Monday, May 17, 2010

Regardless of the fact that I may be speaking to a nearly empty parish I feel that this is something that needs to be shouted on all forums available.

There are rules in our society made to prevent one man from killing, robbing, or otherwise hurting another and thereby preventing some of his basic inalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, but what would one gay man marrying another gay man hurt.....who would it hurt??

I'm conservative, I'm not used to being around just anyone who is gay and sometimes I do get uncomfortable, but we cannot and should not be able to outlaw an entire group of people's ability to be happy simply because it makes us uncomfortable and we don't want it happening in OUR towns or in OUR churches.

First of all, it's not going to happen in your churches if your religion doesn't allow it, and that is how it should be. We should make those decisions within our church not on a national level. Separation of church and state can and should work both ways. No religion should be able to force its ideals upon a nation enveloping everyone to one narrow-minded point of view (see Iran). The United States is too great to be so petty. WE are too great to penalize anyone, regardless if you believe that it is a choice or not.

Secondly, how can people consider marriage sacred anymore? It has been massacred by divorces, cheating husbands and wives, open marriages, Las Vegas, and Anna Nicole. What is sacred about an institution that it seems is only temporary? Only kept sacred when it is beneficial? Only used to gain? What is sacred about that??

Finally, it's too late, its a huge conspiracy and there are gays everywhere. But seriously gays are involved in every level of government and are in every society so why try to keep out those that are already in. Unless we want to go on witch hunts, we will just have to grow up and accept that unlike the Loch Ness Monster they exist, they are here, and they are accept it and move on....for its not hurting you or anyone else.

Wednesday, May 05, 2010

The Road to Hell

By this point, everyone has heard and made some preliminary opinion on the law passed in Arizona that makes it legal for a law officer with any “reason of suspicion” and making a “lawful” stop can demand proof of citizenship.

I for one still haven’t made up my mind about the law.

On one side, I have a strong belief that we have protections from the government written throughout the Constitution. We should be free to live our lives peacefully without the intrusion of the government. Since I am a US citizen, I should not have to prove myself to the government on a daily basis.

On the other hand, I have read and heard the horror stories of living in suburban upper-class neighborhoods next door to “drop houses” where tens of illegal immigrants are living and where gunshots are commonplace. “Four years ago this neighborhood was poodles and old ladies. Now it's absolutely insane," a man too frightened to give his name told Newsweek ( “It's terrifying to live next door to homes filled with human traffickers, drug smugglers, AK-47s, pit bulls, and desperate laborers stuffed 30 to a room, shoes removed to hinder escape.”

To what lengths would I go, would you go, to ensure our family’s safety under these frightening conditions?

Does this imply that I think this law is just? No. However, I do empathize with those experiencing such fear that they latch onto the one idea, good or not, presented that will have an immediate impact.

The intent of this law is to make neighborhoods that once had kids playing outside safe again, but the reality is that this law could be used to racially discriminate against the majority of good Latin-Americans. That would be a terrible thing for America to allow. The intention is good, but everyone knows, “The road to hell is paved with good intentions.”

Monday, March 15, 2010

Smoking Bans

Freedom. It has so many meanings that sometimes it is hard to pin down what exactly it means. Often times, people arguing contradictory sides of an issue can both invoke this word and use it without making either argument untrue.

I know this essay started out with a high idea that’s really hard to get one’s head around, but I only brought it up because I have actually used it to argue both sides of the issue of a smoking ban. I originally felt that it should not be up to any government to control how I can operate my own property and place of business. I should have the freedom to own and operate on my business without interference from any other entity telling me how.

Then, I grew up. I realized that first of all the government tells businesses and individuals a hundred times a day what they can and cannot do. If I owned a bar, I cannot open and close whenever I want. I can’t even serve alcohol without the government issuing me a license. So, the government has more control over my hypothetical bar than anyone even realizes. Why should it be out of line for the government to control smoking in bars?

Secondly, and much more importantly I think, is the fact that second hand smoke is terrible for everyone around. Hell, second-hand smoke is listed as a Group A carcinogen. I can guarantee that if I tried to defend my right to keeping other Group A carcinogens in any business my argument quickly falls apart. Could you imagine someone actually trying to keep asbestos or radon in their place of business? That is what we are dealing with here…second-hand smoke is in the same category as asbestos and people are really trying to defend it!!! Banning smoking in bars is not an attack of a smoker’s right to smoke.
Oliver Wendell Holmes said it right when he said, “The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins.” You have every right in the world to smoke…but that right ends when you put my life in danger every time you light up.

It is and very definitely should be within the council’s ability and actually in their best interest to pass a ban on smoking.