President Obama: Address to Congress

WOW. This was an amazing speech. President Obama touched on several issues including energy independence, tax cuts, the economy, the national debt, our armed forces, the Iraq war, terrorism/extremism, torture, education reform, healthcare reform, parental responsibility, stories of great American spirit, international cooperation, the bailout, and research funding.

This speech (if Obama does well in these times) will go down in history as one of the greatest by a President (yes, I said it). Let no one deny that Obama is a charismatic speaker. Let us hope that he will 'bring it' and keep the momentum going in order to help this nation. Ok, let's get to the speech.

I am going to hit on some points that I enjoyed during the speech, feel free to comment and add your thoughts because I will leave some stuff out.

Let's take a look at research funding first. I think that this issue will lead our nation into very important innovations that will keep us at the cutting edge. Our last leader CUT funding by over 35% and it showed in the research community. It made it much more difficult for researchers to keep very important research moving forward (specifically one of my projects and ACER at Oakwood College). If we commit to research funding we can cure diseases; and President Obama hopes to cure cancer in our lifetime. This leads to another very interesting topic.

Healthcare reform is LONG overdue in our nation. Some may disagree, but I think it is a crime to not allow children access to FREE healthcare. He pointed to several issues that we should tackle (affordability, a new plan/system, bipartisan ideas) and goals we could accomplish. I think the most telling statement was the idea to encourage preventative medicine. This type of medicine will reduce the overall cost of healthcare and should be the focus of this plan.

Another interesting statement was the tax plan that President Obama clarified. Finally (at least to Republicans). He said that only the top 2% of all Americans would experience a tax increase. However, if your family makes less than $250,000 per year, then you will not see a tax increase. AND if you are like the other 95% of working families, then you will receive a tax cut. So, basically this is a great plan...at least, we all hope so.

There were some really touching stories (a bank CEO giving his $60 million to employees and former employees) that reiterated the point that ordinary Americans are far from ordinary. A little girl (last name Bethea) was at her terrible school in South Carolina and wrote a letter to Congress pleading for a new school so that she and her classmates could grow up to be doctors, lawyers, and even President. And the one thing that little girl said that touched me (and Obama) is that they were not quitters! How great is that?

President Obama really brought it home in this speech. We thought that this nation was going down the tubes (and it may be), but Obama is issuing challenges to all Americans. Better yourselves. Turn off the TV. Be with your kids, teach them. Go further in the realm of education. Do these things and our nation will be back on top in all categories. Because, let's be honest, we are behind in education, which leads to being behind everywhere else.

President Obama, I salute you for putting it out there. Saluting our troops and preaching Iraq war responsibility. Getting Americans to commit to volunteer work. This is what we need in a President. CANDOR. HONESTY. MOTIVATION. AND REALISM.

NY Post Cartoon: My Thoughts

Image from NY Post

Ok. I get how everyone wants to react to this as a racist cartoon. I fully understand that sentiment. However, I feel that that is an overreaction. Why you ask? Because of this chimp actually being shot (in the news yesterday), my first reason. But the deeper issue is that the cop is referring to those that wrote and passed the stimulus bill, not President Obama. In my mind, they are saying Congress is a bunch of monkeys (or at least those that wrote the bill).

Having said that, I fully understand that historically (and currently) blacks are referred to as monkeys in hate speech. I get that. But I don't think the cartoon is using the chimp to equal President Obama. This means that no one is saying "kill our monkey president". Thus, we should be outraged by this. What should piss us off are the actual racist policies that continue to bring down this nation. We keep getting angry over what others put in cartoons or say on the radio instead of addressing the fact that the black family's decay is responsible (to a great degree at least) for the large number of blacks in prison or the poor house. Now, I agree that the criminal justice system holds a great responsibility in this as well, but let's stop getting in an uproar of these little things and really address the big problems. Please.

Michael Phelps

I hate this story. Who cares if Michael Phelps, Olympic Champion, smokes weed? I surely don't. And why does it matter? He is still a great swimmer, right? And all this business about criminal charges??? Really????? C'mon. Give me a break.

