Credit to rocketkidzz on deviant art

There was a show called Dexter that was quite popular a few years ago. I had co-workers who kept trying to get me to watch the show, because they knew that I watched a huge number of procedural crime shows and I liked to read books about serial killers.

It was research for a book, I swear. Someday I might even finish writing it.

Anyway, I wasn’t interested. Maybe I’m weird, but I’ve always liked my shows and movies to be a little more black and white than a show where the hero is a psychopath serial killer committing bloody murders of other serial killers.

That’s more or less the reason I refuse to get involved in a show like Hannibal. I know it’s popular, trust me. I have a tumblr account and half the people I follow seem to be morbidly obsessed with the show, but something one of them said finally got me thinking and I watched a couple of episodes.

Which left me feeling a little worried about the fans.

See in Dexter (yes, I watched an episode or two before writing this) the main character is something of a principled psychopath. He has rules and, while his activities are morally ambiguous at best and obviously illegal, he is almost doing a public service. He’s like a trash collector…with no emotions and a lot of knowledge about how to kill and dispose of human bodies (depending on how much you know about the beginning of trash collection on the East coast, you might say there isn’t much difference at all).

But Hannibal…that’s a different story.

The problem is that I don’t think the writers were trying to create a show where the main character would end up getting the fans to humanize him and think that cannibalism was a huge joke, but fans in this day and age are a little weird. Give them a show with canon heterosexual love interests (or no love interests at all) and they will find a way to “ship” two males in the show in the most disturbing way ever.

Hey, I’m not judging (mostly) I’ve done it too!

Sometimes it’s like the writers *cough*JJAbrams*cough* are intentionally making the heterosexual canon couple so unpalatable and disfunctional *cough*Uhura/Spock*cough* that the relationship between the two male best friends seems a lot more romantic and rational *cough*Kirk/Spock*cough*

But still, the very concept of “shipping” Will Graham and Hannibal Lector is a bit…far fetched, and more than a little disturbing.

I think this really makes me wonder about society. Why is it that people are watching a show about a serial killer, who essentially kills people who he doesn’t like or whenever his freezer is getting a little empty, are humanizing him and giggling about how “cute” he is with his “family” (the daughter of serial killer who killed his wife and nearly slashed his daughter’s throat).

Admittedly there are fans who recognize that the character is not something to humanize and that he is quite evil and not “adorable” at all, but they seem to be in the minority on websites like tumblr.

In the end I’m left more than a little creeped out and a lot less inclined to go to dinner parties thrown by anyone who is a fan of the show.

Okay, the lens flare here might have been a bit over-dramatic.

Someone is going to get pissed off because of that title, just watch.

There will probably be spoilers for Man of Steel in this post. I warned you.

I’m not the most religious person in the world. I classify myself as a Deist, half because I think it’s a rational view of things and it fits with my own spirituality and half because I’m just really lazy about religion.

But I do know my Bible (won first prize in Bible trivia at my Christian school, 2 years in a row…in elementary school) and while I may not be a Biblical scholar, I do pride myself in recognizing Biblical references a lot more often than your average schmuck in a movie theater. Especially after seeing how little my peers (even the religious ones) knew about Biblical symbolism when reading The Scarlet Letter.

So upon my 3rd viewing of Man of Steel last night, I noticed a few things. (Yes, I’ve seen it 3 times and yes I’m aware it’s only been out for 3.5 days).

Let me start by saying that this is not one of those times that I feel offended by a comparison of a pop culture character to Jesus Christ. When some people do it *cough*Superman Returns*cough* I get a little annoyed because it’s heavy handed and really doesn’t apply, but with Superman: Man of Steel, it’s sort of fitting.

And now that I’m more than 200 words into this post, let’s talk about the actual topic.

There are numerous Biblical references in this movie. The most obvious of which is Jor El sending his only son to Earth, of course his original purpose was not the save mankind, but he does end up uttering the lines “you can save all of them” to Clark, about halfway through the film.  Also as Justin Craig at Fox News pointed out, Kal El had rather a “miraculous” birth himself, being as he was the first “natural  birth” on Krypton in centuries.

