I know it's a little dated (Valentine's Day), but Suze gets to the heart of the matter (pun intended).
Thursday, April 30, 2009
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
It's not the Number, It's the Message
So Senator Arlen Specter switched the letter behind his name from "R" to "D". According to the media, this puts the "D"s one body closer to the Magic Number 60--in my book, they are already there, since Senator Al Franken is the new senator from Minnesota. He won the election, so the Republicans should get over it and stop stalling until....oh.....2014.
But having 60 Democratic members in the Senate is no guarantee of anything, let alone the "Super Majority that is Filibuster-Proof". There are plenty of Blue Dog Democrats, including Evan Bayh of Indiana, who will have no compunction to vote against the rest of the party on anything. Indeed, they already have.
What's most important about Arlen Specter's decision to change party is the message he is sending, verbally and non, to the Republican party. As he said during the press conference announcing his decision, "I have been a Republican since 1966. I have been working extremely hard for the Party, for its candidates and for the ideals of a Republican Party whose tent is big enough to welcome diverse points of view....Since my election in 1980, as part of the Reagan Big Tent, the Republican Party has moved far to the right." Further, Mr. Specter called his decision “painful.” He said he knew he was disappointing many of his friends and colleagues, but added that frankly, they had disappointed him, “so the disappointment runs in both directions.”
Reaction from the "leaders" of the Republican party was not surprising, but it just emphasizes how out of touch they truly are. They just don't get it. As The New York Times pointed out, "Some Republicans bade good riddance to Mr. Specter, who was badly trailing in polls against former Representative Patrick J. Toomey, who also once led the Club for Growth, a group of fiscal conservatives who have financed primary challenges against Republicans they consider to have strayed too far from conservative principles. Michael Steele, chairman of the Republican National Committee, did not mince words, saying Mr. Specter “left to further his personal political interests because he knew that he was going to lose a Republican primary due to his left-wing voting record.” Specter is "left wing"? Oh right, because he doesn't believe in "Individual freedoms" (Michael Steele on NPR today said this was what the Republican Party stands for--that and "Prosperity")--like a woman's right to choose....oh I forgot--only gun owners have "individual freedoms".
But I digress.
The Republican party was hijacked in the mid-1970's by the "Moral Majority" (who truly have never been either), and has never been the same. The moderate Republicans I remember as a kid are almost as rare as unicorns now, and that's a pity. If the GOP does not back away now from its' messages of "be afraid" and "hate the 'others'" then I'm quite sure we are witnessing the end of the Republican party, folks.
But I will let Senator Olympia Snowe, Republican from Maine, have the last word. I hope the "leaders" of the Republican Party take the cotton out of their ears and listen. Senator Snow said, in an OpEd for the NY Times: ” It is true that being a Republican moderate sometimes feels like being a cast member of “Survivor” — you are presented with multiple challenges, and you often get the distinct feeling that you’re no longer welcome in the tribe. But it is truly a dangerous signal that a Republican senator of nearly three decades no longer felt able to remain in the party. Senator Specter indicated that his decision was based on the political situation in Pennsylvania, where he faced a tough primary battle. In my view, the political environment that has made it inhospitable for a moderate Republican in Pennsylvania is a microcosm of a deeper, more pervasive problem that places our party in jeopardy nationwide. I have said that, without question, we cannot prevail as a party without conservatives. But it is equally certain we cannot prevail in the future without moderates. It is for this reason that we should heed the words of President Ronald Reagan, who urged, “We should emphasize the things that unite us and make these the only ‘litmus test’ of what constitutes a Republican: our belief in restraining government spending, pro-growth policies, tax reduction, sound national defense, and maximum individual liberty.” He continued, “As to the other issues that draw on the deep springs of morality and emotion, let us decide that we can disagree among ourselves as Republicans and tolerate the disagreement.” I couldn’t agree more. We can’t continue to fold our philosophical tent into an umbrella under which only a select few are worthy to stand."
But having 60 Democratic members in the Senate is no guarantee of anything, let alone the "Super Majority that is Filibuster-Proof". There are plenty of Blue Dog Democrats, including Evan Bayh of Indiana, who will have no compunction to vote against the rest of the party on anything. Indeed, they already have.
