Down with Marriage
Here's my spin on the gay marriage debate. I've heard this argument before, and it's the only logical solution to this problem (at least in my mind).
MAKE MARRIAGE OPTIONAL
Here's what I mean. Eliminate the term "marriage" from the law. The state doesn't need to be issuing "marriage" licenses. The state can certify civil unions. All partners with legal unions should be entitled to equal protection before and under the law. Marriage can be something separate -- a religious or cultural ceremony that a couple chooses to celebrate their union. But "marriage" should not be mandatory to receive partner benefits.
And let's be honest, much of this debate (no, not all, I do believe in love) centers on spousal benefits. Many of those spousal benefits revolve around $$$. This has nothing to do with whether one considers Christ to be their saviour. It has to do with basic human equality, and well, money.
You don't want no gays marrying in your church? Fine. But your church ain't got no jurisdiction outside of its walls.
Marriage = not a legal term. Let's stop treating it as such.
|
Here's my spin on the gay marriage debate. I've heard this argument before, and it's the only logical solution to this problem (at least in my mind).
MAKE MARRIAGE OPTIONAL
Here's what I mean. Eliminate the term "marriage" from the law. The state doesn't need to be issuing "marriage" licenses. The state can certify civil unions. All partners with legal unions should be entitled to equal protection before and under the law. Marriage can be something separate -- a religious or cultural ceremony that a couple chooses to celebrate their union. But "marriage" should not be mandatory to receive partner benefits.
And let's be honest, much of this debate (no, not all, I do believe in love) centers on spousal benefits. Many of those spousal benefits revolve around $$$. This has nothing to do with whether one considers Christ to be their saviour. It has to do with basic human equality, and well, money.
You don't want no gays marrying in your church? Fine. But your church ain't got no jurisdiction outside of its walls.
Marriage = not a legal term. Let's stop treating it as such.
Can you ever go home...?
I'm back in the 'Tham this weekend... amazing how much everything changes in half a year. At the risk of sounding terribly cliche, everything is the same and yet, completely different.
Will be home tomorrow.
|
I'm back in the 'Tham this weekend... amazing how much everything changes in half a year. At the risk of sounding terribly cliche, everything is the same and yet, completely different.
Will be home tomorrow.
Hi Ho, Howard
From the Washington Post:
Howard Dean formally abandoned his campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination Wednesday but vowed that his organization is "not going away" and would continue to seek change in the Democratic Party and the nation with the aim of defeating President Bush in the November election.
The former front-runner in the race for the nomination did not immediately endorse any of the remaining candidates, and he left open the shape of what he said would be a new initiative to be launched in the coming weeks.
He indicated he would not act to have his name removed from the ballot in upcoming Democratic primaries and caucuses, in which he suggested that supporters should continue to vote for him to ensure sending "progressive delegates" to the Democratic National Convention in Boston in July.
|
From the Washington Post:
Howard Dean formally abandoned his campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination Wednesday but vowed that his organization is "not going away" and would continue to seek change in the Democratic Party and the nation with the aim of defeating President Bush in the November election.
The former front-runner in the race for the nomination did not immediately endorse any of the remaining candidates, and he left open the shape of what he said would be a new initiative to be launched in the coming weeks.
He indicated he would not act to have his name removed from the ballot in upcoming Democratic primaries and caucuses, in which he suggested that supporters should continue to vote for him to ensure sending "progressive delegates" to the Democratic National Convention in Boston in July.
As printed in the McGill Daily...
Where in the World is…?
It’s one-thirty on a Friday morning, and the second floor of Reservoir is clearing out. The bartender’s sitting with a tattered copy of Le Devoir. The mood is, as always at Reservoir, chill. The usual suspects are doing the usual, hailing Arcand’s Oscar nod, arguing the pros and cons of Lapierre’s return to politics. I’m nursing my home brewed pint of blonde and waiting on a friend to return from the loo when I overhear a snippet of conversation. Two words in particular catch my attention.
Saddam Hussein.
Huh. Now there’s a name I haven’t heard in a while.
In fact, I’ve barely heard an utterance of the name since his capture, aside from when lefties are subjected to “morality checks” by pro-Bush hawks aggressively defending the non-existence of Iraqi WMDs.
“Oh, so I guess you’d be happier if Saddam Hussein was still in power, building his nuclear arsenal and massacring innocents?”
Of course, who wouldn’t want that.
But otherwise, ne’er a mention of the mustachioed menace. It was mere months ago that Hussein was ubiquitous, not a newscast aired nor a White House memo released without a mention of his name. Then there was the spider-hole. The lice check. The cheers, ding-dong, the witch is gone.
The questions swirled – could he get a fair trial? Where would that happen? It was all Saddam, all the time. But fast-forward to early February and… nada. Hussein’s as M.I.A. as Dick Cheney. When Slobodan Milosevic was arrested after the Bosnian intervention, his whereabouts were clear. In April 2001, he was occupying a cell at Belgrade’s Central Prison. From there he transferred to prison in The Hague, where he continues to stand trial for war crimes. No smoke, no mirrors.
So where in the world is Saddam? Is he in a holding cell in Baghdad? Solitary confinement at Guantanamo? Maybe he’s been stuffed and mounted on a wall of the Crawford Ranch?
I consider myself a tuned-in type, reading three online newspapers a day, blogging, and watching plenty of Peter Mansbridge. Okay, so I’m a junkie. But somehow Hussein’s whereabouts slipped through the cracks of my coverage. So I Google News-ed it. Search words: Hussein. Capture. Prison. Whereabouts. And still, nothing.
Hussein’s pulled another Houdini.
