Anti-Gay Marriage As Sex Discrimination

It started with this fascinating and challenging post about how denying same-sex couples the right to marry could be sex discrimination, since you are barring a woman from having the same rights as a man (namely, to marry a woman).

This makes much more sense to me than the due process argument, since to me the due process argument focuses more on whether all males or all females are treated the same (which, in my mind they are, since all men can marry woman, and vice versa. Furthermore, all gay men can marry woman, and none are given special consideration. So while you may have a constitutional problem nationwide if some states allow it while others do not, it could swing either for or against, and I'm not sure that is the argument you want to take to the court.).

I think, however, that this response is a pretty good take down of the sex discrimination argument. I especially liked the bar mitzvah/bat mitzvah comparison. Woman and men in Isreal - and Judiasm, I assume - get different ceremonies with different levels of respect, even. But both get ceremonies. I realize a "civil union" is distasteful for some, and probably rightfully so for a number of reasons, but I'm not sure it has to be, or even should be. People aren't ashamed of honory doctoretes.

This is especially insightful, or at least especially close to my viewpoint:

It strikes me that both sides have a point, and most likely the best thing for
courts to do under such circumstances, where they’d basically just have to take
sides in a culture war pitting feminists against religious and cultural
traditionalists, is to stay out of it–so long as analogous rights and
obligations are available to the plaintiff through an analogous ceremony, in
this hypo the bat mitzvah.

That said, there are two easy answers: remove government from what is essentially religious ceremony/determination (in fact, proponents of Prop 8 frequently point to the original, religious meaning as their lynchpin) and make all such unions contractual, or pass gay marriage laws state-by-state.

New Blog Design

In all the free time I have while not editing my book, I updated the look of my blog. Granted, it took like 5 clicks. And you should know that despite the ease (or because of it?) its probably not a settled and finished product. Which won't matter much if you read this through an RSS feed. You do read this through an RSS feed, right? I mean, you aren't so old fashioned that you visit the websites you read, are you?

More updates likely to come, as they say.

Or as websites used to say in the days before everyone had one... Under Construction.

Religious Religion v. Religious Athiesm

On facebook I have a couple very religious people, and one or two pretty open athiests, or at least religion hating people.

I have obvious problems with the former, but you would think I wouldn't have as many with the later. You'd be wrong. I actually have more problems with them, becuase to some degree they speak for me. Not that I'm athiest. I waver between Diest and Agnostic, most days.*

Anyway, here is a great article on why athiesm has become what it hates: http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/site/article/12030/

I would add that we on this side of the spectrum don't want angry athiests, or even anti-religion athiests. I like my athiest happy, having reached that point by choice and reason, and not to avenge to some wrong. Being athiest, or even agnostic doesn't mean you have to hate religion or the religious. We are all just trying to find our way on this big rock. Why should I care how you do it any more than you care how I do?

Sometimes I sound like a hippie to myself.

*If you want the whole "where I stand currently" post, here it is: Currently, I don't believe that to the extent God could exist, he would interfere in human activity at all. But I also can't believe he would create a world where dementia and Alzhiemer's disease exists. You can do a pretty good job of bringing the pain down on the human race for original sin without those two dingers. No God would create a world where they exist - at least not a thinking, all-knowing, all-caring one like I was brought up to believe.

Now, on to the "all-knowing." Sure, sure, I can't comprehend his plan. Maybe Alzhiemer's patients are actually off in some soul-heaven where they glide down lollipop slides and cuddle with cloud bears filled with pure love. And maybe its his plan that if I jump out my window a piebald unicorn will glide softly under me and save me - but I'm not going to believe it will.

Having said all that, I'm watched a lot of Nature shows on the universe, and I think I have a fairly good understanding of the science of creation, the big bang and the origin of the universe. I believe in the big bang. What came before that, or how that bang got its start... it seems to me if there are 5 different scientific theories, and no one is sure which one is correct, there is at least a chance that "God did it" is the answer.

