I finally made it back to the gym for what I believe was one of my best workouts. I did the bike, the treadmill, the weights, and the tummy machine. The machines tell me I lost at least 250 calories, which I promptly put back on with wings, fries, and beer. I hope to go back on Wednesday, and maybe after, I'll eat better.
Picture of the Day
This is what Earth looks like on Mars.
In the news
The Senate debates the gay-marriage-ban amendment and debates if it should debate the gay-marriage-ban amendment. Bush dusted off the "activist judges" catchphrase to explain why the Republican Party is supporting a federal action to overrule state referendums. This is the party of states' rights and smaller government, remember. It's a waste of time that could be used to accomplish something truly necessary. Why am I against the amendment and for the rights of gays to marry? My simple notions:
1) There's no reason why a taxpaying adult with no criminal record should be banned from access to a state license such as a wedding permit.
2) Wanna boost state finances? Allowing gay folks to marry means they buy wedding licenses and boost local economies with weddings.
3) Marriage is a purely civil concern. It's the incorporation of two separate entities into a joint venture. Gender only becomes a concern to those who think marriage is a) divinely established; or b) designed purely to sire children.
4) Since when does the Constitution list amendments against individual rights?
5) Why not make adultery and divorce illegal if the security of marriage as a social structure is endangered?
6) The "slippery slope" argument is easily countered. Some say this means a group of people could then get married. To them I say, that's OK. Let them. Others say it will mean adults will try to marry children. To that, let's point to the various ages at which one can marry. In Kansas, as recently as two years ago, 12-year-olds could marry. Some say it will mean people will try to marry animals. But the license can't be binding unless you can prove the animals can sign his name or affirm consent of the vows. We're talking about consenting adults entering into a union of loyalty, support, and shared possessions. Love is a nice notion, but love can't be madanted, proven, or sanctioned by the state.
There's no reason to have this debate now unless it's to distract from the real national matters at hand: security, energy, diplomacy. I live my life gleefully bereft of the concern as to what my neighbors do in their homes. As long as they aren't harming children and making bombs, it's really not my business. It's not anyone's.
The Senate debates the gay-marriage-ban amendment and debates if it should debate the gay-marriage-ban amendment. Bush dusted off the "activist judges" catchphrase to explain why the Republican Party is supporting a federal action to overrule state referendums. This is the party of states' rights and smaller government, remember. It's a waste of time that could be used to accomplish something truly necessary. Why am I against the amendment and for the rights of gays to marry? My simple notions:
1) There's no reason why a taxpaying adult with no criminal record should be banned from access to a state license such as a wedding permit.
2) Wanna boost state finances? Allowing gay folks to marry means they buy wedding licenses and boost local economies with weddings.
3) Marriage is a purely civil concern. It's the incorporation of two separate entities into a joint venture. Gender only becomes a concern to those who think marriage is a) divinely established; or b) designed purely to sire children.
4) Since when does the Constitution list amendments against individual rights?
5) Why not make adultery and divorce illegal if the security of marriage as a social structure is endangered?
6) The "slippery slope" argument is easily countered. Some say this means a group of people could then get married. To them I say, that's OK. Let them. Others say it will mean adults will try to marry children. To that, let's point to the various ages at which one can marry. In Kansas, as recently as two years ago, 12-year-olds could marry. Some say it will mean people will try to marry animals. But the license can't be binding unless you can prove the animals can sign his name or affirm consent of the vows. We're talking about consenting adults entering into a union of loyalty, support, and shared possessions. Love is a nice notion, but love can't be madanted, proven, or sanctioned by the state.
There's no reason to have this debate now unless it's to distract from the real national matters at hand: security, energy, diplomacy. I live my life gleefully bereft of the concern as to what my neighbors do in their homes. As long as they aren't harming children and making bombs, it's really not my business. It's not anyone's.
No comments:
Post a Comment