This Same-Sex Marriage Thing

Soon the bias against gay people will go the way as bias against racial minorities went (or at least is going). There is no rational reason to discriminate against homosexual people in any way, shape or form. The people who are against same sex marriage are caught in a trap of moral superiority where they believe that their disapproval of another’s lifestyle matters. It doesn’t. They are almost always religious. They believe that things like homosexuality are sins and that society has an obligation to prohibit them. Wake up, folks! I don’t believe in the Bible and my citizenship in this country does not require that I do. You are free to express your opinions on morality but you are not free to impose your morality on me. You think being gay is a sin? Fine, don’t be gay then. But keep your hateful and intolerant opinion out of our laws and courts. No one elected you the morality police.

The majority in this country that is against same-sex marriage is the same majority that thinks the ten commandments should be in our public buildings. They are the majority that thinks “under God” needs to be in the pledge of allegiance. The problem is: two plus two does not equal five no matter how many people vote for it. This majority is plain wrong, just like they were wrong about slavery, wrong about civil rights, wrong about women’s rights and wrong about every progressive movement we’ve seen in this country. Our constitution guarantees that all people in this country, whether straight or gay, have the same rights. Read that sentence again: all people have the same rights.

Let’s take a quick swing through the moronic reasons people try to use to rationalize discrimination against same sex couples:

1. Marriage is for procreation. This is too stupid to address but I will anyway. A substantial percentage of heterosexual marriages do not procreate and it does not effect the status of their marriage. Civil marriage has nothing to do with procreation.

2. Heterosexual marriage is the foundation of a healthy family structure. 50% of marriages fail. At least 15% of marriages are subject to extra-marital affairs. I agree that positive marriages result in better families and better children. However, heterosexual marriage does not have a great record in this regard. We need all the positive marriages we can get, whether heterosexual or homosexual.

3. Public endorsement of same-sex marriage reinforces homosexuality as an acceptable lifestyle. Yes, I agree, it does. I don’t see that as a problem. I’m not here to write about homosexuality, per se, but I do think it is funny that people argue that it is somehow unnatural. Think of it this way — since the beginning of humanity it has been normal to expect a certain percentage of the population to be homosexual. It is perfectly normal in this regard.

4. Same-sex marriage will be used frivolously to gain the economic advantages of marriage. This is the only rational argument against same-sex marriage. If anyone can marry anyone, will people be more likely to use marriage as a vehicle for economic advantage. If that was going to be true, we would see a lot more heterosexual marriages of convenience. Even if this did turn out to be true, I see no reason why heterosexuals should be allowed marriages of convenience but not homosexuals.

The bottom line on this is that same-sex couples have the right to protect their families, their children and their estates. Being a committed couple is much harder if you need to jump through legal hoops to insure that your mate will have the same rights to joint custody of your children and your estate as heterosexual couples. Marriage, in addition to whatever religious covenant some people choose, is a legal arrangement. It is a civil union. As such by definition is it an option for all citizens regardless of who they are or who their mate is.

I’ll close with a story about how people change. My uncle was gay. He was diagnosed with AIDS in the 1980’s. His parents, my grandparents, were as conservative as you can imagine — Lutheran North Dakota farmers with barely a high school diploma. When they discovered their son was gay and dying of AIDS they dropped everything and supported him lovingly until the day he died. They stood by him in a way that makes me so proud. They decided that the God they believed in wanted them to love their son more than he wanted them to believe some preacher in some church who condemned homosexuals as sinners destined for hell.

It’s not just gay people who suffer from this prejudice — it’s their mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters, sons, daughters and friends. For every loving same-sex couple in this country there is a web of hundreds of people who love and support them. We will not take no for an answer.

This Same-Sex Marriage Thing

The Poor Rich

A new poll of the rich was conducted. There is an article about it at the Star Tribune. It brings up something I have been thinking about: we should be able to expect more from the rich and they constantly disappoint us. Example, the article says “Three of every eight wealthy people don’t feel an obligation to give back to their communities financially.” How do they think they got rich? Could they have gotten rich in other places as easily? The answer is no: they got rich here because we have a society and a government that creates opportunity. We have a talented work force, a large economy and an environment that allows people to succeed to disgusting degrees. Why is it that people with plenty become more selfish than people with little? Almost half of rich people feel no obligation to give back? That is ludicrious.

Which brings up a quote I heard: luxury dulls the character. Many (not all) of the rich people in this country could not cut warm butter with their character.

The article also states:

“By far, the top concern of affluent investors is sustaining and increasing their wealth,” according to an online survey conducted by Harris Interactive for Community Foundations of America and HNW Inc., a financial services company.

So the richer you are the more preoccupied with wealth you become. Far from being the freedom that so many think it is, wealth becomes a drug like crack cocaine. These people are drug addicts. This is clear in many ways: the Enron’s, the mutual fund scam, the CEO pay issue. The common factor here is that the richer you are the more important it is that you get richer. How fucking dumb is that. Where does this bottomless greed come from?

But what really makes me laugh is that also high on the worries of the rich is what a bunch of losers their children are. The article states: “Nevertheless, six out of 10 say they worry that wealth will spoil their children.” So the message to their children is, accumulate wealth, do not share it, but be fearful of what morons your kids will be as a result. Nice.