Let's say sciences comes to the conclusion that there are 1,000s of universes lined up in vibrating strings, and when those strings touch a new big bang occurs. That is one theory out there. It still begs the question: who or what pulls the strings. To me, science has gotten us to point X, and I'm willing to accept everything it has to tell us. But once you get really, really macro level, really big picture, science falls apart a bit. I'm not saying science can't or won't figure it out, but I'm also not saying that God isn't the thing in between all the particles. I just don't know. Diest Agnostic.

Updates

I haven't posted in so long that my RSS feed at work doesn't have any posts from me in it, so it must be time for an update:

- My 100 pushup challenge failed miserably. More miserably than last time. This time it took a whole week to fail. Not like last time where I followed it for like a month. This time around the fail was dedicated. It was determined.

- On the positive, I started doing 200 pushups per day, and segued into doing a push-up based workout routine from the Bible that is essentially a push up and a burpee done back to back. Envy the muscle; envy the muscle.

- I owe a shout out to my sister on two accounts: first, for copy editing the book I wrote for my kids and wife. Thank you. Also, for giving me motivation to start reediting my book. I haven't actually started yet, but I'm envisioning starting. I'm thinking really long and hard about it, so that is something. I think I'm going about it a different way this time: editing online rather than in hard copy form. Printed words are for suckers and the old, right?

- I have nearly constant money worries, even though I'm/we're OK. I've always worried more about money than was probably healthy, but now its taken on a whole new variety of torture: Instead of just worrying about money, I now worry that I'll lose my job, never find another, and my kids won't respect me. Nice.

I think that is it for now. Another new post coming soon.

Some thoughts on 2012

I would ordinarily do a "Better Bryan 2012", but I'm thinking about doing something just a little bit different than that tired trope.


Instead, I'm considering two actions:


1: email every one of my Facebook friends and say some kindness about them or some good memory I have of them.


2: For every "non-necassary" item I purchase, either purchase the same for donation, or donate some percentage of the cost of the item. On second thought, I would just donate the money.

Hop on Mom and Pop

You hear a lot about buying local these days. Buy local food. Avoid Wal-Mart and shop at local Mom & Pop stores. In the later instance, I guess you spend a day going to 15 different stores, but whatever.

Meanwhile, over at PointofLaw.com, the site notes a story involving a guy complaining about Amazon's new push to have people post price information. The guy complains on Facebook about the policy and and says he will boycott Amazon. One assumes the guy is upset that the prices at most local stores won't beat Amazon, thus hurting those businesses.

PointofLaw notes that Facebook itself has put a couple businesses out of business (Friendster, anyone?), and couples with Gawker to put the squeeze on local newspapers.

Further, many of the localavores (at least on my Facebook) use Netflix, which essentially killed local Blockbusters, listen to music on iPods that helped kill local record stores, etc. etc. etc.

The road to hell is paved with canned goods

I'm a bit of a contrarian at heart, and I love when "common wisdom" is wrong; when doing action "A" has a perverse, unintended affect. In fact, I love unintended consequences altogether. Not that I love when they happen, only when I spot them.

Meanwhile, at this time of year, plenty of offices and groups are doing canned food drives. And plenty of people are feeling good about dropping off that can of tuna or soup.

Turns out your good deed might be done better a different way, and might actually do some harm.

All that food can overwhelm food banks. Not to mention that they now have 700,000 cans of high-sodium food to distribute to people who may have high-blood pressure, or jars of peanuts that can't be given to people with allergies. Or some godawful can of creamed something or other that no one knows what to do with.

Not to mention, apparently the food banks can buy the food cheaper than you ever could. Like $0.10 on the dollar cheaper, so it makes much more sense to simply send them a check that they can use to buy food they actually need for their clients. As the article says, eat the can of tuna and donate half its value to a food bank and you've done a much better deed.

As they say, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

UPDATE: The original title of this post was "In a canned pickle". Like either one better?