October 30, 2010

Talking Points on Civil Unions and Gay Marriage

Posted in Comic Editorial, gay, government tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , at 12:22 am by justinadayswork

Civil Unions and Domestic Partnerships are not equal to “Gay Marriage” for two reasons: One, separate is not equal. Two, a state-level Civil Union or Domestic Partnership still denies gay couples thousands of federal rights granted to straight couples

 

There is no such thing as Gay Marriage. There is only Marriage, and it is open to every American citizen or it is not. No one ever got down on one knee and said “will you gay marry me”

 

The Defense Against Marriage Act, DOMA, passed during the Clinton administration is unconstitutional because it defies the Full Faith and Credit clause that ensures that laws in one state be honored by all states. Any legislation passed that defies the constitution cannot stand

 

All constitutional amendments passed by states to deny marriage to gay couples are erroneous. State constitutions must be in concert with the Federal Constitution to be valid in law

 

This is not a States Rights Issue. Framer James Madison made very clear that the language of the 10th amendment which introduced the concept of States Rights and Federalism say that “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” and not “The powers not expressly delegated…” This has been interpreted through centuries of case law to mean that a power need not be expressly and necessarily granted to the federal government to still be within the providence of the federal government. The federal government can implement principles from the federal constitution, primarily through the courts,  and override state law. Brown v Board of Education in 1954 decided among other things (such as separate is not equal and the implementation of equal protection under the law) that a single state did not have the right to decide issues pertaining to rights in the Federal Constitution.

 

Marriage is a civil right. This precedent was set in 1967 in the landmark case Loving v Virginia which declared on a national level that to prevent interracial marriages was unconstitutional stated in its opinion that “Marriage is one of the “basic civil rights of man”

 

 

 

And finally, a main reason Governor Lingle gave for why she vetoed Civil Union Bill HB444 in Hawai’i was that she did not want Civil Unions to be her legacy.

 

There are two other legacies that I would like to discuss, and in our adult-dominated world, often ignored.

 

They are that of the 82 year old couple who have for their whole lives been fighting prejudice and injustice, who now can’t hold each others hand as one dies in the hospital because his partner was denied visitation rights

 

The other is that of the 15 year old kid, that wants nothing more to be normal, seeing messages of a life of difference and abnormality because of  who he or she is that are reflected in the laws of our society, and is so filled with the inner turmoil and self-hate that comes with being an outcast in your own country — a legally codified outcast — that they reach for a rope instead of seeking equal opportunity.

 

 

Which legacy do you want on your hands?

Advertisements

August 20, 2010

It’s the Emo

Posted in comedy, comic, Comic Editorial, education, Uncategorized tagged , , , , , , , , , , at 8:17 pm by justinadayswork

it’s the emo

May 9, 2010

Modify It!

Posted in Comic Editorial, Uncategorized tagged , , , , , , , , , , , at 3:30 pm by justinadayswork

So somehow I randomly started watching the Alabama Republican Gubernatorial debate. They all agree with each other. The only way to differentiate them is to see who answers a question more articulately.

But let me be more specific. There are a few concepts and terms with which every candidate agrees. Allow me to address one:

The legitimate use of the term “unborn baby” in the english language

I’m gonna be blunt. An “unborn baby” is not a baby

How can you be a baby if you are not yet born?

If you have to put a modifier in front of a word in order to properly describe something, you are no longer describing the same thing. You are describing something different. See, one baby has been born into this world, one baby has not. There’s something different about an “unborn baby.” And if it is so important to recognize that distinction, there’s something awry with calling it or treating it as the same thing.

There’s a word for an unborn baby. It’s called a fetus. So let’s stop equating abortion with the death of an actual baby without an umbilical cord that lives, eats, and breathes in the actual world. And doesn’t need a vernacular modifier.

This same concept even applies for gay marriage. Until the country / world sees gay marriage as simply marriage, it will always be different and lesser.

Baby, will you gay marry me?

April 27, 2010

Entitlement

Posted in Comic Editorial, senate, Uncategorized tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , at 11:36 pm by justinadayswork

Before you let the words “that’s my hard-earned money going to taxes” ever pass your lips again, sit down, look in the mirror, and ask yourselves the following:

Do you:

Drive on city or state roads?

Did you attend public school or send your children to public school?

Have 911 in your cell phone to call the police?

Call the fire department when if your house is on fire? Or your cat stuck in a lil’ tree?

Check out books from a public library?

Get your license renewed at the DMV?

Basked in the glory of clean floors and empty trashcans at the statehouse?

Used a Pell Grant to help pay for your degree at Fiscal Idiot State?

Watch the busted water main in front of your house get fixed?

Frolick in your favorite city park?

Do you, or will you, get a social security check in the mail?

Benefit from one of hundreds of other city, state, and federal services?

Yeah.

Thought so.

So next time you whine about losing all your hard earned money to those pork-barrel feds, remember that it’s not actually your money. It’s money you owe. You are paying for a variety of services you use everyday and for some reason feel entitled to have without supporting them monetarily so that they can function. I’m not naive enough to suggest that you benefit from every federally or state funded program — you don’t. But for every program out there that you either don’t believe in or don’t make use of, there’s another person out there who makes no use of a program that serves you. It’s called being a citizen. It’s called contributing a the greater good — a greater good that serves you every day in one way or another.

What really amuses me is that it’s the same people who decry taxes to pay for every day services that call programs like health care and welfare entitlement programs. Meanwhile, they don’t want to pay to support the services they use every day. Now that’s entitlement.

But it’s mine!!

April 16, 2010

Huzzah!

Posted in Comic Editorial, Uncategorized tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , at 8:27 pm by justinadayswork

Today’s executive order should be celebrated by saying something equally gay! HUZZAH!

