3 posts tagged “rant”
As the April 15th tax filing deadline looms, many gay couples are facing higher tax bills because they do not get the federal tax benefits that accompany marriage. The same is true for heterosexual couples who chose not to get married. Do you think this is fair?
No, I think the situation is totally unfair. The heart of this issue is the gay marriage debate, of which there are generally two significant sides. Those who believe that due to religious reasons, the term "marriage" should be defined as a union between 1 man and 1 woman. The other side is those who don't believe that to be the case. That's nothing you probably didn't already know of course...
I take issue with the individuals who are trying to push a definition of marriage that is consistent with their own religious views. Because at that point we're bringing religion into government and the last time I checked, the government was supposed to be separate from religious views on account of the fact that people in the United States aren't all the same religion.
Additionally, I take issue with the view that we need an amendment to the constitution to "protect the sanctity of marriage" and to define the term as a joining of one woman and one man. The definition of "sanctity" is holiness, or the quality of being holy. Writing this into the the constitution wouldn't make any sense at all. It'd be like writing into the constitution that all citizens are required to pray five times a day in the direction of Mecca or eating non Kosher foods is now totally banned. It's a pushing of ones own religious belief on others which, as you know if you read my previous rantings on religion, I detest on all levels.
What should happen is this, in my view anyway. The government should get involved in marriage as far as providing legal protections to the couple. It shouldn't matter who the couple is, 2 guys, 2 girls, 1 guy/1girl, etc. In the eyes of the law, all people should be equals. Discrimination written into law against homosexuals is no different from discrimination written into law against blacks. It's the same thing with a different target. The government should offer "civil unions" to recognize that two people are together in the eyes of the law, with all of the protections, privileges and associated rights that go along with that as far as things like medical information, death benefits, etc. The government shouldn't even mention the term Marriage, because that has a spiritual significance to it which is what got us into this in the first place.
Where religion should enter into it is, well...within the religion. A spiritual bond should be left up to the individual religions. Because not everybody has the same traditions. The sanctity of marriage will be protected in the only place where it actually means anything...within the context of religion. And with it goes all of the spiritual significance that the individual religions place in the term. If a religion feels that gay marriage is wrong, then they are free to not allow such people to be married in the eyes of the church.
So that's what I think. The government should deal in civil unions which provide protection in the eyes of the law. And marriage (or whatever it's termed in each religion) should stay in the confines of the individual religions.
I hate April Fools Day. With a passion. I always have, and I probably always will. I dislike it because it's a mean spirited holiday, the only intent of which being to make fun of the gullible who fall for the joke.
I'm not against having a little fun or something. I do enjoy some april fools activities, such as thinkgeek.com's annual april fools product lineup as well as whatever trick google usually turns out (such as the google moon base). That style of joke is fine because it's not made at the expense of anyone while still maintaining the spirit of the day.
The jokes/tricks I hate are the ones that target a specific person and tries to get them to believe something that just plain isn't true. To me those aren't funny...they're mean. Usually these are done by individuals and not by large groups, although sometimes they come from websites. News sources and bloggers are the worst offenders because they tend to cook up stories that look sorta real, but end up not being real. However, then you get people who think they are real and base stuff on that. It's a bunch of crap! If you're going to do something make it totally rediculious!
So in conclusion, bah to April 1st!
I feel like I've been scammed somehow. Rant time!
I went over to my parents to watch the 2 hour Grey's Anatomy "event" last night (I'd watch it at my place, but...they have the HDTV...sooo....) and I feel ripped off. Instead of making it an actually interesting story, they took the opportunity to basically intercut the show with footage from the new spinoff pilot they're trying to get picked up.
The spinoff parts were horrible! There was nothing in there that was even remotely like what I enjoy so much about Grey's Anatomy (The quirky humor, the solid evolving storyline, etc). What was there were a ton of jokes about sex and a 5 minute (at least it seemed like 5 minutes) shot of the office receptionist turned surfer boy waxing his surfboard without wearing a shirt.
Yeah, I think I'll pass on the spinoff if it gets picked up, which may actually not happen still, considering most of the comments I've read around the internet this morning have been very, very negative about it. Anyway, even if it was good, I wouldn't watch it on principle. It's not right that they basically hijacked a show, promoted a 2 hour event and gave us a show that was 3/4ths NOT the show they told us we were going to be getting.
Bah. I want that 2 hours of my life back.