Let's look at this logically. He took a bong hit...a BONG hit. Did he hurt anyone (maybe himself)? Is he drug dealer? A lot of successful people smoke weed. Now, I'm not saying that doing drugs is okay (your government and medical community say that everyday), but must we vilify anyone who makes a mistake? The crime of 'doing drugs' does hurt the user (and their family to some degree), but is it something that should be punished with jail time? Non-violent offenders should not be imprisoned. What will it benefit them? It will turn them into hardened criminals and aid in the quest for more drugs. If we really wanted to help people, maybe rehab/drug counseling is the best answer.

One cop agrees that Phelps should not be prosecuted for a picture of him 'taking a bong hit'. I say, how can we know that there was weed in that bong? It could also be used to smoke tobacco (a legal drug). Hell, if you take a picture of me drinking alcohol (another widely used legal drug) and then driving, can I go to jail for a DUI?

This writer is for arresting Phelps. How dumb is that? No law enforcement official witnessed the crime. It is a tough sell in court to convict someone on a photo that DOES NOT contain evidence of marijuana. I am highly annoyed with this whole saga. I won't tell you how should think or call you silly for wanting Phelps head on a platter, but we have to remember that weed was only made illegal in 1936 (before that is was widely used) due to back from the oil, tobacco, and paper industries (at least their lobbyist). Therefore, let's have some perspective. And don't throw the "well slavery was legal once too" argument at me. That is ignorant. Slavery harmed an entire segment of people, while weed harms no one (in and of itself) to that degree.

Look, I am tired of those who have issues casting blame on everyone else (I include myself in this at times). We shouldn't judge each celebrity or athlete. Give them a break. They are human beings who make mistakes. If your buddies took a photo of you trying or smoking weed and posted it on Facebook it wouldn't be news at all. Cops wouldn't care or anything. But because Phelps is a "hero" we have to jump on his case. How does this make sense? Get over it America, our "heroes" make mistakes. It's like if we found out that Ben Carson had smoked weed. Does that make him less of a neurosurgeon? NO! He would still be a great doctor, the proof is in his work. Move on...

Too Many Kids

I am not the only person to be upset about this woman in California. Doctors, radio show hosts (Adam Carolla), and everyone else are almost as confused as I am. The biggest thing is that ALL of her children were out of wedlock. Now, I am not so conservative to misunderstand that shit happens and you can have children out of wedlock in our modern society and survive. However, she now has had 14 KIDS out of wedlock. She had the last eight via fertility treatments after she had already had 6 children at home. Excuse me, her mother's home (she still lives with her parents). The mother of 14 has a life goal to become a MOM (yeah, that wasn't a joke). She went to the fertility doctor because she wanted another girl. Really? How selfish is that? She lives with her parents (who recently declared bankruptcy) and can't support herself and her 6 kids, yet she wanted one more? What doctor would give her the treatment if she already had 6 kids? At what point to we draw the line? Well, ma'am, you have 6 kids, fertility is NOT for you. Plus you can't support even one more on your own. This 14 child family will be a drain on the system of the most egregious variety. She doesn't NEED more kids and at some point (if natural methods aren't working) fertility treatments must be denied or regulated.

I hate to rant against this mother (who is 33 years old), but I feel she is irresponsible. The physicians even advised her that they should remove some embryos so that the others would have a greater chance at survival. Nope. So now she has 14 kids, lives at her parents, and will clearly have a difficult time providing for them. This is the debate we should have in our nation. When is it too much of a good thing? I have no problem with large families, but single (or married) moms who live at their mom's house with 6 kids ALREADY...SHOULD NOT GET FERTILITY TREATMENTS!!! The children of this mother are the ones who will suffer the most (due to her selfishness) and that is the saddest thing about this story.