Two of the next ones come as a pair if you really want to understand them. When Superman “surrenders” to mankind he references his age of 33 years (Scientist:”You might be carrying some alien pathogen.” Superman:”I’ve been living here for 33 years, I haven’t infected anyone yet.”) which was the number of years that Jesus was supposed to have lived. During that time on Earth, Clark traveled extensively and performed several “miracles” (or “acts of God” as one character calls them). He saves a bus load of school kids when he’s around 12 or 13 years old (I’m approximating, as the movie never states an age), saves men working on an oil rig that is about to explode, and saves Lois Lane’s life, among other things.

Then at the end of that he decides to “surrender” to mankind in order to save them from General Zod.

Sound familiar?

The only thing missing is that he didn’t have his 12 best friends travelling around with him.

Now I approximated Clark’s age when he saved the school bus as about 12. This is partially based on way the actors in the scene look (and the insults they use…”dicksplash” is sort of middle school), but also based on the Biblical symbolism we see throughout the film. It’s at 12 that Jesus finds himself in the temple, talking to priests about his “father” and it is after this “miracle” that Jonathan Kent decides to reveal Clark’s own origins.

One of the final (and most obvious) of the symbolic moments is that prior to Clark’s surrender he visits a church to speak to a priest about his doubts. Behind him is a stained glass window depicting what seems to be Jesus in the garden of Gethsemane, praying to his father about his own doubts. The priest tells Clark, who has doubts as to whether the people of Earth can be trusted anymore than Zod can, that “sometimes you have to take a leap of faith first, trust comes later” which helps Clark make his decision to work with mankind, rather than hiding from Zod.

Thankfully that’s about where the symbolism ends. They did not pull a “he’s in a coma for 3 days and then he wakes up!” moment, a la Superman Returns…which was just painful, but the symbolism they do use of Superman being a guiding force for good and a person who, ultimately, is trying to inspire good in people who “stumble and fall” in following him, is the right kind of religious symbolism.

Also, FYI, before you leave me a message saying this was “boring” or “obvious” just be glad that I didn’t get into the political symbolism. That’s another post altogether, thank Superman.

______________________

(Yes, I’m aware that someone else has probably written a similar article to this one, but you’d rather read my writing right?)

Basically, yeah. Get your nose out of my business and go shopping somewhere else.

Yesterday I wrote:

Someone with a private business wouldn’t make you a cake and you felt “dehumanized”, talk about being a complete wimp. Get over yourselves and grow up. You are acting like a 12 year old girl.

Yes, I’m pissed, because this goes against everything a believe about private business. You should be able to discriminate at will in a private business and I can discriminate at will on whether I shop there.

The free market, it’s a beautiful thing.

And I guess I need to explain that a little more fully.

Or maybe just repeat myself.

Look, if you have a private business, whether that is a restaurant, bakery, or an apartment complex or rental home or any other business that you privately own (meaning you have no government subsidies and no shareholders to keep happy) you can, or should, be allowed to discriminate at will.

Now if you decide to discriminate against people (you won’t serve Jews, rent to gays, or hire black people) you may take a blow to your business. This is because of the free market, the same reason why I believe in your right to discriminate. The free market means that you are undoubtedly not the only restaurant, bakery, apartment complex, or landlord within a reasonable distance and if you turn away customers, who then go talk to their friends and family and tell them not the shop there for whatever reason (even if they aren’t Jewish, gay, or black. I’m white and still wouldn’t to a KKK restaurant) that is not good publicity and chances are your local news will catch wind of it and you will end up with loss of business.

I support your right to discriminate. I don’t have to like you for discriminating.

A good businessman usually cares more about their bottom line than they do about the sexuality, race, or religion of their customer. Despite the fact that, if I owned a business, I might be tempted to charge every moron wearing a Che Guevara shirt or driving around with an Obama sticker on their car a 10% increase on services just for dealing with their stupidity, but I highly doubt I would actually do that because it would be really bad for my company’s business.

But I should be able to do that if I want too.

Understand?

Before I’m done I will explain my two exception to this rule.

The first is hard and fast. If you have government subsidies, whether state or federal, (like the first apartment I ever lived in, it was low income housing and the owners received subsidies for that) you can’t discriminate.