What's most important about Arlen Specter's decision to change party is the message he is sending, verbally and non, to the Republican party. As he said during the press conference announcing his decision, "I have been a Republican since 1966. I have been working extremely hard for the Party, for its candidates and for the ideals of a Republican Party whose tent is big enough to welcome diverse points of view....Since my election in 1980, as part of the Reagan Big Tent, the Republican Party has moved far to the right." Further, Mr. Specter called his decision “painful.” He said he knew he was disappointing many of his friends and colleagues, but added that frankly, they had disappointed him, “so the disappointment runs in both directions.”
Reaction from the "leaders" of the Republican party was not surprising, but it just emphasizes how out of touch they truly are. They just don't get it. As The New York Times pointed out, "Some Republicans bade good riddance to Mr. Specter, who was badly trailing in polls against former Representative Patrick J. Toomey, who also once led the Club for Growth, a group of fiscal conservatives who have financed primary challenges against Republicans they consider to have strayed too far from conservative principles. Michael Steele, chairman of the Republican National Committee, did not mince words, saying Mr. Specter “left to further his personal political interests because he knew that he was going to lose a Republican primary due to his left-wing voting record.” Specter is "left wing"? Oh right, because he doesn't believe in "Individual freedoms" (Michael Steele on NPR today said this was what the Republican Party stands for--that and "Prosperity")--like a woman's right to choose....oh I forgot--only gun owners have "individual freedoms".
But I digress.
The Republican party was hijacked in the mid-1970's by the "Moral Majority" (who truly have never been either), and has never been the same. The moderate Republicans I remember as a kid are almost as rare as unicorns now, and that's a pity. If the GOP does not back away now from its' messages of "be afraid" and "hate the 'others'" then I'm quite sure we are witnessing the end of the Republican party, folks.
But I will let Senator Olympia Snowe, Republican from Maine, have the last word. I hope the "leaders" of the Republican Party take the cotton out of their ears and listen. Senator Snow said, in an OpEd for the NY Times: ” It is true that being a Republican moderate sometimes feels like being a cast member of “Survivor” — you are presented with multiple challenges, and you often get the distinct feeling that you’re no longer welcome in the tribe. But it is truly a dangerous signal that a Republican senator of nearly three decades no longer felt able to remain in the party. Senator Specter indicated that his decision was based on the political situation in Pennsylvania, where he faced a tough primary battle. In my view, the political environment that has made it inhospitable for a moderate Republican in Pennsylvania is a microcosm of a deeper, more pervasive problem that places our party in jeopardy nationwide. I have said that, without question, we cannot prevail as a party without conservatives. But it is equally certain we cannot prevail in the future without moderates. It is for this reason that we should heed the words of President Ronald Reagan, who urged, “We should emphasize the things that unite us and make these the only ‘litmus test’ of what constitutes a Republican: our belief in restraining government spending, pro-growth policies, tax reduction, sound national defense, and maximum individual liberty.” He continued, “As to the other issues that draw on the deep springs of morality and emotion, let us decide that we can disagree among ourselves as Republicans and tolerate the disagreement.” I couldn’t agree more. We can’t continue to fold our philosophical tent into an umbrella under which only a select few are worthy to stand."
Sunday, April 26, 2009
Indiana, the Saudi Arabia of Wind Energy
Karen and I took a trip today, to Benton County, to see the wind turbines. These massive structures are truly indescribable. You can see them far across the horizon, in every direction, moving silently in the wind.
It's not until you get up close that you can hear them. Karen was far braver than I, and actually inspected the outside of one. 
I thought they sounded crickets chirping, but Karen said they sounded like airplanes whooshing by. Very unobtrusive, in any case.
These photos don't capture the majesty of these man-made structures, but suffice to say that I felt a stirring of hope for the future of our planet--maybe we can save ourselves!
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
"This Place", One Iowa's TV Ad to Protect the Freedom to Marry in Iowa
Have I said how proud I am to say I'm from Iowa?
Sunday, April 19, 2009
In Praise of the Two-Party System
I'm still mad as heck about the wingnuts who were at the Tea Parties on April 15th.