This presents the nation with a very important ethical argument. Can you just procreate regardless of your current situation? And when will our population outgrow the nation's capacity to sustain life? I DO NOT have the answers to these questions, but from this situation to crack babies, we need to start talking about this issue. Maybe abstinence education is not the answer. Maybe we need to be more proactive about educating the masses regarding sex. I don't know. What do you think?

PETA: Publicity front for Extremely Two-Faced A**holes

Oh boy, PETA is at it again. Michael Vick and PETA had an agreement to shoot an anti-dogfighting public service announcement upon Vick's release from prison. I think this was a great idea: one thing I have repeatedly complained about is the willingness of PETA and our society to tear down Michael Vick for his actions, instead of also taking advantage of his position in society to get word out to the entire dogfighting subculture. Vick's representatives asked for one thing: for PETA to give him their support when he asked for re-instatement with the NFL. PETA balks at the request, pulls the offer from the table, and makes the following recommendation:

"Saying sorry and getting his ball back after being caught enjoying killing dogs in hideously cruel ways for many years doesn't cut it," said PETA President Ingrid E. Newkirk. "Commissioner Goodell knows that he has an obligation to the league and to millions of fans, including children who look up to ballplayers as idols, to make sure that Michael Vick is mentally capable of remorse before he can touch, let alone wear, an NFL uniform again."

Ingrid Newkirk, are you for real??? First of all, explain to me what mental capabilities I would need before being able to "touch" an NFL uniform. Your reaction is symbolic of the problems that exist in today's politics and advocacy groups. First, you go after Vick, for a justifiable reason, and in some ways I understand and even commend the work you did to bring light to Vick's horrible acts. Now, when you have an opportunity to do something positive for society, for animals, and for Michael Vick, all you do is try and flex your muscle to get the NFL to bow down to your demands? Who are you helping with this? Who the hell are you to tell the NFL how they should or should not evaluate Michael Vick? You are supporters for ethical treatment of animals. Serve your purpose, do your job, and stop making propaganda and publicity out of every opportunity. You've just lost a tremendous opportunity for curtailing and curbing illegal dogfighting using preventive measures rather than combative ones. You and your organization make me sick.

President Barack H. Obama

WOW. Even typing that title is amazing to me. Maybe I am overexcited and overzealous. Maybe I am not thinking rationally, but going to the inauguration was one of the best experiences of my life. Yes, we had to wake up very early after very little sleep and go stand in line for 30 minutes to get a train in below freezing temperatures, but I would still say it was worth it. We arrived in DC around 6:20am or so. It was below freezing with a brutal windchill, but we were determined to get to the mall and get a great spot. We thought we were wearing enough layers, but 8+ hours in below freezing temperatures will begin to wear on your body...but more on that later. We were sent back and forth (the police were giving conflicting instructions), but finally made it to 12th, where we could enter the mall. After standing for another 45 minutes or so, they finally allowed us to cross around 7:40am.

We entered the mall and couldn't believe how many people we were seeing. It was amazing. They were playing footage from a few days prior (I am unsure if the audience realized this as they responded as if it were live...hilarious), but it was still building the drama. In the back of my mind I was preparing for the worst (bombs, assassination attempts, etc.), but I was hoping for the best. After hours of waiting and being bumped by people that were randomly walking through the crowd (but not really getting anywhere), we caught a glimpse of President Obama on the big screen. The crowd cheered! But then we realized he was with President Bush and most began to boo. The best transition in emotion for crowd response in a long time.

Another great unintentional comedic happening was the mics being on as 'important people' took their seats onstage. Lots of small talk and funny little comments... Finally it was time to bring in the real important people (First Lady Michelle Obama, preceded by the First Daughters...all looking like royalty) and the crowd was eating it up. We began to chant for Obama! We could not wait for the first black President to be sworn in.

After a long prayer by Rick Warren, we finally got to the preliminaries. Vice President Biden, Aretha, and an amazing instrumental ensemble that was ridiculously precise and perfectly 'feeling' each note they played. The chills were beginning. Then we began the swearing in of our President. OUR PRESIDENT!!!! President Obama stumbled through those lines, but that added an air of gravitas to the proceedings that can not be describe. It showed that even cool as silk Obama felt the immense importance of that action (and was appropriately nervous/excited). Here is where things really took off!