Why? Because I pay taxes, Jews pay taxes, gay people pay taxes, black people, white people, yellow people all pay taxes.

Where do your government subsidies come from? Oh that’s right, taxes. So if I’m helping pay for you to run your business, you shouldn’t be discriminating against me.

My second exception has more to do with your investors and shareholders and your relationship with them.

If you are only discriminating against people your shareholders and investors are against as well, you probably won’t have a problem. If your investors don’t like your discriminating tendencies there are three options, they can take their money elsewhere, you can change your practices to keep them happy, or they can ignore the situation as long as their investment is making them money.

And in some cases, your investors will WANT you to discriminate against someone. Guess what, it your business. They can take their money elsewhere.

Starbucks did it.

Basically, if you run your own business or don’t care what your investors think, you should be able to run your business as you want.

If someone doesn’t like how you operate, they can go somewhere else.

The free market bitches.

When it comes to getting people to accept you in general society, there is a little give and take. You aren’t going to get everyone in the world to accept you, someone is always going to have some problem with you, as the Pink song says:

Done looking for the critics, cause they’re everywhere

They don’t like my jeans, they don’t get my hair*

You really just have to learn to love yourself and stop worrying what other people think so much, but the gay left is so hyper sensitive that everything is a direct attack on them and every one and every thing that goes against them makes them so angry that they have to attack attack attack constantly.

Frankly I pity them.

The specific reason for this post is to remind the gay left that suing people and getting them sent to jail because they wouldn’t bake you a cake, is sort of the epitome of childishness and isn’t do you any favors when it comes to gaining acceptance with others.

Masterpiece Cakeshop, owned by Jack Phillips and based near Denver, Colorado, is at the center of the dispute after David Mullins and Charlie Craig attempted to order the baked good from the business last summer.

Phillips, declining to provide service after learning of the couple’s sexuality, cited his Christian beliefs. But Mullins and Craig aren’t accepting Biblical arguments as a viable basis for the refusal.

“We were all very upset, but I was angry and I felt dehumanized and mortified,” Mullins said in an interview with the Associated Press.

- The Blaze

Oh boo-fucking-hoo.

Someone with a private business wouldn’t make you a cake and you felt “dehumanized”, talk about being a complete wimp. Get over yourselves and grow up. You are acting like a 12 year old girl.

Yes, I’m pissed, because this goes against everything a believe about private business. You should be able to discriminate at will in a private business and I can discriminate at will on whether I shop there.

The free market, it’s a beautiful thing. **

Suing people just makes you both look like dicks, you get that right?

David and Craig, put on your big boy panties (or big girl panties, if that’s your thing, I don’t judge. I sleep in boxers) and get over it. Get your cake elsewhere!

What is it with people who feel the intense need to force themselves on people who don’t want them around? I mean, I understand the urge. I go to the farmer’s market with a re-usable NRA tote bag for my organic vegetables just to piss people off, but if they kicked me out I wouldn’t sue them for it. I would find a new place to buy my tamales and pickled okra and move on with my life.

Either you want to get through life like normal human beings who deal with being rejected on occasion or sue your way through life.

One way will gain you acceptance or at least the “tolerance” that you so highly value, the other will just end up justifying the disgust you get from people who believe you are trying to ram your gayness down everyone’s throats.***

You sue bakeries, and churches, and bed and breakfasts and then you wonder why people are saying crazy things about churches being forced to perform gay marriages.

The precedent is there. You want to force everyone to act the way you want and then sue them or put them in jail when they don’t.

So much for tolerance.

“It gets better” as long as you do exactly what we tell you to.

_________________________

*Well that second line isn’t important, I just like it.

**And yes, I feel that applies to any private business. If I owned a duplex and didn’t want to rent to someone based on any reason whatsoever, I should be allowed to. If I was a Nazi (which I’m clearly not, some of my best friends are Jewish*) and didn’t want to rent to Jews, that should be my right…and, well, why would Jews want to live in a duplex next to a Nazi anyway?

- On a second note, if I walked into a bakery and wanted to order a cake for a Bat Mitzvah and it turned out the place was run by Nazis and they wouldn’t bake a cake for a Jew, I would leave and go to another bakery. I would tell all my friends about the Nazi bakery and they might lose business, but I would not sue them.

