26 June 2013

The POTUS decides what?

The evening news made me think of Buffalo Springfield's "For What It's Worth":

What a field day for the heat
A thousand people in the street
Singing songs and carrying signs
Mostly say, hooray for our side


The court made two decisions. Neither one of them "legalized gay marriage", despite what the thousands of people in the street are saying. 

One was on Proposition 8 in California. What the court decided was that they could not make a decision because the plaintiffs did not have legal standing to sue. So, the ruling of the inferior court negating Proposition 8 still stands until someone brings the matter to the Supreme Court who has standing to do so. The court made no decision on the merit of Proposition 8 itself.

The other was on DOMA, the Defense of Marriage Act. The Court did not negate the act, again as the media and the demonstrators would have you believe. What the court decided was that one provision of DOMA, the which stated that the Federal Government did not have to recognize same sex unions, was found unconstitutional if the union is recognized by the couple's state. That did not mean that the Federal Government legalized or illegalized gay marriage, it just meant that people who have a legitimate marriage license need to be treated as marriage when the Feds apply the Federal laws and regulations.

I am pretty tired of all of this stuff. The Constitution is silent about marriage; that means it is left to the states. And, if you get right down to it, the only reason the states have ever had anything to do with it is to make money by charging for marriage licenses. Historically, marriages belonged in a church, and men (yes, men) would register a marriage to show they owned the spouse as chattel property. Not a really fulfilling and rewarding approach, I say.

Why doesn't the government just get out marriage altogether? We the people are not going to be collectively satisfied with anything they do. Why should they do anything? Why should they even discriminate between married and not married people? 

Oh, I could roll on this forever ...

08 June 2013

Hey, guys! I haven't been here for a while. I've been preoccupied with ... well with all kinds of stuff. Politically and religiously so many things are happening that make me want to puke and yet nothing I say is going to change the minds of those whos eminds I think need to be changed. I cannot stand lies, either from the government or from the people/sheeple in response to the government or to their church.

Today I realized something. I was considering one of my pet projects, crusading against human trafficking. I thought:
Sure this is right. A woman is put to work as a prostitute so other people make money off of her, and the traffickers never get caught, the Johns get maybe 5 days or a fine, and the girls, who really don't willingly choose that lifestyle as far as I can tell, get a felony conviction.

People abuse women so punish the women. Hey, why not, because
People use guns to kill other people - ban guns
People eat Big Macs and get fat - ban Big Macs
People drink Big Gulps and get fat and get high blood pressure - ban Big Gulps
People use drugs and hurt themselves and others - ban drugs [may be partially appropriate]
People abuse alcohol and hurt themselves and others - ban alcohol
People drive too fast and kill people - put speed restrictions in car computers.
People use Sudafed to make meth - ban Sudafed
People use pitbulls for dog fights - ban pit bulls

Hey, I think I see a pattern here. There is a common denominator. Actually it's a common parameter, a common factor in each function and it is

PEOPLE

Just when I was about to throw away my women, guns, Big Macs, Big Gulps, drugs, alcohol, car, Sudafed and dog because I am an honest law-abiding person and will do what Senator Feinstein asks. Of course. 
Hey, here's a concept. If people do bad things, punish or rehabilitate the people, not what they used to do those bad things.
Too easy, I guess.