The speech began and we all were eager for each word. I can't describe it (seriously, you had to be there), but we felt that we were part of the ceremony. I felt a connection with President Obama. It was surreal. I was immensely proud to be an American. Excited to be cold amongst the throngs. Barely feeling my extremities, yet oddly, fully aware of each word and emotion it invoked within me. It was a great, repeat GREAT, experience. President Obama's speech gave hope to so many and inspired us all. Yes, he man not be the greatest President ever or even decent, but I have hope that our future will brighten slightly...don't you?

What do you mean, "you people"???

As Barack Obama's historic inauguration is right around the corner, I couldn't help but remember all the political propaganda that was being put out this election season, fear of "the black" taking over, mistrust of Obama's religion, heritage, etc. This led me to think about the role of race in my psyche and the impact it's had on my life thus far. One particular topic that keeps coming up is the "all you people" mindset. Here's an example of what I'm talking about:

Five years ago, I had a minor car accident in Baltimore. While I was making a left turn from the middle turn lane at an intersection, the person to the left of me, in a left turn only lane, decided to go straight. We both got out of our cars, and the other driver, who happened to be black was screaming at me. No matter what I said to him (including pointing out the sign that said "left turn only") he wouldn't calm down. Across the street, a security guard saw the commotion and started walking over. Now, the security guard also happened to be black, and I began to have reservations about whether he would be fair to me in his account of the situation, because the other driver was also black. When he came over, he calmed the guy down, made him realize it was his fault, and managed the situation quite nicely.

It bothers me to some degree that I allowed myself to feel the way I did when the security guard was walking over. I know that had the cop been a different ethnicity/race from the driver, I would not have had any qualms about his/her judgment. Alternatively, had the cop been Indian, like me, then I would have had more trust in his ability to see things my way.

As an Indian in America, I have always been a minority everywhere I've lived, and I grew up in a predominantly white area. Despite my exposure to different cultures and people, at some level I can't help but group a race of people together and assume that they have biases which would cause them to forgo their better judgment and support someone from their own race. In other words, in a situation when I am in the minority, surrounded by a group of people predominantly from another race, I expect them to be racist.

This ends up being my mentality when I am in other situations as well. For example, as an American-born Indian, Indian immigrants tend to not respect my values, or sense of Indian culture. If I am in a group of Indian immigrants, I expect a degree of bias against me. The same could hold true for religion, and numerous other types of categorizations that our society places on people.

However, race is such a sensitive issue in this country, this type of thinking has actually been criticized very publicly in the past. If any of you are tennis fans, a few years ago (around 2001), Lleyton Hewitt was playing James Blake, and was unhappy with one of the line judges who happened to be black. He shouted at the chair umpire, and claimed that the line judge was favoring James Blake with his calls, because of his race. Hewitt was blasted in the media, in newspapers, etc. for thinking that way, and was portrayed as ignorant and racist.

I want your opinions on this issue: Do you feel the same way when you're "outnumbered", so to speak? Is it specific to one race of people, all races of people? Would you trust one race of people more than another race? What roles do you feel stereotyping plays in all of this? Do you think this mentality is unique to race for yourselves? Is this type of thinking actually wrong?

In the news again...for all the wrong reasons.

Sadly, Adam Jones is in the news again for another shooting. Watch the ESPN Outside the Lines video below and leave your thoughts.



And here is Adam Jones' "response".



Even if he is completely innocent, we all know that avoiding the appearance of evil is the best policy. Why put yourself in a situation that comprises your image? LAY LOW! Don't go to Atlanta when you are on suspension from the NFL. You know we have great strip clubs. Why tempt yourself? This is why we need to educate folks. It seems to me that Adam Jones is having a hard time keeping away from bad folks. We know that "Slugga" Morris has allegedly extorted money from Jones in the Las Vegas situation. Even if Adam Jones isn't his friend or associated with him in any way, why would he not immediately leave the club if "Slugga" was present? Why go to "Slugga's" stomping grounds? Morris is part of the notorious International Robbing Crew (out of New Orleans and based in Atlanta).