- And what if I ordered a cake from a bakery, not knowing it was run by Nazis, and then I cancelled the order upon learning they opened their bakery every day with a few stanzas of Horst-Wessel-Lied followed by a Heil Hitler or two. Could they sue me for discrimination?

***No innuendo meant…maybe.

_________________

*No seriously, I’m not a Nazi

Like today, there was an article in one of my local online papers. The story was that Arizona apparently is the 2nd to last state on the list when it comes to education funding. 

We only spend $7,666 per student, as opposed to Washington D.C. (the 2nd highest in per education spending) which spends $18,475 per student.

The article wasn’t intended to be negative, in fact I think that the Arizona Capitol Times is one of the few truly fair and non-biased papers we have in Arizona, so I don’t take offense at the coverage. I do however take offense at the lack of depth to the reporting, which was likely in deference to appearing non-biased.

In the report they offered a list of the states which spend the least per student and the states which spend the most and that was that. They did no extra delving into those numbers.

Thanks to AZ Capitol Times for the data list

So I crunched the numbers for them.

No need to thank me.

So you are looking at these numbers and thinking “Well, maybe the idea that higher education spending is better is right? I mean, Idaho? Oklahoma? Mississippi? Nothing there but rednecks and hillbillies right?”

Thanks to being what the “elite” like to call “flyover country” these states have gotten a generally bad rap. People from the south and mid-south are just dirty hicks who run around barefoot and say things like “y’all” and “fixin’to” instead of speaking like an “educated” person.

While I will admit to saying y’all on occasion, I deny the barefoot part. There are some nasty, stickery plants that grow in the grass in the mid-south (plus fire ants and scorpions) so bare feet are generally discouraged.

Anyway, back to the main point.

These states get a bad rap, but when you look at their SAT scores and graduation rates, they are on par (or doing significantly better than) the top 5 spending states.

Let’s look at graduation rates first. I average the rates for each set of states. The top 5 states had a combined average graduation rate of 74%.

The bottom 5 states had a combined average of 76.8% graduation.

Wait a minute, their average is 2.8% higher than the big spenders. That’s weird.

Of course you could blame that on Alaska and the District of Columbia ruining it for everyone else, their graduation rates are absolutely abysmal. 68% in Alaska and 59% in DC. New York (77%), New Jersey(83%) and Vermont(87%) have rates that are not far from the other 5 states rates. Utah (76%), Idaho (84%), Oklahoma (70.7%), Arizona (78%) and Mississippi (75%).

Funny, you would think that with more than twice the spending per student those top tier states would have a better graduation rate.

Oh well, you can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make them drink right? Surely the students who graduate and go on to college are doing better  than the students who are college bound in the low tier states.

Let’s look at their SAT scores.

Here’s where things get really interesting.

Because the low tier states have a combined average SAT score of 1633.8

The high tier states only have a combined average SAT score of 1481.4

A 152.4 difference in favor of states which spend significantly less money.

In fact, not a single state in the high tier scored a better average than the low tier states.

SAT scores

Utah – 1674                                                               New York – 1461

Idaho – 1601                                                             District of Columbia – 1382

Oklahoma – 1684                                                     Alaska – 1524

Arizona – 1544                                                          New Jersey – 1506

Mississippi – 1666                                                    Vermont – 1537

In fact, the two lowest scores, New York and DC, are the two biggest education spenders per student.

Between the lowest and highest spenders there is almost no difference in graduation rate (76% and 77%) and the lowest spender has an average SAT score that is 213 points higher (which is not an insignificant difference).

So keep telling me how I “hate education” and “want students to suffer” because I don’t want, yet another, spending increase for education.

The numbers don’t back you up. Money is not the answer.

*shiver*

@captainisraelp FUCK YOU PIECE OF SHIT JEW! You are less than a dirty pig! #REVERSETALMUD #Asshole in your FACE

— Celeste Fassbinder ツ (@celesfassbinder) June 2, 2013

Wow, the morons are in full force tonight CIP RT @captainisraelp: RT @celesfassbinder: @captainisraelp FUCK YOU PIECE OF SHIT JEW! You…

— MeredithAncret (@MeredithAncret) June 2, 2013

@meredithancret I asked you something whore?

