Thursday, April 07, 2005

Lawrence block party?

Lawrence block party? Yes please. I’d like to see one day a year where Mass is blocked off between 7th and 10th streets. Allow vendors in the streets, allow bands to play, etc. Why? Because it would be fun, and another way to celebrate the treasure that is downtown. We all know how popular the St. Patrick’s day parade is, and how many people show up for that. Imagine a situation where Mass is closed all day (from 11am- 10pm, say), and there’s more to do. As to when to do this? I would say the 4th of July. For what kind of impact a truly popular 4th of July event can have, check out Bristol, RI. People can have fun on Mass street all day, then walk down to the river to watch the fireworks! Or, if it became a big enough event, with enough press, move it to a different day on the weekend, and try to get out of town business.

As to problems with this: businesses won’t like losing the approximately 200 parking spaces (that # is a guesstimate) on Mass itself. In today’s paper there is an article concerning business worries about the bike races affecting sales (although my idea doesn’t involve closing down their back lots, like the races will). To offset those concerns, maybe a Sidewalk Sale could be scheduled that day? Turning Mass street into one big blowout, and 31st & Iowa into a tumbleweed desert?

Wednesday, April 06, 2005

I think I'll be receiving my Special Olympics gold medal any day now!

Cuz look, I'm arguing on the internet!

Here's my personal highlights (I'm not going to post other people's statements, since, well, I didn't make them, and if you're curious about what they said, click the linky above)

1st relevant post: And yet the federal Constitution says that full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts and records and judicial proceedings of every other state.
Marriage is a civil act, correct? So in what way does the federal constitution lose to a state constitution?
And I do certainly recognize that this is the argument that proponents of this ban put forth for a national marriage amendment.
And in what way was the Kansas Marriage Act ineffective? I don't remember lines down at the courthouse for gays to engage in marital man-loving sanctioned by the state.

2nd: The 14th amendment is also at issue here. " . . . nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."
cf. Meyer v. Nebraska (1923)"While this court has not attempted to define with exactness the liberty thus guaranteed, the term . . . ['liberty' refers to the following] . . . the right of the individual to contract, to engage in any of the common occupations of life, to acquire useful knowledge, to marry, establish a home and bring up children . . . "
Also see Loving v. Virginia.

3rd: The Loving v. Virginia case is the (in)famous one in which the court ruled Virginia's miscegenation laws unconstitutional. The parallels are rather obvious. Here's the opening lines of Warren's opinion:
"This case presents a constitutional question never addressed by this Court: whether a statutory scheme adopted by the State of Virginia to prevent marriages between persons solely on the basis of racial classifications violates the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. For reasons which seem to us to reflect the central meaning of those constitutional commands, we conclude that these statutes cannot stand consistently with the Fourteenth Amendment."

Replace race with 'sexual orientation'.

4th: I'm back from lunch, and full of Mad Hatter-burger!
While you are correct, in the sense that you cannot simply replace one group with another (so the Loving case does _not_ endorse gay marriage), you can look at the Loving decision as a precedent to finding such laws regarding marriage as possibly unconstitutional.
The day is coming when a case reaches SCOTUS that does test DOMA and the various state amendments. It will be very, very interesting to see what happens.

5th: In what way is our society in chaos?
How would a family where there are two parents, of the same sex, be any worse as adoptive parents than our many single mothers? How would one gay single parent be any worse than our many single mothers?
Your 'red pen' argument is not an indication of chaos. Rioting in the streets over bread and circuses is an indication of chaos, and having just gotten back from Mass street, there was a definite lack of rioting and/or food lines.
Are there problems with society? Yes. Is political correctness the problem? Meh. PC is a strawman argument, I'm afraid. I would rather argue that a lack of tolerance for individual differences is the problem, and scaremongering of the sort that leads you to declare a 'society in chaos'. We have a society where people should be free to do what they want, as long as it doesn't harm others. And two gay people getting married in no way hurts anyone else.

6th: So , if you understand that other people have their views of how to run their own lives, why do you feel it is ok to impose your view on them? And prohibiting gay people from getting married due to your interpretation of the bible is definitely imposing your view on them.

7th: How is it wrong to understand 'tolerance' to mean wishing other people all the chances to be happy that you or I possess?

What is tolerant about telling other people they can't marry because YOUR god says THEY can't marry? Wouldn't it be more tolerant to accept that other people can find happiness without the bible?

And again, how is your marriage and your family threatened by Frank and Steve getting married and having VERY GAY sex while waving a marriage license? As long as their doing it in their home, how does this affect you?

Full Faith and Credit

The Constitution says that full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts and records and judicial proceedings of every other state. So, what's going to happen with the states passing gay marriage amendments?

The DOMA law would seem to be trumped by the above, which means that as soon as one state makes gay marriage legal, that creates a constitutional issue. So, either there's a national gay marriage amendment (even more pathetic than the state amendments, since that makes us a whole nation controlled by the religious retards), or there's a few states making money off gay couples coming to get married. Anyone remember 'quickie' divorces and Nevada?

I am Jack's lack of surprise

Imagine that! My redneck peckerwood fellow Kansans decided to enshrine discrimination in the state constitution. Also to my lack of surprise Douglas County voted against it. And once again, there will be a lovely map of the state with one blue county (maybe they'll start printing it in pink?) hanging out, looking sideways at its neighbors.
And also to my lack of surprise, the same dim bulbs who passed the Lawrence smoking ban got back into office. Maybe this has something to do with a slight lack of organization on my fellow smokers, and maybe it has something to do with the current council throwing out various ideas that helped foment that disorganization ( Hallmark's exemption or the sidewalk smoking idea). Eris and the Golden Apple anyone?
What I urged the smoking ban opponents, and Dave, the owner of Henry's in particular, was to print up business cards listing the 4 council members who voted for the smoking ban, and encourage those who signed the petition (registered voters) to vote against them. Or, closer to the election, pass out cards listing who supported lifting or modifying the ban.
In case you didn't notice, no one took me up on my idea.

Tuesday, April 05, 2005

Yep, I'm bored at work

Spent the day cursing this terribly dull, unexciting job. Started this. Found out blogger doesn't want you to host from ImageShack. Screw that. I don't want to have to d/l some lameass spyware proggy to post a freakin' photo. Probably will eventually, tho. Just need to bitch about it first.

So, today was the gay marriage amendment vote in Kansas. I have no doubt thanks to my hick peckerwood god-fearing fellow Kansans, this will succeed. Because, if they don't vote for this amendment, the fags will run everything! Like they do now! Or not.

I voted against it on my lunch break, since, let's face it, enshrining discrimination in our state constitution is absolutely moronic. NO ONE has ever explained to me how two guys getting to bone each other while waving a marriage license in their honeymoon suite will damage anyone's marriage. Own up, the only reason to vote for a gay marriage ban is because you don't like gay people. That's cool, if you admit it; at least you know you have a problem, and are working on it. But this whole sanctity of marriage thing is BS. Have these people SEEN the divorce rate?

First post

How fucking original is that?

Mark 2 cliches down:

Unoriginal 'first post' post, and use of swearing for shock value!

Time to see what sort of shit (that doesn't count twice) I can do with this-here durn thing.