Adam Jones admits to being an alcoholic and claims to attend AA meetings regularly. He also admits he has done wrong. However, if you are already under scrutiny for violence at a strip club, then why don't you stay home. Call a few of your boys, hire some private strippers (saves money in the long run), and party the night away. There will be no threat of violence and no trouble with the NFL.

Adam Jones, I hope you continue to get your act together and surround yourself with positive influences. And STAY OUT OF STRIP CLUBS!!! Please, for your own sake.

Katt Williams and Steve Harvey

I have several thoughts about the recent rift between Katt Williams and Steve Harvey. At first I couldn't care less. I don't think Katt Williams is a great comic. I think he is average at best. I don't think Steve Harvey is a great comic. I think he is average at best. Steve Harvey has laid claim to being one of the original kings of comedy. Katt Williams feels that Richard Pryor, Bill Cosby, Eddie Murphy, and Robin Harris are the original kings. And both are claiming to be better than the other. Why does this bother me? Because I dislike both of their comedy styles. There isn't any intelligence in their comedy. In my opinion, they are only slightly better than BET Comicview (sometimes good, but mostly redundant and ignorant). Comedians must have some intelligence in their acts. Even Richard Pryor, Bill Cosby, and Eddie Murphy brought an intellect to their game. Currently, my top comedians are Paul Mooney (wrote for Richard Pryor) and Dave Chappelle (watch any of his specials...classic!). My all-time favorites include Pryor, Cosby, and Murphy.

Maybe I have a problem. But I can't stand to hear about rims, chicken, and watermelon at every show. Broaden your act! You don't have to give up your "blackness" (check out this Paul Mooney clip, watch the "Analyzing White America" video). I think that we need to speak out against the Katt Williams explosion. He is funny at times, but he brings nothing to the game.

And if you feel differently, please enlighten me. But his comedy seems extremely shallow. He has no range and can't get deeper...

I leave you with this performance...hilarious.

Prop8--Discussion

Below is an email discussion between the authors of this blog.

Theo: I am not sure how many of you have paid attention to the Prop8 protests, but this is a somewhat interesting perspective from the LA Times.

I have said this before (unfortunately I didn't write about it), but blacks didn't vote against gays, the just voted with their principles. Plus, black Americans don't feel that gay Americans have had to deal with the same type of oppression. So, some of us get upset at the notion that we are equally oppressed, etc. You can hide gay, but you can't hide black. Gays weren't slaves, etc. So to put them on equal footing as far as oppression makes some blacks angry.

Thoughts?

Calvin: I agree that gays haven't had to deal with the full brunt of racism or bigotry to the extent that the black race has, but to say that it's a problem that they compare themselves to the black race in terms of the struggle is a bit absurd. Most of the generation that had to deal with the transition of outward racism to undercover bigotry is headin either for retirement or the grave. So if you think about it in its relative terms, they're just comparing themselves to something much more easily definable.
It's like sayin, I love peace like Ghandi loved peace. It's pretty easy to see where I'm going with a statement like that. "I really like peace." Get me?

Theo: I agree with you, but I still think that some blacks feel slighted when the racial struggle is compared with the sexual equality struggle. The key word is some. Also, I wonder how women feel, due to the fact that their struggle is still ongoing in this world (and has been for thousands of years). My point was that the anger with which some gays have attacked and 'fought back' against those who voted for Prop8 is counterproductive. Suddenly, the issue has become a black vs. gay thing. Many have spoke out saying that we should understand their struggle and shouldn't have voted for Prop8 (I somewhat agree with this). However, the issue is that tolerance should be encouraged in all, not just the 70% of blacks who voted for Prop8. The gays were like, 'we voted Obama, now vote down prop8!'. I personally don't think that is the right attitude to have.