— Celeste Fassbinder ツ (@celesfassbinder) June 2, 2013

@meredithancret You old dirty Bitch Jew, Anti-Semitic shit. Stop Killing Semite children ASSHOLE – #ISRAHELL

— Celeste Fassbinder ツ (@celesfassbinder) June 2, 2013

Classy. No you didn’t, but I can call out Anti-Semites as I please. RT @celesfassbinder: @meredithancret I asked you something whore?

— MeredithAncret (@MeredithAncret) June 2, 2013

Apparently I’m Jewish and I kill children -_- RT @celesfassbinder: @meredithancret You old dirty Bitch Jew, Anti-Semitic shit. Stop…

— MeredithAncret (@MeredithAncret) June 2, 2013

@meredithancret If you are not then #STFU ZION slave

— Celeste Fassbinder ツ (@celesfassbinder) June 2, 2013

I have freedom of speech where I am, so…how about…no! RT @celesfassbinder: @meredithancret If you are not then #STFU ZION slave

— MeredithAncret (@MeredithAncret) June 2, 2013

@meredithancret I’m tired of your insults! Enough! You are a mad person and you need psychiatric help!

— Celeste Fassbinder ツ (@celesfassbinder) June 2, 2013

I’m pretty sure you need the psychiatric help hon RT @celesfassbinder: @meredithancretYou are a mad person and you need psychiatric help!

— MeredithAncret (@MeredithAncret) June 2, 2013

HILARIOUS asshat: ‏@celesfassbinder @therealroseanne You are just another shitty Anti-Semitic Jew!!! #IsraHELL STOP KILLING SEMITES

— Roseanne Barr (@TheRealRoseanne) June 2, 2013

I didn’t say we agreed on anything BIG.

College students looking to get wasted on spring break, cruises that stop in popular tourists towns, terrorists looking to party a little before crossing the border in the United States illegally*, that sort of thing.

So why in the world are they doing their best to make Mexico look like a place where Americans are not welcome?

You would have to be insane to visit Mexico these days and I’m not just talking about general crime. I’m talking about tourists being targeted, imprisoned, and sometimes killed.

Here’s just a taste of the recent insanity out of Mexico.

Most recently a mother of 7, from my own state of Arizona, was arrested for “drug smuggling”. Which actually means that she and her husband were the “rich” Americans on the bus, so the Mexican police figured they could blackmail a few thousand dollars out of them. Too bad that they didn’t happen to be carrying $5,000 on them, because now she is being tried for a crime.

A group of vigilantes took over a city that is a popular tourist destination and instituted their own version of law in March. Several tourists have been shot due to the fact that they ignored road blocks that the vigilantes have put up on the roads around the city of Tierra Colorado.

Last year Jon Hammer, a former marine, was imprisoned for nearly 5 months in a Mexican prison (well known for corruption and extremely bad conditions) because border patrol agents falsely claimed that the antique shotgun he was traveling with was legal to be in the country. Photos of his imprisonment included images of Hammer handcuffed to a bed.

The United States actually issued a travel warning earlier this year that travelers should avoid the country because of the high rate of rapes, murders, and other crimes being committed in Mexico at this time.

The government really needs to get its act together, but considering how corrupt everything is down there (and has been for years, my parents remember having to bribe officials when they visited and that was over 20 years ago) I’m not holding my breath.

As it is, tourism needs to dry up.

Find somewhere else to party on spring break and save yourself the trouble. The problems you are likely to face just aren’t worth it and maybe if the tourism dries up a bit and their economy gets even worse, Mexico will think twice about letting these sorts of things happen in their country.

________

*Okay, I made that 3rd one up. It could happen though.

It’s a city council seat, it’s not exactly a state legislator or governor’s race, much less a congressional seat and there is almost zero chance that the new district 8 seat in Phoenix will have long term effects on politics outside of my little corner of the world, but the sheer level of racist rhetoric in this race has been sticking in my craw ever since I heard about it, in January when Kate Gallego was being attacked by a friend of Reverend Sharpton.