No, the administration doesn’t need to dole out the exact coordinates of a prisoner of war. And Hussein might become the third former state leader to stand trial for crimes against humanity in an international court setting – Milosevic and Rwanda’s Jean Kambanda were the first two. But since the United States hasn’t signed on to the International Criminal Court, it isn’t bound by its procedure. This renders any questions about a tribunal unanswerable.
The U.S. is bound by the Geneva Convention of 1949, which prohibits torture and mistreatment of POWs. Under that same treaty, the International Committee of the Red Cross is granted security check access to all POWs. To date, the Red Cross has not seen Saddam.
My friend returned to our table and asked why I was so spaced.
“Not spaced, just curious. Where the hell is Saddam?”
“Hmm.. brings to mind the query of the Caramilk secret don’t it?” He quipped.
“You’re right. The world may never know.”
|
Where in the World is…?
It’s one-thirty on a Friday morning, and the second floor of Reservoir is clearing out. The bartender’s sitting with a tattered copy of Le Devoir. The mood is, as always at Reservoir, chill. The usual suspects are doing the usual, hailing Arcand’s Oscar nod, arguing the pros and cons of Lapierre’s return to politics. I’m nursing my home brewed pint of blonde and waiting on a friend to return from the loo when I overhear a snippet of conversation. Two words in particular catch my attention.
Saddam Hussein.
Huh. Now there’s a name I haven’t heard in a while.
In fact, I’ve barely heard an utterance of the name since his capture, aside from when lefties are subjected to “morality checks” by pro-Bush hawks aggressively defending the non-existence of Iraqi WMDs.
“Oh, so I guess you’d be happier if Saddam Hussein was still in power, building his nuclear arsenal and massacring innocents?”
Of course, who wouldn’t want that.
But otherwise, ne’er a mention of the mustachioed menace. It was mere months ago that Hussein was ubiquitous, not a newscast aired nor a White House memo released without a mention of his name. Then there was the spider-hole. The lice check. The cheers, ding-dong, the witch is gone.
The questions swirled – could he get a fair trial? Where would that happen? It was all Saddam, all the time. But fast-forward to early February and… nada. Hussein’s as M.I.A. as Dick Cheney. When Slobodan Milosevic was arrested after the Bosnian intervention, his whereabouts were clear. In April 2001, he was occupying a cell at Belgrade’s Central Prison. From there he transferred to prison in The Hague, where he continues to stand trial for war crimes. No smoke, no mirrors.
So where in the world is Saddam? Is he in a holding cell in Baghdad? Solitary confinement at Guantanamo? Maybe he’s been stuffed and mounted on a wall of the Crawford Ranch?
I consider myself a tuned-in type, reading three online newspapers a day, blogging, and watching plenty of Peter Mansbridge. Okay, so I’m a junkie. But somehow Hussein’s whereabouts slipped through the cracks of my coverage. So I Google News-ed it. Search words: Hussein. Capture. Prison. Whereabouts. And still, nothing.
Hussein’s pulled another Houdini.
No, the administration doesn’t need to dole out the exact coordinates of a prisoner of war. And Hussein might become the third former state leader to stand trial for crimes against humanity in an international court setting – Milosevic and Rwanda’s Jean Kambanda were the first two. But since the United States hasn’t signed on to the International Criminal Court, it isn’t bound by its procedure. This renders any questions about a tribunal unanswerable.
The U.S. is bound by the Geneva Convention of 1949, which prohibits torture and mistreatment of POWs. Under that same treaty, the International Committee of the Red Cross is granted security check access to all POWs. To date, the Red Cross has not seen Saddam.
My friend returned to our table and asked why I was so spaced.
“Not spaced, just curious. Where the hell is Saddam?”
“Hmm.. brings to mind the query of the Caramilk secret don’t it?” He quipped.
“You’re right. The world may never know.”
For those wondering why my entries have been so sporadic (read: non-existant) over the past week, please note that I am researching and writing a 10-page legal memo about the constitutionality of controversial legislation designed to limit the spread of West Nile Virus.
Jealous?
I didn't think so.
I promise that post-memo, we'll return to our regularly scheduled blogging.
|
Jealous?
I didn't think so.
I promise that post-memo, we'll return to our regularly scheduled blogging.
The big 2-3
I haven't thought all that much about the upcoming anniversary of my birth. Mostly I've resigned myself to believing that 23 is no big deal, lacking the sort of significance of say, my 21st (in Boston), or my 16th (spent at the Regie de L'automobile de Quebec).
But upon further reflection it would seem that 23 is meaningful. 21 is just that. 22, well, it's sorta close to 21. 23, yes 23, is probably the first foray into the land of the twenty-somethings. This marks a full departure from teenage-hood and the in-betweens of my early twenties.
Not that I ever need a reason to hoist a few, but, what the hell. You only turn 23 once.
Cheers.
|
I haven't thought all that much about the upcoming anniversary of my birth. Mostly I've resigned myself to believing that 23 is no big deal, lacking the sort of significance of say, my 21st (in Boston), or my 16th (spent at the Regie de L'automobile de Quebec).
But upon further reflection it would seem that 23 is meaningful. 21 is just that. 22, well, it's sorta close to 21. 23, yes 23, is probably the first foray into the land of the twenty-somethings. This marks a full departure from teenage-hood and the in-betweens of my early twenties.
Not that I ever need a reason to hoist a few, but, what the hell. You only turn 23 once.
Cheers.
I'm sorry Miss Jackson! Breast-baring incident actually a mistake...?
According to CBS, MTV and Sports Illustrated, Yep!
|
According to CBS, MTV and Sports Illustrated, Yep!
![[Click for official biography]](http://ansuz.sooke.bc.ca/justices/photo-De.jpg?1299748013-0.1-974446364)