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

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?

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.

November 13, 2009

Please Sir, Can I have Some More? “Rationing” Health Care

Posted in Comic Editorial, Uncategorized tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , at 6:46 am by justinadayswork

I just read an article at http://www.americanthinker.com about “rationed” health care. Bollocks.

Here’s the link:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/06/call_it_what_it_is_rationed_he.html

Since this issue is one I take very seriously, I will spend most of the following dispelling American Thinker’s cute little quips than introducing my own. And I do so because this is what is wrong with the health care debate: no one really knows what the new health care plan is or what any of its components mean (I don’t even!). So instead of really partaking in intelligent discourse, we indulge in propaganda, scare tactics, out-of-context information, and flat out misconstructions of the truth intended to lead you in one direction while blinding you to the other half of the fork in the road. As such, this article and I are going to have a debate in another edition of Dear God it’s what Rachel Thinks

Article:

“Any or all of these will lead to a government takeover of the health care industry.”

DGIWRT:

Health care should not be an industry. No one should be profiting off of someone’s poor health, and decisions certainly should not be made with profit in mind.

Article:
“Should your grandmother get a hip replacement? Go down the hall to the queue outside Office 37-B and fill out more forms. We’ll let you know in a few months. Hey, you with the brain tumor. Get back in line.”

DGIWRT:

Speaking as someone with a brain tumor, I can’t tell you how many doctors I had to see, referrals I had to beg for, insurance forms I had to fill out, monstrous copays I had to pay, and overall shitty treatment I received even on double coverage from the health care industry. Or maybe I can tell you. Oh wait, I don’t have a year of your time.

Furthermore, people who can’t afford insurance don’t even get to be in line

Article:

“A centralized system would give the government the power of life and death over America’s families”

DGIWRT:

How is government having the power over life and death any worse than an HMO having this power? The government is no more impersonal, the government is no more profit-seeking, the government is no more frugal, the government is no more misinformed.

Article:

“Such a system also reinforces the idea that government is God.”

DGIWRT:

You’re a paranoid propaganda peddling fuck

Article:

“Often treatment is not withheld altogether, but it is delayed, sometimes with the result that the patient’s condition worsens. … About 50 per cent had to wait over a month and 20 per cent more than three months. Over one in three of those waiting said that their condition had got worse while they were waiting and 14 per cent claimed to be ‘in a lot of pain.'”

DGIWRT:

I waited 9 months for a shoulder surgery. 9 months. You need to look at the present facts before peddling future fears

Article:

“Randy Stroup, 53, a cancer patient, applied for aid under Oregon’s state health plan in 2008. He got a letter denying payments for chemotherapy, but offering money to help him kill himself.”

DGIWRT:

This statement is strikingly misleading. First, the Oregon Health Plan was introduced in the 1990’s, at which point it was far more comprehensive than it is today (or in 2008) due to cutbacks because we would rather give subsidies to Portland General Electric than pay for chemotherapy. What this article doesn’t tell you is that the OHP expanded healthcare for thousands of Oregonians who were in a terrible limbo between not qualifying for medicare and not affording their own insurance. Furthermore, this man had less than a 5 percent chance of significant recovery. This was not a man that was denied arbitrarily. Yes, it would be wonderful if the state could pay for his chemotherapy. And since you agree, I’m sure you’d also agree to taking a small bite out of pentagon funding to do so.

Also, the fact that they would offer assisted-suicide is pretty irrelevant

And ten bucks says he petitioned the government because his private insurance wouldn’t cover his chemotherapy either. Or he didn’t have any to begin with.

healthcare

Gimme more gimme more…gimme gimme more