Today is a good day. Obama passed an executive order allowing gay partners hospital visitation rights.

WHAT A CRAZY IDEA!! People want to see their loved ones when dying? Get out of town. Get out.

Way to be an innovative thinker Obama

Rumor is that next he’ll pass executive orders that the sun will set in the west, rain comes from clouds, and everyone on American Idol is a tool.

Obvi

But seriously, this is pretty landmark. My point is that it is such an obvious need that it shouldn’t even need an executive order/should have happened a long time ago.

 

Hmmmm…..

April 6, 2010

The Bible Tells me so

Posted in Comic Editorial tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , at 10:02 pm by justinadayswork

Leviticus 20:13: A man shall not lieth with another man as he lieth with a woman. It is an abomination unto G-d

Look, here’s the thing. I really don’t think Leviticus was against homosexuality. I think Leviticus just knew that God was a really astute anatomist.

Well, that certainly can’t go there…

January 26, 2010

“Teaching” Homosexuality when we are Young

Posted in Comic Editorial, Uncategorized tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , at 12:03 am by justinadayswork

Wowza! It’s been a while since my last post. I guess it’s because I’ve been frolicking on tropical islands. Sorry kids.

But here’s another Dear God it’s what Rachel Thinks!!!

I’ve been thinking about the idea of introducing the concept of homosexuality to kids, especially very young kids. Many argue that they are not ready to hear about homosexuality.

But there’s an important distinction that needs to be made, and that is between introducing the idea of homosexuality, and the idea of homosexual sex

The reality is that kids learn about about heterosexuality from day one. Mom and Dad. Adam and Sarah next door. They learn about the concept of men and women being partners, and they do so, until probably age 6 or so, without learning about heterosexual sex. So when they do learn about sex, it comes with a background of a lifetime of seeing societally-sanctioned relationships. The sex is coupled with the partnership.

Then kids learn about homosexuality. But what’s the first thing they learn? They don’t learn that Adam and Rob are partners, they learn that Adam and Rob as people who have sex. Think back to the first time you heard about homosexuality. Was it about a 20 year relationship, or was it about fucking?

Homosexuals are introduced to children not as people who are partners, but as people who have sex with each other. When it’s only about sex, and not about partnership and love, it can be contorted to be a sin, immoral, depraved, and wrong with much greater ease. After all, the bible only condemns homosexual sex (or it is argued that it does), not going out for coffee with some hot girl you like. And the concept is also contrary to what kids have grown up learning. New things are scary.

Now what if we did this.

What if instead of showing our kids how men and women can be partners, and later reveal that they have sex, we show them that men and women can be partners, men and men can be partners, and women and women can be partners, and later, when kids are ready to learn about any kind of sex, we reveal it across the board.

That way, when people first get their impressions of homosexuality, it’s not of some depraved sex act. It’s of a healthy partnership, just like the one they learned about seeing Mom and Dad. Then when sex gets introduced, homosexuals will perhaps not be seen solely as sexually deviants, but as just normal people, who, well, happen to have sex.

 

Grandma, is that moral deviance I see?

 

January 1, 2010

My Version of “Pro Life:” Get one.

Posted in Comic Editorial, Uncategorized tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , at 3:32 am by justinadayswork

For all of those concerned about the new healthcare bill supporting publicly, taxpayer funded abortions, I want you to ask yourself the following three questions:

1. How many abortions are actually performed each year and what is the actual total cost

2. How many of these abortions are actually paid for by the government, via medicaid / public option (I doubt there are many for the elderly on medicare)?

3. What is the actual total cost of these abortions to the government?

4. What percent of the entire cost of the Medicaid / Public option system is taken by abortions?

5. What percent of your tax dollars are actually even dispersed to Medicaid / a Public option, in a sea of pentagon, stimulus, education, and other spending.

6. So now tell me, after you’ve done some non-biblical reflection for a change, how much of your tax contribution is actually funding abortion, keeping in mind that healthcare is a fraction of the federal budget, that abortions are a fraction of the healthcare expenditures, and that publicly funded abortions are a fraction of that cost. So that would be 1 cent? 2?

Your fight is purely symbolic. Please do shut up.

How can you be pro-life if you really don’t have one? Dude. Come on.

December 25, 2009

Ya…ya we can

Posted in Comic Editorial, Uncategorized tagged , , , , , , , , , , , at 4:42 pm by justinadayswork

I was just reading an article about homosexuality not being genetic, and the following point gave me pause:

“We now treat the differences between male and female as socially constructed and those between heterosexuality and homosexuality as innate and genetic”

Interesting. Can we do that? I thought about it a little bit. And ya, ya we can.
Here’s why.

gender roles, socially constructed or not, put a person into a narrow category. thus, if gender is socially constructed, we are socially forcing people of different personal persuasions into the same narrow column, despite a persons’ biology. if we acknowledge homosexuality, socially constructed or not, we are allowing people into a spectrum of categories. So to say that gender is a socially constructed norm is actually analogous to saying sexuality is a biologically constructed varient, because both acknowledge that people are simply born the way they are, variation from the norm and all.

December 21, 2009

Ochodouche

Posted in Comic Editorial, Uncategorized tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , at 8:38 pm by justinadayswork

Did Chad Johnson actually legally change his last name to Ochocinco? For reals people. Yes, I feel your pain, Ochocinco, at a fallen teammate (litteraly fallen out of the bed of a pick up truck…) but I also remember when Chad Johnson wore the number 80 jersey, and the biggest stunt he pulled was showing up at my highschool softball game to look cool for my coach during his days at Oregon State University in my home town. Weren’t those the good ol days.
Douche

 

You were not born with teeth like that

Next page