You know, people like this one:
Way to stick to the message of the Tea Party, people! With all that's going on in our nation and in the world, THIS is the most important message you can think of to put on a sign? THIS is the most important issue to you--coming before education, health care, and the economy?? Well, at least you spelled it all correctly. Your life must be pretty good indeed if all you have to worry about is whether the president was born in the United States. Last time I checked, Hawaii is still a state.
But I digress--a little. I'm still asking the question, "Is this the new face of the Republican Party?" If it is, I'm actually quite sad. Because, for all my spewing about Republicans, I really do believe in the two-party system (I've given up hoping for a multi-party system--it's just not financially feasible). I believe in giving people a choice (works with toddlers--giving a choice for today's clothing might possibly avoid a temper tantrum); we don't all think alike, thank goodness, and it's important to feel like you're voting for someone who has the same values you do. There's a lot to be said for accountability, and who better to make sure you're doing what you've promised during an election campaign than your opponent, your adversary, your "friend across the aisle"? It's essential in a democratic republic to debate the issues; to exchange ideas, and to compromise--some of the best political work is done when there is a respectful and honest dialogue, and everyone is working together for the common good (I know--I have been accused of being a bit Pollyannaish in my world view) . Above all, it's extremely important to have leaders for each of the parties--people who will represent their party, will promote the core beliefs of their parties, and who will set the tone for dealing with the other political party.
This is where I am so disappointed with the Republican party--they have no leadership, nobody who will promote their core beliefs, and certainly nobody who has demonstrated a willingness to work with the Democrats during a period in our nations' history that's the worst in our living memory. "Just say No" is not an effective solution to our economic problems. Neither is name-calling, especially when you can't decide whether President Obama is a "socialist" or a "fascist". And it's not promoting your party to ignore, or worse--try to re-write, the history of the past eight years as if your party had no power and no responsibility. Aside from Olympia Snowe and Susan B. Collins, Republican senators from Maine, there appears to be nobody interested in "reaching across the aisle". Bi-partisanship is dead. No wonder the underbelly of the party seems to have taken the reins, and their leader (Rush Limbaugh) is someone who has never been elected to public office.
Where are the moderate Republicans? Why have they been silenced? Are they tired of butting heads with the Sarah Palins and Eric Cantors of their party? Or are they just so embarrassed by the Bush years that they've given up?
I can't believe I'm saying this, but..."Come back, you moderate Republicans, you thoughtful stewards of core Republican values. It's been too long--at least 30 years--it's high time you fight for what you believe in--seize control of your party. Our country needs to hear from you again."
But be forewarned--at this time in our nations' history, we need stateswomen and statesmen, NOT politicians.
You know, people like this one:
Way to stick to the message of the Tea Party, people! With all that's going on in our nation and in the world, THIS is the most important message you can think of to put on a sign? THIS is the most important issue to you--coming before education, health care, and the economy?? Well, at least you spelled it all correctly. Your life must be pretty good indeed if all you have to worry about is whether the president was born in the United States. Last time I checked, Hawaii is still a state.
But I digress--a little. I'm still asking the question, "Is this the new face of the Republican Party?" If it is, I'm actually quite sad. Because, for all my spewing about Republicans, I really do believe in the two-party system (I've given up hoping for a multi-party system--it's just not financially feasible). I believe in giving people a choice (works with toddlers--giving a choice for today's clothing might possibly avoid a temper tantrum); we don't all think alike, thank goodness, and it's important to feel like you're voting for someone who has the same values you do. There's a lot to be said for accountability, and who better to make sure you're doing what you've promised during an election campaign than your opponent, your adversary, your "friend across the aisle"? It's essential in a democratic republic to debate the issues; to exchange ideas, and to compromise--some of the best political work is done when there is a respectful and honest dialogue, and everyone is working together for the common good (I know--I have been accused of being a bit Pollyannaish in my world view) . Above all, it's extremely important to have leaders for each of the parties--people who will represent their party, will promote the core beliefs of their parties, and who will set the tone for dealing with the other political party.
