All right, we'll take a break from my cynical editorials for a day.
...And talk about the hilarity that ensued when a majority of the United States got Rickroll'd today. How ironic, I guess, that a meme such as the Rickroll would become so well-known as to actually merit recognition like this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iXJnOjAGR24
Now you can't refute it.
That's two cents from a turkey-comatose Brain Box. Cheers, everyone.
11.27.2008
11.12.2008
Proposition 8: GRUMBLE PROTEST GRIPE
I'm appalled. Truly appalled, sickened, disgusted, outraged, infuriated, and generally ANGRY!
http://www.smartvoter.org/2008/11/04/ca/state/prop/8/
SEE THIS?! Proposition 8, the single greatest TRAVESTY OF JUSTICE THIS NATION HAS SEEN IN YEARS. I can't even write a proper editorial of this ridiculousness, my hands are shaking too badly.
...Ok, I can do this. I swear.
The very basis of Proposition 8 is discriminatory, first off. Denying the right to civil union- most often erroneously referred to as “marriage”- to someone based on their sexual preference is an archaic standpoint that has no place in a contemporary world- or even in this nation as of its founding. The First Amendment of the United States Constitution states such clearly, and I QUOTE IN FULL:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
Let's focus on the first two segments- establishment of religion, and prohibiting the free exercise thereof. It clearly states that no law as created by Congress may be derived from a religious institution. Institution, here, may take two meanings- either meaning a religious body, such as a church, or meaning a theological institute of society, such as excommunication. In either case, this is unacceptable.
The term “marriage” is often used to refer to a civil union, because the two acts are largely synonymous. A marriage by theological standards “makes two as one,” indicating a strong bond of love between the two participants of said bond. A civil union is the legal recognition of said bond, which results in a reduced tax rate and various other legal perks for the two participants.
I'm fine with the notion that marriage as a religious institution could be labeled as the union between a man and a woman. That's their own decision. As a social institution, this simply cannot stand- the United States of America is comprised of people with a myriad of differing religious and social views, as evident by my and others' protest of this heinous Proposition. Enforcing a religious doctrine's stance upon society at large in such a way is quite reminiscent of the days when the Catholic church endorsed the Inquisition, or when the Crusaders slaughtered hundreds of thousands of innocent men, women, and children simply for maintaining a different doctrine than their own. Enforcing it as a legal institution? Simply ABHORRENT. This single act has paved the way for a theocratic state to form, in clear defiance of the wishes of this nation's founding fathers. Our forefathers fled England to escape religious persecution, and to guarantee that the descendants and inhabitants of this nation would no longer be plagued by such archaic bigotry. They did NOT enable such a blatant violation of innocent citizens' rights, NOR WOULD THEY ENDORSE IT!
Second in my list of complaints here- look at the advertising for Proposition 8! Search Youtube for the videos, or use your favorite search engine to locate them. They bombard the viewer with loaded statements and unilateral standpoints, with no presentation of the simple and unbiased truth that such an act PREVENTS LAW-ABIDING CITIZENS FROM ENJOYING THE RIGHTS PROMISED BY OUR LEGAL SYSTEM FOR TWO HUNDRED PLUS YEARS.
You know what, let's go back to the language here. Using “marriage” when one means to refer to a civil union leads people to believe that they are not infringing upon anyone's rights with this act- when the sad fact is, it's restricting a legal institution to be accessible only by those whom this particular religious doctrine favors.
Don't believe me when I say this is being controlled by religious bodies? Take a look.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2008/10/now-the-mormon.html
This should suffice.
I hate this.
That's two cents from a perpetually-irked Brain Box.
http://www.smartvoter.org/2008/11/04/ca/state/prop/8/
SEE THIS?! Proposition 8, the single greatest TRAVESTY OF JUSTICE THIS NATION HAS SEEN IN YEARS. I can't even write a proper editorial of this ridiculousness, my hands are shaking too badly.
...Ok, I can do this. I swear.
The very basis of Proposition 8 is discriminatory, first off. Denying the right to civil union- most often erroneously referred to as “marriage”- to someone based on their sexual preference is an archaic standpoint that has no place in a contemporary world- or even in this nation as of its founding. The First Amendment of the United States Constitution states such clearly, and I QUOTE IN FULL:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
Let's focus on the first two segments- establishment of religion, and prohibiting the free exercise thereof. It clearly states that no law as created by Congress may be derived from a religious institution. Institution, here, may take two meanings- either meaning a religious body, such as a church, or meaning a theological institute of society, such as excommunication. In either case, this is unacceptable.
The term “marriage” is often used to refer to a civil union, because the two acts are largely synonymous. A marriage by theological standards “makes two as one,” indicating a strong bond of love between the two participants of said bond. A civil union is the legal recognition of said bond, which results in a reduced tax rate and various other legal perks for the two participants.
I'm fine with the notion that marriage as a religious institution could be labeled as the union between a man and a woman. That's their own decision. As a social institution, this simply cannot stand- the United States of America is comprised of people with a myriad of differing religious and social views, as evident by my and others' protest of this heinous Proposition. Enforcing a religious doctrine's stance upon society at large in such a way is quite reminiscent of the days when the Catholic church endorsed the Inquisition, or when the Crusaders slaughtered hundreds of thousands of innocent men, women, and children simply for maintaining a different doctrine than their own. Enforcing it as a legal institution? Simply ABHORRENT. This single act has paved the way for a theocratic state to form, in clear defiance of the wishes of this nation's founding fathers. Our forefathers fled England to escape religious persecution, and to guarantee that the descendants and inhabitants of this nation would no longer be plagued by such archaic bigotry. They did NOT enable such a blatant violation of innocent citizens' rights, NOR WOULD THEY ENDORSE IT!
Second in my list of complaints here- look at the advertising for Proposition 8! Search Youtube for the videos, or use your favorite search engine to locate them. They bombard the viewer with loaded statements and unilateral standpoints, with no presentation of the simple and unbiased truth that such an act PREVENTS LAW-ABIDING CITIZENS FROM ENJOYING THE RIGHTS PROMISED BY OUR LEGAL SYSTEM FOR TWO HUNDRED PLUS YEARS.
You know what, let's go back to the language here. Using “marriage” when one means to refer to a civil union leads people to believe that they are not infringing upon anyone's rights with this act- when the sad fact is, it's restricting a legal institution to be accessible only by those whom this particular religious doctrine favors.
Don't believe me when I say this is being controlled by religious bodies? Take a look.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2008/10/now-the-mormon.html
This should suffice.
I hate this.
That's two cents from a perpetually-irked Brain Box.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
