Let Freedom Ring. Chapter I: Marriage Equality

There have been numerous arguments about marriage equality. Yet, marriage equality is still a foreign concept. Instead of providing support why, I intend to tear down the arguments against marriage equality (or more popularly coined... "gay marriage").

Equality is a word thrown about more than a bad idea from government. Homosexuals are striving for such equality. We've come a long way, but the great hurdle is indeed marriage equality.

Opposition to "gay marriage" is strong. This is not just a Republican concept, but a Democratic one as well (look at West Virginia). Why?

Marriage is between one man and one woman. I find it rather humorous that our lawmakers attempted to pass such a statement, in the form of a constitutional amendment no less. Well, who created the concept of marriage? Whose job is it to define marriage? The government? The church? It's a simple, powerful statement. Problem is, there are no effective moral arguments supporting such a statement... without going religious. Perhaps the problem is indeed a deep-rooted prejudice. Why deny someone the freedom to marry someone they love?

Think of the children. Of course. We allow heterosexual couples to bring their own children or adopted children into a marriage. Oddly enough, criminals are also allowed to marry and procreate. No criticism for such. Is it not possible that heterosexual couples bring their own children from failed attempts at heterosexual marriage? Is it possible that gay households are just as effective in child-rearing as heterosexual households? (http://www.bidstrup.com/parenbib.htm) Is it possible that the sexuality of the parents in general is an irrelevant issue? Maybe the key words are "love and commitment."

Homosexuality is immoral. Interesting, for I see no law stating such. However, a vastly popular work of literature says I'm wrong. Curious. For there is a Constitutional Amendment which not only gives me the right of freedom of religion, but also freedom from religion. No one has the right to institute perceived moral standards authorized by a book. Is it possible that gay marriage is celebrated elsewhere (ahem, Buddhism). Many believe in religious freedom. Those who do should recognize that opposition to such based on a religious argument is well... weird.

Marriages enable babies. More babies means humanity will survive. Why are infertile couples allowed to marry? Impotency... post-menopause... Strange, for I believed that "love and commitment" are the key words to marriage. It's not a far off stretch to assume that heterosexual couples will stop marrying in protest of gay marriage. That's also very weird. It is possible that procreation is secondary? Is the human race going to die from lack of reproduction? Odd, because in some locales, overpopulation is a problem. Foolish reproduction often ends in homeless kids in foster care. And that's fucking sad... because I've been homeless.
And it sucks.

It threatens the institution of marriage. How? Doesn't it bring more possibilities into the mix? Is it not possible that allowing such would decrease divorce rates? How does freedom of choice threaten an institution? Are there gay terrorists waiting to axe Christian couples?

Tradition, Lawrence. Fuck that. Slavery was, too.

Same-sex marriage is untested. No, it isn't. Check the Danes, since 1989.

Then we're start marrying animals, family members, and robots. Oh yeah, and polygamy, too. That is one of the top ten dumbest things I've ever heard. That statement is designed to frighten people without logic. There is absolutely no evidence to this argument. West Virginia perhaps leads the charge against gay marriage, and there are chicken-humpers and sister-lickers a plenty within its NASCAR-loving boundaries (not a majority, I just find the coincedence highly amusing). If that is factual, there would already be evidence for such. I have never heard of a call for a law to marry elephants or mothers... not even on Fox News, where ridiculous stories appear first. But, that's a pretty effective tactic... "fear and smear." It makes me proud to be an American.

It would force the hand of the church to marry gay couples when they have a moral objection. Who says you have to marry in a church? A Supreme Court justice married Kristen and I. Churches can refuse anybody they want. Some refuse interracial couples, couples from different religions, and liberals. The argument is also weird, because it gives churches more choice.

Formal Denouncement of Citizenship of West Virginia

I am no longer a citizen of West Virginia. I am so utterly disgusted and appalled. One of the last remnants of the Confederacy has gained even more steam in its biggest fan base. The ghost of Andrew Jackson will never die.

http://www.wvgazette.com/News/200802280761










I am in Blazing Saddles. West Virginia is Rock Ridge. The governments are exactly the same, with Democrats and Republicans in tow. Unfortunately, there is no Sheriff Bart. There is no Waco Kid.

I'm sure many a West Virginian unleashed their shotguns into the air. Conway Twitty boomed on the radio, while the hooch flowed like rain. Many a sister were inappropriately touched by their brother, and many a daughter and wife were beaten from sheer glee from a drunken father. The economy was still a festering rectum, but it didn't matter.




NASCAR is officially here. Congrats to the monkeys in government with another perfect distraction. Not only do we have 850,000 churches, good ol' Mountaineer football (brilliantly played by the string-pullers), and not an African-American in sight.

We have proven once again that West Virginia is a fantastic place to live... if you're a white heterosexual Christian.


Conservatism, in its most annoying form, is alive and well. As such, I quote the film referenced above. And this is what has happened...


"Now I don't have to tell you good folks what's been happening in our beloved little town. Sheriff murdered, crops burned, stores looted, people stampeded, and cattle raped. The time has come to act, and act fast. I'm leaving."


That's right. I'm leaving. I've mentally packed my bags and hitting the road. I may work here, sleep here, and buy groceries here... but I'm not here. I've tuned out Toby Keith and all the other bigotry the "good ol' boys" have to offer.

My citizenship to a state is officially up for auction. It won't take much to sway me. Believe me.

Any takers?

Robert Dallek's Guide To Assessing The Presidency

The book, my Bible for assessing Presidential effectiveness, is "Hail to the Chief: The Making and Unmaking of American Presidents." It's an extremely beneficial tool when analyzing the various administrations of U.S. History. It's one of those few select books that I became giddy while reading. It was if I unlocked a different world.