This is where I am so disappointed with the Republican party--they have no leadership, nobody who will promote their core beliefs, and certainly nobody who has demonstrated a willingness to work with the Democrats during a period in our nations' history that's the worst in our living memory. "Just say No" is not an effective solution to our economic problems. Neither is name-calling, especially when you can't decide whether President Obama is a "socialist" or a "fascist". And it's not promoting your party to ignore, or worse--try to re-write, the history of the past eight years as if your party had no power and no responsibility. Aside from Olympia Snowe and Susan B. Collins, Republican senators from Maine, there appears to be nobody interested in "reaching across the aisle". Bi-partisanship is dead. No wonder the underbelly of the party seems to have taken the reins, and their leader (Rush Limbaugh) is someone who has never been elected to public office.
Where are the moderate Republicans? Why have they been silenced? Are they tired of butting heads with the Sarah Palins and Eric Cantors of their party? Or are they just so embarrassed by the Bush years that they've given up?
I can't believe I'm saying this, but..."Come back, you moderate Republicans, you thoughtful stewards of core Republican values. It's been too long--at least 30 years--it's high time you fight for what you believe in--seize control of your party. Our country needs to hear from you again."
But be forewarned--at this time in our nations' history, we need stateswomen and statesmen, NOT politicians.
Has the World Come to an End?
Here's what Dr. Laura said to Larry King about gay and lesbian relationships:
KING: But you've always favored that marriage must be between a man and woman.
SCHLESSINGER: I'm very big on human beings finding love, attachment and commitment and being faithful to it, because there's more to benefit when there is real true commitment and faithfulness to it. I still believe, as just every president has, and all the people who ran for office, that marriage is a sacrament between a man and a woman. So not calling it marriage works for me. But that two people would have that sort of commitment to me is very healthy and very positive thing in their lives and society as a whole.
KING: So, you favor marriage between a man and a woman, but you applaud the fact that even people of the same-sex can have that kind of commitment to each other.
SCHLESSINGER: That's a beautiful thing and a healthy thing. (Italics mine)
Wow. Wow. Who would have thought?
KING: But you've always favored that marriage must be between a man and woman.
SCHLESSINGER: I'm very big on human beings finding love, attachment and commitment and being faithful to it, because there's more to benefit when there is real true commitment and faithfulness to it. I still believe, as just every president has, and all the people who ran for office, that marriage is a sacrament between a man and a woman. So not calling it marriage works for me. But that two people would have that sort of commitment to me is very healthy and very positive thing in their lives and society as a whole.
KING: So, you favor marriage between a man and a woman, but you applaud the fact that even people of the same-sex can have that kind of commitment to each other.
SCHLESSINGER: That's a beautiful thing and a healthy thing. (Italics mine)
Wow. Wow. Who would have thought?
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
New Face of the Republican Party??
I can't even begin to understand these people. Are they for real? Do they know their history, or do they just let Rush Limbaugh and others like him tell them bedtime stories every night? It makes me sick to think they would use President Obama's photo as Hitler, of all people. What heinous crime has he possibly done to them, to their families, to justify comparing him to one of the most evil humans in history? If they think Obama is so bad, where were they the past 8 years, when our president and vice president were allowing torture of other human beings? Where was the outcry then?
Are these the new faces of the Republican party? Part of me wants these wingnuts to be the new voices of the Republican party, and part of me is very sad that there are so many delusional folks out there.
I also don't understand the Tea Parties that went on across the nation today. Most were held in city parks, on bridges, and there was police protection provided to the protesters. I just wanted to ask these protesters what they think paid for the bridges they stood on, the parks they were in, and the police who were standing by? Did they drive to the Tea Parties on roads? Who taught them to read and write the words on their posters? Thank goodness taxes were used for these and many other things, otherwise these protesters wouldn't have time to be on the bridges--they would be home, working while it was still daylight (because when darkness came, there would be no electric grid to provide them with electricity) to maintain the road in front of their house, and to keep an eye out for looters. How shortsighted can a person be?
Make no mistake--this was no grassroots protest today. These people were being manipulated by big business and the likes of Newt Gingrich. When they don't have anything positive to offer, no real solutions to put forward, it's tempting to rile the masses with whispers and smear tactics. Divide and conquer.
I thought we were better than that. I had hoped we were a better people than that. And then I saw those homemade signs, and felt sad again for our country. I can only hope the Republican Party can find its' moderate, sane voice again.
