says, “Waterboarding prisoners? Sure, what the hell.” Indeed, it seems a little odd that the same document which is cited as providing enough human rights for inmates that they have the luxuries of cable television and playgrounds larger than most New York City schools can also make a provision for mild human torture. Perhaps Mr. Chaney needs to take a Constitution and Ethics class as a little refresher for his increasingly declining memory. Or a morality class where he’ll learn the negative implications of lying to thousands of people.
Permalink
04.15.09
Posted in Political Commentary at 22:27 pm by Josh
I’m not even going to link to an article about the “tea parties”. Let’s just say we all know what’s going on.
First, if you are going to protest, please come up with something original. Throwing tea into a Boston harbor in a wig doesn’t make the statement you think it does; it makes you look like an ass. And it wastes good tea. If you must throw useful things into a river (which, by the way, does not have a positive effect on an already-struggling economy), why don’t you toss the newest Ford Explorer into the harbor while wearing a John Deere cap? Otherwise, people will think you’re protesting something to do with tea and cotton hair, and I think we’re all well past that, don’t you?
Second, don’t blame the Obama administration for anything yet. The man has been in office for three months and already he’s done more than GWB did in his first eight months (and he only did anything in the last four of his first year because of that whole 9/11 thing). You may not see the whole picture yet, but you elected President Obama, and enthusiastically, might I add. Don’t lynch him before he’s has a chance to make a difference.
America, we have to be done with Band-Aids. “It’s not fair that the government spends $700 billion on bailing out the wealthy.” No, it’s not. But that’s capitalism, kids, and you’ve supported it since seeing the light of day outside of the womb. If you don’t, good for you, but then the problem isn’t bailouts. It’s economic structure. Either way, no one should be bitching about the stimulus package until we can see the ramifications of it. “Well we haven’t had a chance to read the stimulus package to really support it.” That’s why we elect leaders. No taxation without representation meant just that; it didn’t mean each person was present, but that representatives for the people were present. You elected President Obama. You elected his House. You elected your senators. You have representation. On top of that, some sizeable majority of Americans don’t read a single book in a year. A single book. I’m not talking about Dante, here. I mean Danielle F’ing Steele. We don’t even read shit, let alone the sort of language that would be posed in the written stimulus package. Stop crutching on the easy thing to crutch on, pretending to represent the American people when you start flapping your lip to a media that will eat just about anything you give them as long as it doesn’t appear to support traditional American values. No one would read the stimulus package even if it was available, and fewer would be able to honestly vote on it.
So here’s the deal: I’ll get off my soapbox if you get the hell off of yours. Ready, and…GO!
Permalink
02.22.09
Posted in Life at 13:53 pm by Josh
I’ve finished watching the Twin Peaks television series on DVD. Guess it’s time to find some new friends to hang out with. Perhaps they’ll be on my side of the television screen this time.
Permalink
02.03.09
Posted in Pictures, New York City at 13:07 pm by Josh
(The following photo comes from http://niemann.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/02/02/i-lego-ny/)
Does anybody know which building is represented all the way on the right, with the red “V”-ish-looking thing?
Permalink
01.29.09
Posted in Music, Announcements at 17:10 pm by Josh
Finally. Some of the recordings are a little fuzzy. Sorry, but I’m done.
The Broken Heart Set
Permalink
01.26.09
Posted in Random Thoughts at 02:38 am by Josh
Do you think that as we get older and start storing more information in our brains, useless or otherwise, our heads get heavier? It would explain all of this neck pain I’ve been having.
Permalink
01.24.09
Posted in Life at 21:26 pm by Josh
Dear Baby Upstairs,
I understand. You don’t like it here. The womb was warm, protected, slightly muffled; everything seemed magical, perhaps even transcendental. Now you’re here in Queens and the heat doesn’t work in the house. At least, not down here. I’m assuming it’s pretty cold up there, too. I understand, also, that your mother is perhaps not the first person you would have chosen to raise you. Give her a chance. She’s a little goofy, but she sounds like she can be very nice.
The point, Baby Upstairs, is that it’s really only going to get harder. I know you think that crying helps, but it doesn’t and truth be told, what you know of life is nothing to cry about. Now, interrupt one more of my recording sessions with your ad hoc vocals, ruin the final take of a solo I can’t possibly reproduce, delay my creative efforts so long that my very soul’s inspiration dies inside of me, and then you’ll have something to cry about. I’d hate for that to happen, Baby Upstairs. When you’re not making a racket, you seem like you’re probably a pretty nice guy. Or girl. I really don’t know what you are. What I do know, Baby Upstairs, is that I’m not the one who fathered you. Why do you make me suffer such things?
Sincerely,
The Guy Downstairs Who Is Sorry To Say He Doesn’t Like You
Permalink
Posted in Random Thoughts at 01:00 am by Josh
I have nothing cryptic enough for this entry. You’ll just have to trust me. It’s all in this little book here. Well, not all of it. The rest is in my head. Some of it is inside my guitar, but the only way to get it out is to play the proper chords. I don’t know what they are yet. Thus, if I seem cryptic at all, you surely understand why.
Permalink
01.19.09
Posted in News at 17:51 pm by Josh
The family of the guy who threw a shoe at President Bush is filing a lawsuit against the Iraqi Prime Minister and the exiting President, stating that his human rights have been violated in prison because he keeps getting beat up. In addition, the family claims the man did “nothing wrong”.
Two problems here: The first is that there is a very clear shot of this guy hurling his shoe across a press room and to be sure, I’m not sure I’ve ever seen such an honest look of fear on the President’s face. Afterwards, the guy admitted the offense (like he had a choice). How can you turn around and say he did nothing wrong? You don’t have to agree with the law for it to still be a law, and it seems fairly accurate to say that throwing a shoe a the US President constitutes aggravated assault on a foreign head of state. The only simpler way to translate that law is to say, “throwing your shoe at someone else’s president”. So very obviously, he did something wrong.
The second problem is the whole human rights issue. Are the other inmates now hired state officials, bound by some sort of oath? Look, I don’t agree with it, but people get beat up in prison. Everybody knows that. You can’t blame a head of state for the behavior of prison inmates. You wanted to take a stand and do something stupid and now you’re whining about the consequences like the world has done you some sort of harm. What happened to the tough guy who was (poorly) assaulting elected officals in front of news cameras only a month or two ago? You don’t want inmates to pummel you, don’t throw things at people. Especially important people with bodyguards.
Man, I’d hate to tell you what the inmates do to squirrely, whining men in US prisons.
Permalink
« Previous entries ·