The nice part is that you do not have to be a historian to grasp its complexities. It's an extremely simple concept, and therein lies its genius.

In short, the book analyzes an effective President under five broad categories: V.P.C.C.T.

Vision, Pragmatism, Consensus, Charisma, and Trust.

No trait is greater than the other, as there are Presidents who embody all, some, few, or none.

Vision- This is a broad, general direction of where the country is going. Vision usually involves multiple aspects of American society. In Presidential terms, John Quincy Adams and John F. Kennedy embody this trait. If you want to hit a little closer to home, think Martin Luther King, Jr.

Pragmatism- This is a "chameleon in plaid." This is someone who understands the need to change tactics, and is quick to adapt to various changes. Presidentially, Franklin D. Roosevelt and Dwight D. Eisenhower are perfect examples.

Consensus- This is the ability to gather support from various parties throughout the country. These are the folks who usually bring people together. Think George Washington and Theodore Roosevelt.

Charisma- These are the folks who influence with words and body language. These are masters of rhetoric, and people love them. Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan are two ends of the same spectrum.

Trust- Perhaps the most difficult aspect for a President to embody, an honest President sometimes clashes with the necessity for pragmatism. More often than not, honest Presidents usually have low approval ratings. Examples: Jimmy Carter and Harry Truman.


There are some odd cases. Richard Nixon was a great visionary leader, but a scoundrel who lacked vision. Andrew Jackson was trustworthy, but he sacked the National Bank.

Honestly, you can't fully access the effectiveness of a President until their term has long expired. Only now can we truly start to access George H.W. Bush's Presidency. As much as I love to yell at Bush, Jr., we're still in it.


So, the candidates.

Obama, Clinton, and McCain. Using the 5 points to what we already know... let's break them down.

Vision- Barack Obama has the best of the bunch. He knocks this trait out of the ballpark, and that's exactly why voters are flocking to him in drobes. Clinton and McCain have vision, but they both seem to limit themselves.

Pragmatism- Clinton wins by a longshot. She gets the job done, and she has the experience to know when change in strategy is necessary. McCain has been thought of as anti-pragmatic, but his stance on many things has changed recently to cater to conservatives.

Consensus- Barack Obama is again, the best of the bunch. He is crossing party lines often, and it's working. McCain does that too, but he is still despised by many conservatives. And we all know Clinton's history with Republicans, Democrats, Independents, etc.

Charisma- They are all fairly charismatic, but Obama's speaking ability throws him above the other two. The key: watch the crowd as Obama speaks. McCain and Clinton have their own charisma, but it comes and goes.

Trust- McCain has shown himself to be the most trustworthy, though he has shown fragments of pragmatism as of late. We simply do not know enough about Obama to properly judge. But that's a good thing (not a lot of voting records to hold against him). Clinton is perhaps the classic case of the pragmatic vs. trust issue. Not many people trust Hillary Clinton, but she'll fight for what she believes in.


Right now, vision stands head and shoulders above the rest. Obama is surging in the polls. If he's the candidate, he's going to be extremely difficult to defeat. He's breaking historical trend in his popularity, and I love every minute of it.

Personally, I'm willing to forego my own stingy liberal beliefs for great vision. My lack of faith in governing bodies in general has utterly waned. I see both parties as negligent and utterly apathetic to the cause of the needy, and the dreams of me and my fellow citizens. So, I think it's time for some J.Q.A. vision.

Since Dennis Kucinich and John Edwards dropped, hopefully the third time is indeed the charm.


I'm voting for Barack Obama... and I hope he doesn't let me and the millions of people rooting for him down.

New Employment

It's official. I have a new job.


There was much rejoicing, and bong hitting a plenty. I don't have a lot of specifics, but I'll be in a much better environment.

The Asylum Narrows to Four (In Reality, 3)

McCain is the Republican candidate.

Problem: the right hates him because he deals with Democrats, and he isn't conservative enough. I think it's pretty funny... watching the idiot-train eat him alive.



Meanwhile...

The Democratic race is far from decided.

Obama is the front-runner now. He won all three states. For the first time, he is leading the delegates. The magic number is 2,025.

Obama has 1215 and Clinton has 1190.

There are 1,618 delegates left.

Everyone is worried about a tie. In this case, a tie means that neither candidate hits 2,025.

If both candidates split everything right down the middle, Obama will still be one candidate short. The tie means that someone's going to get shafted, as there will have to be a deal made. If that happens, people are going to feel left out, and possibly vote Republican.

Here's the weird thing:

These idiots called "superdelegates," aren't required to vote the way their district says. So, essentially, they could change their mind right up to the election.

Obama has momentum, and that's huge. I'm voting for Obama.

I've supported Kucinich, but he dropped. Then I supported Edwards, and he dropped. Third time's the charm? No idea.

The Idiot Wagon Keeps Moving

I've many times mentioned or alluded that West Virginia political entities are either stupid and or ineffective. Democrat, Republican, or Independent... it makes absolutely no difference. Here's the latest stroke of brilliance.

http://www.wvgazette.com/News/200802100463

Forget about maximizing choice.

--Feel free to insert a comment or hopefully joke/insult here.--

Hopeful Events

Attaining better employment is imminent. I can't wait. A better life awaits, much to the dismay of West Virginia and its pollution of negativity and apathy.


Another note:

The fact that Miami had an awesome recruiting class doesn't shock me. After all, Randy Shannon is good at such. This, however, does:

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncaa/recruiting/football/columns/story?columnist=luginbill_tom&id=3233826