Sunday, April 12, 2009
Pirates? Aargh!
We've all been reading about pirates this week--not the cute, cuddly Jack Sparrow kind of pirate, but Somali pirates who took the American captain of a container ship hostage. Seems it's quite the lucrative job to be a pirate in Somalia--most shipping companies would rather pay the ransom than negotiate with the pirates who take over their ships. In 2008, pirates seized approximately 100 ships around the Gulf of Aden--most were released when the ransom was paid, but a number were taken over by the pirates--to be used as pirate ships, or because the cargo they were carrying was valuable to the pirates (I suppose ships carrying weapons are high on the "to be kept" list). The ransoms paid by the shipping companies allow the pirates to live quite well in Somalia--I'm not sure that these pirates are the Robin Hood types, that steal from the rich and give to the poor. If they were, they probably would have allowed the American container ship to pass--it was carrying relief supplies to Kenya.
Here's what I DON'T understand about the success of these pirates--how do the pirates, who typically number less than 10, take over a huge container ship or tanker??? Supposedly the American container ship had a crew of 18, and were trained to deal with pirates, and yet the pirates (there were about 5 of them) not only boarded the ship but took the captain hostage. How does this happen? Say you're a crew member of a huge ship. You are approaching the Gulf of Aden, and you know there are pirates in the area. How does a little, teeny, tiny, little boat get anywhere near enough to board your enormous ship? How??? I've heard that shipping companies do not want their crews to carry weapons on board, I've heard that crew members have put barbed wire around their ships in an effort to deter pirates, I've heard that crew members are never sure which little boats are fishing boats, so do not want to be unnecessarily hostile, and I've heard that ransoms are upwards of $1 million, but I've not heard any sensible solutions to the problem of pirates.
So here's my suggestion--shipping companies are allowed to use my idea, free of charge. If they do decide to pay me, I think $1 million is a fair price for brilliance. Are you ready for the solution?? Water cannons.
Yes, water cannons. You've seen them at Sea World,
and at your local water park. Of course, the water cannons I'm proposing are larger and pack more of a "wallop". So say you're on a large tanker. You spot a little, teeny, tiny, teeny boat fast approaching. You're not sure if it's pirates or a fishing boat, but you really don't have to worry because you're not going to hurt the people in the boat--you're just going to get them very, very wet. You shout a warning, "Hey you!!! Stay away!" They repond, "Aargh!!" Oh ho! Pirates. You turn on the water cannon (it uses water pumped from the sea), and you blast that little boat of pirates. They get wet, and pitched from their boat. You yell, "Full speed ahead," and while they are still swimming back to their boat, you and the huge ship you're on get away safely. No blood is shed, no real harm done, and you've just saved the shipping company over $1 million in ransom money. The pirates get a free bath, as does their boat.
Where, do you ask, do the shipping companies find personnel trained in the art of water cannon firing? I suggest they send their recruiters to the local water park.
But seriously, I do think water cannons are the weapons of the future in the fight against pirates.
Friday, April 10, 2009
The Rachel Maddow Show: Insani-Tea: Conservatives Rally Around "Teabagging"
Probably the funniest segment ever on the Rachel Maddow show. Rachel and Annamarie need to take their comedy on the road!!!
Thursday, April 9, 2009
Tuesday, April 7, 2009
Monday, April 6, 2009
A Few More Words About Iowa
Have I said how proud I am to be from Iowa? Yes, I truly am proud to say I'm a native Iowan. When the Iowa State Supreme Court issued its unanimous decision last Friday (see previous blog), it was just following a tradition of fairness and equality that was almost as old as the state.
Here are some things you might not know about Iowa:
In its decision, the Iowa Supreme Court recognized the marriage contract for what it is--a civil contract between two people. The justices ignored the arguments brought before them in an effort to convince them to uphold the 1997 law: that "gay marriage" would undermine "traditional marriage", that only "traditional marriage" is a proper environment to raise children (the justices, in their infinite wisdom, pointed out that Iowa currently allows child molesters, child abusers, and violent felons to "traditionally wed"), that only "traditional marriage" promotes procreation (as if), that "traditional marriage" promotes stable opposite-sex relationships (I guess gay people are not entitled to stable relationships), and that the few people allowed to marry, the better off, financially, the state would be (totally ignoring the argument that allowing marriage equality will stimulate the economy!). The last argument, which dealt with religion, should have been laughed right out of the courtroom, but I guess the justices were too polite for that.