Lest I be unclear, wealth is not bad. I am happy that I live in a country that allows us to create wealth for ourselves. I am not advocating class warfare and my remarks are not based on envy of the rich. I could be rich if I wanted. I see how people do it and I’m not willing. If you want to pursue dollars above all else, go for it.

My point, besides the fact that rich people are drug addicts and their drug is money, is that we as a nation have to have some rational on how we can continue this great nation moving forward. Benjamin Franklin, one of our brightest founding fathers, was concerned that the welfare of the nation would be jeopardized if wealth were allowed to grow unchecked. Bill Gates, Sr.’s book “Wealth and Our Commonwealth: Why America Should Tax Accumulated Fortunes” sums this up pretty good. We have a duty as a nation to make sure that the extreme wealth of the few does not unbalance the promises of our great Constitution. As one reviewer of the book said “With the estate tax repeal proposed by the Bush administration, we might be facing the future that Teddy Roosevelt feared-where huge fortunes amassed and untaxed would evolve into a dangerous and permanent aristocracy.”

If the rich do not recognize how their fortune was made possible by the country as a whole, the country as a whole will need to remind them. This is why progressive taxation is good. This is why the estate tax is good. Rich people are lucky. There is no person that would rather be poor and pay no taxes than be rich and pay a lot of taxes. This is where I expect more from the rich: quit bitching about taxes, quit bitching about “class warfare”, quit being petty, pampered snobs and be the great people you could be. Be the great people you should be. Be an American first.

The Poor Rich

New Blog

OK, this is my new blog. The other thing I was trying was cute but this is much better. I promise I’ll work on the look/feel so it doesn’t look so stock. I’m also going to be moving old posts over here but I’ll probaby lose the comments. Feel free to re-comment.

So the location and technology behind my blog is different. Please update your links and such. The new URL is


New Blog

Why Bush Will Lose in 2004

George W. Bush is going to lose the presidential election in 2004. Here’s why.

We all remember the 2000 presidential election. It was a close one. Very close. The way the election was decided by the Supreme Court was unique in American history. In terms of the upcoming election in 2004, the main thing to remember from the 2000 election is that George W. Bush did not come close to getting the most votes. Al Gore alone got more votes than Bush, but when you add in Nader, more people voted for liberals than George Bush by a fairly significant margin. (Gore+Nader got 3.4 million more votes than Bush.) So a big question now is: are the people that voted for Gore or Nader likely to vote for Bush? Do you think Bush is likely to get new voters out there? The answer to both questions is no. This fact alone could spell doom for the idiot king Bush.

But there’s more: given that Bush narrowly won the 2000 election, you’d think he would have some sense that the country is split. There was no clear mandate for a right-wing agenda in that election. Yet the puppet masters who run Bush have had a hay day implementing a radical right wing agenda. The list is impressive: making abortion illegal, hacking back environmental laws, going to war over oil, appalling tax cuts for the rich, a premeditated attack on public education, infiltrating government with faith-based this and that. This guy has done nothing for the majority of voters who did not vote for him. He basically lied about being a compassionate conservative to get elected and then reverted to the ol’ boy right wing corporate whore that he is. For the hoards of intelligent, fiscally conservative, environmentally conscience and socially progressive folks out there, this guy is a loser.

Now clearly there are a lot of conservatives in this country. Many or most of them are intelligent people with the best interest of the country at heart. Many of them will not vote for a Democrat no matter what happens. They’d rather have a bad conservative than a good liberal. These confused people that think flag waving is patriotic and paying your taxes isn’t are going to mobilize in a big way to keep the irrational tax cutter guy in office. While they claim to be fiscally conservative, they want to put the war in Iraq on the credit card and have their kids pay the bill instead of them. A segment of these folks can be reasoned with, but the fact remains that this next election will be close.

There are two main things that could happen that could put ol’ dubbya back in the White House. One, we could get a strong liberal third-party candidate. The conservatives are too smart (or too stupid) to ever back a third-party candidate. Liberals, by definition, are willing to consider alternatives to this dumb-ass two party partisan paralysis we are locked into. As much as I think we need to break the two-party stranglehold, now ain’t the time. Nader, please sit this one out. Two, the Democrats could choose a insincere plastic wannaba like Gore. Gore was a crappy candidate. What’s funny is: Gore could have probably made a very good president. It was the candidate part he sucked at. So far all of the Democratic hopefuls look pretty good. I think Bush is going to be outmatched in virtually every measurable quality in regards to the capabilities of a leader.

You have to do your part in this. First of all, vote. If you don’t vote it means that George W. Bush is your man. A lot of people that didn’t vote in 2000 hate this president. You gotta fucking vote. Second, spread the word a bit. Speak out in reasonable and rational ways about the deeply disturbing policies of this administration. Get people thinking about this stuff a little deeper than their own pocket books. Most of all, get your friends to vote, regardless of who they will vote for. Drive them to the voting booth if necessary. Put a voter registration form in front of them. The more people that vote in this next election the less chance there is that George W. Dumbass will win. The imbecile cowboy has got to go.

Why Bush Will Lose in 2004