Yeah, that Sharpton.

The race card is pulled on an almost daily basis at this point, but one of the districts (not mine, thank god) in my city is undergoing a landslide of racism at the moment. District 8 has historically been a “black district” which apparently means a white person can’t run for office there without it being tantamount to “lynching” the black community politically, according to Jarrett Maupin.

 

- The Snark Who Hunts Back

The story has since grown to attacks on a second person running for the same seat.

This time the attacks are coming from Cloves Campbell Jr., the son of the founder of The Arizona Informant who wrote a slightly veiled and incredibly insulting piece in his newspaper recently. The title of which was “The ‘House Negro’ Is Unfortunately Alive And Well”.

Classy.

Since Campbell, according to AZ Central, has endorsed the only other black man who is leading the race (Reverend Warren Stewart) we are left to assume that this diatribe was addressed to the other black man currently in the top running in the race, Lawrence Robinson.

Here’s a snippet of the article.

Now in today’s world this Negro immerses himself in his job with nothing but white folks. He goes to Starbucks, eats in Scottsdale and even goes to happy hour with his new friends.  He tells his friends how connected he is with the Black Community. He goes to the church “down there,” gets a haircut “down there,” and even eats at Mrs. Whites Golden Rule Café once every quarter. His confidence begins to swell, as though  he  can  say  anything.  He has the unmitigated gall to start telling folks he was instrumental in Arizona getting the Martin Luther King, Jr. Holiday! This Negro has lost his mind! He is beginning to suffer from “the Illusion of Inclusion.” As a matter of fact this Negro decides that he should rep- resent Black folks as an elected official!

- Arizona Informant

And here I thought that people ran for office to represent all the people in their constituency, not just the people of their race.

This city council election is dirtier (and more full of racist tension) than the 2008 and 2012 Presidential elections combined!

If we can’t fight this kind of politics and race baiting on a local level, how can we ever change our national politics?

For those people who are attacking the race and lifestyle of those running for office, you should be ashamed of yourselves. If you can’t attack their political positions, only their race, you are a mockery of democracy and this country.

My bad, I thought that ending racism involved not judging people (or yourself) on the color of their skin or the color of the skin of those people they call friends. How dare a black man associate outside of his race, that’s surely the path to evil.

______

This article is not an endorsement for any candidate in the District 8 race (in fact I’m not a big fan of Gallego’s or Robinson’s policies), nor an attack against any candidate. Merely a chance to expose the hypocrisy and racism in Phoenix elections.

(Cross posted at Damn Straight Politics)

And before I go any further I want to thank our soldiers and their loved ones for their sacrifices and especially thank soldiers who have died, fighting for our country, and their families.

Maybe for some of you today is just a day where you get to not going into school or work and your inconvenienced by your bank being closed and you have to brave the grocery store crush to pick up some hamburger buns for the block party you are having tonight.

For other’s it is a heart rending reminder of what they have lost.

For everyone in the country it should be a day to remember the men and women who have fought and died for us, in order to preserve the freedom and rights that make this country what is is, one of the last truly free countries in the world.

Something that stories like this one, where two men in England were arrested for anti-Muslim tweets in the aftermath of the Woolwich terrorist attack, remind us of.

This is also a country of innovations and invention.

We have Silicon valley, Google, Apple, Microsoft, the light bulb, the Model T, and hundreds of thousands of other inventions that are thanks to both the brilliant and innovative minds in our country and the fact that we have (or used to have) a country that lauded innovation and the continued existence (and creation) of this country are thanks to the soldiers that we remember on this day every year.

But let’s talk about Google’s response to this day.

Other holidays are subject to cool displays on the Google homepage. On Christmas this past year there was a beautiful scene of the land of toys and when you clicked on it, the scene sent you to a Google search for the word “Happy Holidays” (which pissed me off, but whatever).

Halloween last year had an interactive page where you could click and cause noises and interactive ghosts, black cats, and monsters to do funny things on the screen.

On Les Paul’s 96th birthday, Google changed their front page to an interactive guitar that would play when you put your mouse over the different strings.

Memorial Day 2013, you might expect a little something. I mean, I know that Google is an international thing, but it is based in the United States and founded by two Americans.