Because remember, we in the United States enjoy the separation of church and state. Our founding parents believed it was the right thing to do, and for over 200 years, the vast majority of Americans have agreed. I repeat: there IS a separation of church and state in this country.
Which brings me to the real point of this blog. Marriage is a civil contract between two people. Throughout history, marriage licenses have been issued for much the same reasons: property rights and protection of bloodlines. In this country, people who are married enjoy a plethora of federal and state rights--over 1,000 federal rights alone are available to married couples and denied to unmarried couples.
The couple gets a license from the state. They can then choose to have a civil ceremony (by a justice of the peace or whatever), or a religious ceremony. [Some churches, including the Unitarian Universalist Church, will perform a commitment ceremony for a couple even if they don't have the license.] The point is that religion plays no part in the issuance of the license from the state--there is no minister, rabbi, shaman, priest, pastor, ayatollah, or cleric sitting at the registry, signing licenses. Only a clerk or two.
For those who are getting their panties in a twist over the "demise of traditional marriage", I offer this helpful exercise. Instead of the word...marriage, substitute.....mortgage. Two people go to get a mortgage. They legally qualify (in marriage law, they would not be underage or siblings; for mortgages, they have money from a bank). They go to the state to get their mortgage registered. The state gives them the title (license) to a piece of land. They can then go to their minister, and ask if the house, on the piece of land, can be "blessed". Or not--they still are still legally registered with the state, and that's all that matters.
NOW---the question is: how does my mortgage affect your right to a mortgage? Does my having a mortgage diminish your mortgage? Are your children less safe because I have a mortgage with someone of the same sex? Are my children? Would you really even notice if I had a same-sex mortgage?
Marriage....mortgage. Contracts registered with the state.
Here are some things you might not know about Iowa:
- The state motto is, "Our liberties we prize and our rights we will maintain." Last Friday, the justices of the Supreme Court declared this meant everyone, not just straight people.
- The very first decision handed down by the Iowa State Supreme Court upheld the right of an ex-slave to have his freedom; they declared he was no longer his masters' property.
- In 1868, the Iowa State Supreme Court declared "separate but equal" education was against the law.
- In 1869, the Iowa State Supreme Court ruled that women could indeed practice law, and Arabella Mansfield was the first woman admitted to the Iowa Bar Association--the first of any state in the Union.
- In 1884, Iowa passed one of the first civil rights laws in the nation.
In its decision, the Iowa Supreme Court recognized the marriage contract for what it is--a civil contract between two people. The justices ignored the arguments brought before them in an effort to convince them to uphold the 1997 law: that "gay marriage" would undermine "traditional marriage", that only "traditional marriage" is a proper environment to raise children (the justices, in their infinite wisdom, pointed out that Iowa currently allows child molesters, child abusers, and violent felons to "traditionally wed"), that only "traditional marriage" promotes procreation (as if), that "traditional marriage" promotes stable opposite-sex relationships (I guess gay people are not entitled to stable relationships), and that the few people allowed to marry, the better off, financially, the state would be (totally ignoring the argument that allowing marriage equality will stimulate the economy!). The last argument, which dealt with religion, should have been laughed right out of the courtroom, but I guess the justices were too polite for that.
Because remember, we in the United States enjoy the separation of church and state. Our founding parents believed it was the right thing to do, and for over 200 years, the vast majority of Americans have agreed. I repeat: there IS a separation of church and state in this country.
Which brings me to the real point of this blog. Marriage is a civil contract between two people. Throughout history, marriage licenses have been issued for much the same reasons: property rights and protection of bloodlines. In this country, people who are married enjoy a plethora of federal and state rights--over 1,000 federal rights alone are available to married couples and denied to unmarried couples.
