(no subject)
Oct. 14th, 2004 05:57 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
sihayadesignsUggggh. I didn't get nearly as much work as I'd intended to do yesterday done. I now have 7 more pages to write-- 2 by tonight, the other 5 by tomorrow morning. I think that at 9pm, after my program in the pub, I'll be coming back to the lab, where hopefully it'll be quieter and less crowded. I can't concentrate with all this clackety-clack.
People who watch Lost, I'm going to start taping starting with next week. Are there any good summary sites out there so I can catch up, or did anyone tape the first handful of episodes?
(And Jess, one of my first college friends, just walked up and asked if we could do dinner next week. Odd. Odd. Weird. We haven't talked since my second semester here.)
Re: the debate. Trifecta!! Kerry won my heart when talking about homosexuality and a woman's right to choose. So, he could have said that he believes homosexuality is a choice, or not. Either way, people in the GBLT community could say he's making generalizations. But really, when it comes down to it, Kerry will fight for more equal rights than Bush. Bush is already trying to discriminate. We need to stop this erosion of basic, constitutionally-guaranteed rights, not enable a bigot by giving him votes. Bush clearly, unequivocally stated last night that he thinks that gays are a threat to the institution of marriage. So-- because two gay people want to commit to one another, they're endangering hetero marriages? WTF? And on the concept of "marriage" vs. "civil unions," I'll echo TBQ. Let's guarantee civil rights, and then we'll argue semantics. I personally think every pairing should be a civil union, and it should be up to the couple's religious institution wether or not it will be called a marriage.
So, in short, on the topic of homosexuality, Bush < Kerry. And then Kerry talked about the separation of personal article of faith and legislation. Imagine that, a politician who gets the concept of separation of church and state! That's novel!
Sadly, Scout is doing worse again. When I woke up this morning, he was a bit fuzzy again. I cannot make this fungus die. I can only try another round of medication and keep being vigilant. Poor boy is not happy, but there's not much I can do while I still hope for recovery.
ETA:: Transcript of the third debate.
People who watch Lost, I'm going to start taping starting with next week. Are there any good summary sites out there so I can catch up, or did anyone tape the first handful of episodes?
(And Jess, one of my first college friends, just walked up and asked if we could do dinner next week. Odd. Odd. Weird. We haven't talked since my second semester here.)
Re: the debate. Trifecta!! Kerry won my heart when talking about homosexuality and a woman's right to choose. So, he could have said that he believes homosexuality is a choice, or not. Either way, people in the GBLT community could say he's making generalizations. But really, when it comes down to it, Kerry will fight for more equal rights than Bush. Bush is already trying to discriminate. We need to stop this erosion of basic, constitutionally-guaranteed rights, not enable a bigot by giving him votes. Bush clearly, unequivocally stated last night that he thinks that gays are a threat to the institution of marriage. So-- because two gay people want to commit to one another, they're endangering hetero marriages? WTF? And on the concept of "marriage" vs. "civil unions," I'll echo TBQ. Let's guarantee civil rights, and then we'll argue semantics. I personally think every pairing should be a civil union, and it should be up to the couple's religious institution wether or not it will be called a marriage.
So, in short, on the topic of homosexuality, Bush < Kerry. And then Kerry talked about the separation of personal article of faith and legislation. Imagine that, a politician who gets the concept of separation of church and state! That's novel!
Sadly, Scout is doing worse again. When I woke up this morning, he was a bit fuzzy again. I cannot make this fungus die. I can only try another round of medication and keep being vigilant. Poor boy is not happy, but there's not much I can do while I still hope for recovery.
ETA:: Transcript of the third debate.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2004-10-14 11:12 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-10-14 11:42 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-10-14 11:59 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-10-14 12:01 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-10-14 12:19 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-10-14 12:35 pm (UTC)I proposed a constitutional amendment. The reason I did so was because I was worried that activist judges are actually defining the definition of marriage, and the surest way to protect marriage between a man and woman is to amend the Constitution.
It has also the benefit of allowing citizens to participate in the process. After all, when you amend the Constitution, state legislatures must participate in the ratification of the Constitution.
I'm deeply concerned that judges are making those decisions and not the citizenry of the United States. You know, Congress passed a law called DOMA, the Defense of Marriage Act.
My opponent was against it. It basically protected states from the action of one state to another. It also defined marriage as between a man and woman.
But I'm concerned that that will get overturned. And if it gets overturned, then we'll end up with marriage being defined by courts, and I don't think that's in our nation's interests.
In the case that state legislatures are already adequately handling their own marriage laws, what is the point of trying to make a blanket law other than to be discriminatory and deny a segment of the population constitutionally-guaranteed equality rights? The states are doing just fine figuring things out for themselves and the Supreme Court has only made rulings stating that certain discriminatory laws are unconstitutional. This is not activism. The bottom line is that DOMA is discriminatory and above all else, completely unnecessary.
no subject
Date: 2004-10-14 12:21 pm (UTC)This administration has fumbled everything.
no subject
Date: 2004-10-14 12:24 pm (UTC)::sputters::
That pisses me off for so many reasons. Good thing what she does doesn't bother me anymore. :P
no subject
Date: 2004-10-14 12:27 pm (UTC)And I kind of stared.
And then said I was busy, but she could try calling me next week.
It's so so bizarre.
no subject
Date: 2004-10-14 12:33 pm (UTC)Grar.
no subject
Date: 2004-10-14 12:36 pm (UTC)RE: Lost
Date: 2004-10-14 12:50 pm (UTC)Re: Lost
Date: 2004-10-14 12:52 pm (UTC)Re: Lost
Date: 2004-10-14 12:54 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-10-14 02:27 pm (UTC)HAHAHA I know what you mean. I was raised in a Christian home and every member of my family are hardcore Bible-thumpers and consider Dubya to be only half a step below Christ in the chain of spiritual command. It scares me to death. I told my Mom the other day that she was going to be upset, because my vote was going to cancel hers out. MUHUHAHAHAHA! Yes, I'm definitely the black sheep of the family. ;)
no subject
Date: 2004-10-14 08:04 pm (UTC)