Samit: I think you both are justified in how you feel. When I look at this issue, one thing I feel is, at the core of this issue is politics, not the struggle for equal rights.

When the civil rights struggle reached a crescendo in the 60's, blacks were fighting for the basic necessities in a society, equal opportunities in school, the work world, etc. etc. To some extent that struggle is still ongoing, but at least blacks have a chance now...before that wasn't possible.

Gays right now, really are not kept from getting jobs or earning a living. Yes, marriage is an issue for them, but it's more a symbolic issue. When Prop 8 was voted down, gays did lose out. Unfortunately, the political groups that really wanted a yes vote on prop 8 also took a hit. However, their aim is to get more people to buy into their cause, no matter what. By making this a black vs. gay issue, they are able to target a villain that can be blamed for it. Once you have a target, it's easier to get people under one banner. I think this is what's really driving the Black vs. Gay sentiment.

This is something you will see ad nauseum all around the world and in history as well. Before World War II, Germans decided to blame the Jews and Hitler rose to take advantage of it. In India, whenever religious tensions between Hindus and Muslims rose, if a Hindu or Muslim was killed, it immediately was blamed on the "opposing" group and led to a series of riots. In this country, the Japanese were interned, heck just look at this last political campaign. How many times was Obama called a terrorist...you can bet that played a role in getting more people to vote for McCain. I doubt that this issue will escalate to the point of some of these other conflicts, but it still disgusts me that creation of divisions between social groups is considered a legitimate way of doing politics and getting things done. We all should be better than that.

Theo: I agree with most of what you said. However, those against Prop8 don't feel that it is only politics. They want the right to marry and in their minds allowing gays to marry is a symbol of equality. To get off topic (somewhat), I can't see how Prop8 protects marriage. Its insane that this is even an issue. If gays are allowed to marry, I won't go get a divorce and marry a man. Single guys won't stop looking for women or vice versa. If marriage is to be truly protected, divorce should be outlawed and all marriages should be based on a 1year trial period, where the marriage is not fully recognized by the USA until after that year. During the trial period, certain tasks must be accomplished (going to counseling, maybe a written exam or two...I haven't really thought that part out yet). This would help to prevent shotgun weddings and the like. Plus, helping married people out financially wouldn't hurt!!! ;)

Samit: My point wasn't that people who voted against or for prop 8 were making a political decision. I was just saying that the Black vs. Gay sentiment that has been stirred up is due to politics, and people who care more about their own influence than about equal rights.

I agree with everything else you said, although I don't know how the 1 year trial would work...what if they get pregnant? Shouldn't that pre-empt anything that this program would enforce? Then we get into a sticky issue of birth control, preventing pregnancy, or even abortion based on government mandate. It would be hard to enforce.

Calvin: This Samit guy is pretty brainy. I like him. It would get pretty icky tryin to work out that birth control based on government mandate. Talk about big government....

Theo: Pregnancy is covered. Let's say that they get pregnant and it doesn't work out. The child is not at fault, therefore the government (yes big government) will assist the parent with custody (half split if equal custodial rights granted). I use the term assist, because it will be a needs based system. Its socialism somewhat (same as the 'bailout'). Sad to say, but that is how my 'plan' would work. Also, the government would give a $25,000 bonus if you stay married (in good standing...) for at least 5 years (though you would have to go through the INS type scrutiny to prove you weren't lying...Samit :) ). I think this would encourage marriages to last (plus,Cher and I could use the $25,000). The plan isn't perfect, but it isn't the final version either. Think of this as a first draft of sorts. We should probably collect these emails and post them to the blog. As soon as Talitha adds her input.

Calvin: I'm glad you at least called it out for what it is. It's regulation of personal life which is heck-a-big government. And it's a heck of a lot more expensive than saying "no" to gay marriage. LOL! You are a far left democrat aren't you, Theo? You're true colors are shining through. YOU'RE JUST LIKE BARAK HUSSEIN OBAMA!!! Your a socialist!!! You just want to share all the wealth, don't you! You disgust me!