The couple gets a license from the state. They can then choose to have a civil ceremony (by a justice of the peace or whatever), or a religious ceremony. [Some churches, including the Unitarian Universalist Church, will perform a commitment ceremony for a couple even if they don't have the license.] The point is that religion plays no part in the issuance of the license from the state--there is no minister, rabbi, shaman, priest, pastor, ayatollah, or cleric sitting at the registry, signing licenses. Only a clerk or two.
For those who are getting their panties in a twist over the "demise of traditional marriage", I offer this helpful exercise. Instead of the word...marriage, substitute.....mortgage. Two people go to get a mortgage. They legally qualify (in marriage law, they would not be underage or siblings; for mortgages, they have money from a bank). They go to the state to get their mortgage registered. The state gives them the title (license) to a piece of land. They can then go to their minister, and ask if the house, on the piece of land, can be "blessed". Or not--they still are still legally registered with the state, and that's all that matters.
NOW---the question is: how does my mortgage affect your right to a mortgage? Does my having a mortgage diminish your mortgage? Are your children less safe because I have a mortgage with someone of the same sex? Are my children? Would you really even notice if I had a same-sex mortgage?
Marriage....mortgage. Contracts registered with the state.
Friday, April 3, 2009
As Goes Iowa, So Goes the Nation?
We can only hope the rest of the nation follows in the footsteps of my home state:
From The Des Moines Register:
April 3, 2009
"Today's ruling at a glance"
JEFF ECKHOFF
WHAT HAPPENED: Iowa Supreme Court justices ruled unanimously that Iowa Code section 595.2(1) is unconstitutional. The one-sentence law, passed in 1998, declares that “only a marriage between a male and a female is valid.”
WHAT IT DOES: The decision affirms the 2007 ruling by a Polk County judge in a lawsuit brought by six gay and lesbian couples. The couples all had been denied marriage licenses by the Polk County recorder’s office.
WHAT IT MEANS: Iowa soon will become the first Midwestern state, and the fourth nationwide, to allow same-sex marriages. The justices’ decision says their ruling “becomes effective upon issuance of procedendo,” a legal order that actual implements the decision announced Friday. Polk County officials say they expect that order to be issued in about three weeks. Marriage licenses will begin to be issued after that.
THE ARGUMENTS: In prior court proceedings, Polk County lawyers had offered five main rationales for the law banning gay marriages: to maintain traditional marriage, to promote the optimal environment for raising children, to promote procreation, to promote stability in opposite-sex relationships and to conserve state resources such as tax breaks.
Iowa justices rejected all arguments and concluded that none of the stated objectives of the law “are furthered in a substantial way by the exclusion of same-sex couples from civil marriage. Our equal protection clause requires more than has been offered to justify the continued existence of the same-sex marriage ban under the statute.”
WHAT IT MEANS FOR CHURCHES: The justices reiterate in Friday’s ruling “the freedom of a religious organization to define marriages it solemnizes as unions between a man and a woman.”
But “state government can have no religious views, either directly or indirectly through it’s legislation,” the opinion says. “As a result, civil marriage must be judged under our constitutional standards of equal protection and not under religious doctrines or the religious views of individuals.”
WHAT’S NEXT: A possible campaign to offset the ruling with an amendment to the state constitution. Such a change probably could not outlaw gay marriages, however, until 2012 at the earliest.
From The Des Moines Register:
April 3, 2009
"Today's ruling at a glance"
JEFF ECKHOFF
WHAT HAPPENED: Iowa Supreme Court justices ruled unanimously that Iowa Code section 595.2(1) is unconstitutional. The one-sentence law, passed in 1998, declares that “only a marriage between a male and a female is valid.”
WHAT IT DOES: The decision affirms the 2007 ruling by a Polk County judge in a lawsuit brought by six gay and lesbian couples. The couples all had been denied marriage licenses by the Polk County recorder’s office.
WHAT IT MEANS: Iowa soon will become the first Midwestern state, and the fourth nationwide, to allow same-sex marriages. The justices’ decision says their ruling “becomes effective upon issuance of procedendo,” a legal order that actual implements the decision announced Friday. Polk County officials say they expect that order to be issued in about three weeks. Marriage licenses will begin to be issued after that.
THE ARGUMENTS: In prior court proceedings, Polk County lawyers had offered five main rationales for the law banning gay marriages: to maintain traditional marriage, to promote the optimal environment for raising children, to promote procreation, to promote stability in opposite-sex relationships and to conserve state resources such as tax breaks.