What did we get?

Yeah.

It’s not interactive. The tiny little American flag is not a link, it doesn’t lead to a page of search results about what Memorial Day is or why we have it.

In fact, if you look at the Google Doodle page and search for “Memorial Day” you don’t get a single result that has to do with American Memorial Day.

Now don’t get me wrong, Google Doodle has plenty of results for “4th of July” and “Veteran’s Day”, but nothing for Memorial Day for some reason and I can’t fathom why.

Thanks Google.

Oh well, at least you weren’t as insensitive as the little twerp who works for NPR that said this about Memorial Day:

Pray for our troops this Memorial Day weekend. Pray that they don’t kill anyone.

— Charles Davis (@charliearchy) May 25, 2013

“The Army is full of a bunch of scumbags.” charliedavis.blogspot.com/2011/05/army-i…

— Charles Davis (@charliearchy) May 26, 2013

______________

On an interesting note, both Bing and Ask put out a more thorough effort on behalf of Memorial Day. Yahoo appeared to forget there was a holiday at all, but since I haven’t used Yahoo since I was 15 and still used Yahoo chat, I don’t know if Yahoo EVER does anything special for holidays.

As a result when I read a headline like “Lesbian couple can’t cohabitate: Why not?” I tend to sigh and click the link, expecting a mash-up of the above terms in reaction to whatever law they don’t like.

As much as I’m not ashamed of my sexuality, I am regularly disgusted and ashamed by the majority of the “gay community”.

So when I clicked on that story I was definitely not expecting an actual decent argument that actually references the rights of parents, individual liberties, and actual constitutional rights.

So the story is that the Compton’s (Carolyn and Joshua) got a divorce in 2011. Carolyn had customer of their two daughters, but the paperwork for the divorce included a common stipulation for Texas law, a morality clause which “prevents a divorced parent from having a romantic partner spend the night while children are in the home.”

Yeah, that’s kind of bullshit. I know, I prefer that children be raised in a home with two parents and that, ideally, those parents will be married, but that clause is still all kinds of wrong whether the romantic partner in question is the opposite or same sex.

The judge overseeing this case made it very clear that the clause was not discriminatory in nature and applied equally to same sex and opposite sex couples and Price and Compton, refreshingly, accepted that. They did not kick up a fuss about how they should be given special treatment because gay couples can’t actually get married in Texas or anything like that.

Now that doesn’t mean they are going to just lay down and let the law run roughshod over them. They complied with the ruling, but they are also going to court with the case that the clause is unconstitutional and they actually made a good argument for that, which didn’t involve the phrase “gay marriage” or the word “homophobia” even once.

[Price and Compton] also said in the statement that the clause “is a burden on parents, regardless of their sexual orientation, that takes away and unreasonably limits their ability to make parental decisions of whom their children may be around and unreasonably limits what the United State Supreme Court has identified as the liberty of thought, belief and expression.”

You see, if Joshua Compton has a problem with who is raising his child he can always have a new custody hearing, but as long as Carolyn has custody, she really should have the right to decide whether her girlfriend can live in the house or not, so should any parent, no matter their sexuality.*

This is an incredible invasion of privacy by the government. You are being told that you are not allowed to make decisions on who helps raise your children or what people live in a home with your children. You are also being told that you are not smart enough to be able to make a decision on whether your partner is trustworthy around your children or whether your children can handle being introduced to mommy or daddy’s new girlfriend/boyfriend/uncle Justin/Aunt Josephine or whatever you are calling them for your children’s benefit.

Anyway, the government doesn’t need to know the nature of my relationships, whether they are sexual, romantic, or platonic. This is for the same reason that the IRS doesn’t need to know my political views or have access to my medical files and the DOJ shouldn’t be checking a reporter’s phone records because he has contact with a government leak.

Quite simply, it’s none of their business.

Get the government out of my business. I didn’t ask them to be there.

In the end this just make me reiterate my position on what the government’s involvement in marriage should be; which is, none at all. 

________________________________________

*Unless, of course, the romantic partner is a pedophile or something similar. That’s just not right. They aren’t supposed to be living close to SCHOOLS, much less in a home with small children.