Theo: That's my point. If you truly wanted to protect marriage it would involve too much government. Prop8 doesn't protect marriage at all. And its Barack...lol. Plus, as I said before, gays and lesbians getting married doesn't mean that you and I would want to go find the closest gay guy and head to Cali to elope. How does gay marriage infringe on my rights as a heterosexual married man? It doesn't. One argument I have heard (insane as it is), is that some people only marry to procreate and with gay marriage those 'undercover brothers' would be out and about searching for a gay person to marry. Meaning the end of life on this planet (I added this, but you get my point). If someone is already only getting married to procreate (and they are closet gay), then how does that protect the 'traditional' marriage? And socialism, communism, and capitalism are all man's creations. Nature is never solely one or the other.

Calvin: I hear what Samit is saying. And I think the marriage thing is just a symbolic issue. It's not that they won't be able to have civil unions or anything like that. They still can get the same rights as a married couple. Gays want to redefine marriage to a more broad and all encompassing concept. It's not that necessary except to bring about an acceptance across the board from all people. If they are treated the same, they may be viewed the same. Thought I doubt that is so, I can see the logic in it. I don't know that I agree with it. The reason why black would vote against that idea is because of their own Biblical or religious conviction. Would it be right for them to allow the redefinition of something that they believe God defined as solely between a man and a woman when they had the ability to prevent it?
Our government is not to mix church and state. But It is not that easy a request to make of individuals, though the individuals in government seem not to be able to make that separation themselves.
But this is not a matter of one group feeling superior to another. It's a matter of one group feeling that the other group is asking for something out of line.
I'm not sure if I've made my point but I just started doing my research and lost my place so I think I'm done. Holla if you get me.

Theo: Makes sense to me. Its still a democracy and the majority will win these issues. However, why is an issue like this even necessary for the government to get involved in? Its like Talitha pointed out in her post about social conservatism. We want less government involvement in our finances, but more in our private lives?? It doesn't make sense to me. Who cares what Adam and Steve or Eve and Eva are doing in their bedroom? Soon they will tell married people that certain types of sex or sexual positions are not a part of traditional marriage. That is where we are heading with this merger of Church and State.

Talitha: Sorry for the late entry on this.

What bothers me about Prop8 is that voters decided to change their constitution in order to reflect the "new definition" of marriage. The former California constitution was framed such that it could possibly include homosexual marriage. Proposition 8 was a California ballot proposition that changed the state Constitution to restrict the definition of marriage to a union between a man and a woman and eliminated the right of same-sex couples to marry. I believe the biggest reason people voted for Prop8 was religious. I am a very religious person; however, I am a strong advocate of separation of church and state. As a Christian, my Bible also says in Mark 12:17 to "render unto Cesear, what is Ceasar's and give to God what is God's". (There's a nice Wikipedia article on this) To me this implies that you can have your own moral standards and they can differ from the society that you live in. The ten commandments clearly state what we are supposed to do.

I think that homosexuals should have the constitutional right to marry. Because if we prohibit them from having such rights, we are doing so based on a religious sentiment. Then that begs the question of "whose religion do we choose?". What religion gets to be the standard maker? The Catholic Church? (We'd all be marrying little boys and have like 20 rugrats runnin around our homes [no birth control]...I kid. I kid) Also, if my history serves me correctly, the last time the Catholic church tried to regulate, we got sent into the dark ages. Anyway, I digress...My point is that it creates a slippery slope that says that I can oppose anything in the name of religion. Prop8 opens up the flood gates for religion-based constiutional amendments, which is a dangerous segue to the future and a horrible reminder of the past. There was a time when there was a religious justification for slavery. I think that comparisons can be made to the civil rights movement because as MLK so aptly said in his letter from the Birmingham Jail, "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere".


P.S.
I am engaged to a wonderful black man and my wedding will be off the chain yes or no on Prop8!