Iowa justices rejected all arguments and concluded that none of the stated objectives of the law “are furthered in a substantial way by the exclusion of same-sex couples from civil marriage. Our equal protection clause requires more than has been offered to justify the continued existence of the same-sex marriage ban under the statute.”
WHAT IT MEANS FOR CHURCHES: The justices reiterate in Friday’s ruling “the freedom of a religious organization to define marriages it solemnizes as unions between a man and a woman.”
But “state government can have no religious views, either directly or indirectly through it’s legislation,” the opinion says. “As a result, civil marriage must be judged under our constitutional standards of equal protection and not under religious doctrines or the religious views of individuals.”
WHAT’S NEXT: A possible campaign to offset the ruling with an amendment to the state constitution. Such a change probably could not outlaw gay marriages, however, until 2012 at the earliest.
Wednesday, April 1, 2009
Name Game
Every once in a while, I get those e-mail surveys--you know, "What was the last thing you ate?" "What 4 things do you have in your car?" Anyway, I love them. So keep sending them my way. Recently, I got one that asked what 4 names I have gone by in the past, and that got me thinking about what I've been called, what I want to be called, and what you probably shouldn't ever call me. A couple of days before that, Karen bought me this way cool journal, Listography: Your Life in Lists, so I made a list of all the names and now I'm ready to share.
You can call me:
Woman, Feminist, Independent-leaning Democrat, American, native Iowan, resident of a Blue State, but not a Hoosier!
You can call me:
Human who tries to do the right thing, Liberal, left-leaning, gay, lesbian, dyke (but not homosexual--it sounds a little "stuffy"), soft butch, muff muncher or muff diver (but my favorite is pearl diver)--I've heard them all.
You cannot call me:
Pervert, les-bee-an (said with snide contempt), dyke (if you're using that same tone), fag, bitch (unless you're using it as a term of endearment--a few of my friends do), feminist or feminazi (see tonation above), cunt, flake, weirdo(although I don't mind being weird), Mrs. K (I still can't get used to that--that woman was my wonderful ex-mother-in-law), old bag, old hag (although I am very close to earning the title Crone, and would be proud to be called that).
I prefer to be called:
a mid-to-late summer, woman-loving-woman.
But my favorite things to be called; in fact it's an honor to be called:
Mom
Gale
Daughter
Sister
Auntie
Friend
You can call me:
Woman, Feminist, Independent-leaning Democrat, American, native Iowan, resident of a Blue State, but not a Hoosier!
You can call me:
Human who tries to do the right thing, Liberal, left-leaning, gay, lesbian, dyke (but not homosexual--it sounds a little "stuffy"), soft butch, muff muncher or muff diver (but my favorite is pearl diver)--I've heard them all.
You cannot call me:
Pervert, les-bee-an (said with snide contempt), dyke (if you're using that same tone), fag, bitch (unless you're using it as a term of endearment--a few of my friends do), feminist or feminazi (see tonation above), cunt, flake, weirdo(although I don't mind being weird), Mrs. K (I still can't get used to that--that woman was my wonderful ex-mother-in-law), old bag, old hag (although I am very close to earning the title Crone, and would be proud to be called that).
I prefer to be called:
a mid-to-late summer, woman-loving-woman.
But my favorite things to be called; in fact it's an honor to be called:
Mom
Gale
Daughter
Sister
Auntie
Friend
I Love Linda
I posted a message on Facebook this morning. It said, "We just got the great news. Karen's pregnant!"
Not 20 minutes later, I get a phone call from my best friend. She breathlessly exclaims, "What? Why didn't you tell me last night? We were at the game and you didn't say a word."
I respond, "What do you mean 'what?' Karen's having a Chinese baby."
And then I start to laugh. It IS April Fool's Day, after all.
Not 20 minutes later, I get a phone call from my best friend. She breathlessly exclaims, "What? Why didn't you tell me last night? We were at the game and you didn't say a word."
I respond, "What do you mean 'what?' Karen's having a Chinese baby."
And then I start to laugh. It IS April Fool's Day, after all.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)