Proposition 8: Eliminates Right of Same-Sex Couples to marry. Initiative Constitutional Amendment

Yup, today we’re discussing gay marriage: Proposition 8 of the 2008 General Election to be exact. As a Bay Area resident my entire life, I have grown up with a very pro-choice and liberal mindset. I believe and support same-sex marriage wholly. Just as I talked about the ” Legality of Assisted Suicide”, everyone has the freedom to do what they desire. If any two people want to get married they should have the right to.

So first, to briefly explain why I am picking this topic. It was another boring school-day evening. No homework left to do, no need to study for tests, and way too scared, and perhaps a little bit lazy, to study for the dreaded SATs. So I took a walk toward the living room and turned on the television for the first time today. Sitting on the coffee table, was a copy of the General Election Voter Information Guide. I have been somewhat waiting on this for awhile, and always enjoy having all my necessary information in one convenient location. I flipped open to the table of contents, and scanned the propositions. My eyes fell on 8 at the sight of same-sex couples and thought to myself: this will be an interesting read.

The Background. I know that earlier this year, California Supreme Court had ruled the rejection of same-sex marriage as illegal. Cool, all done. But wait.. no? Next comes the Proposal, wtf this thing is about.

“This measure amends the California Constitution to specify that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California… individuals of the same sex would not have the right to marry”

Now my first reaction: fuck you. People should be allowed to marry no matter what. The second reaction: what the heck is Congress even able to do this? Since when can Legislature write a law that overrides the court’s judiciary interpretation of the Constitution? Congress writes laws; the Courts say whether or not it’s legal. If the Courts say it’s illegal, how can congress simply write it over again? A puzzling question, one I will attempt to ask my government teacher. Ms. (Mrs.? god I hope not) Langendorf tomorrow.

Another amusing note, as I go along my reading in chronological order. I guess each proposition listed in the information guide must have a fiscal effect. So how would same sex marriage affect the economy? I’ll show with mathematical proof:

same sex marriage == total marriages ++ == total weddings ++ == sales tax ++

lulz..

So going on to arguments. Perhaps I was really naïve about this before, but I learned something really important while reading the arguments. It was brought up in the argument in favor of the proposition: “Under California law, “domestic partners shall have the same rights, protections, and benefits” as married spouses (Family Code 297.5)”. This was groundbreaking for me. I have been thinking throughout the whole conflict between same sex marriage that same sex couple would not be able to enjoy the legal benefits that opposite sex marriage had. This included this such as, custody of children, inheritance, legal disputes, etc.

I went and read the actual Family Code, and it is indeed what it state. So if a “domestic partnership” shares the same legal benefits as “marriage”, then the real dispute on which Proposition 8 argues for, are the social connotations. The argument really rests on: same sex couples merely want the title of “marriage”; those opposing same sex marriage merely wants to protect their definition of the word “marriage”.

I came into blog, attempting to fight valiantly for same sex couples and their push for the freedom of marriage. Now, I’ve come to learn that this whole fiasco is merely a fight for a damn title. Same sex couples have their legal equality; if you guys want to waste more government money arguing over what it’s all called, then go right ahead. I’m out of this argument.

An Analysis of Blogs

So for a long time now, I’ve been wanting my own blog. Back then, I had no idea why. Perhaps just because it was the “cool thing” to do. I even centered my purchase of a $400 phone/camera around my future plans of becoming a blogger. I somewhat regret the decision, but I don't think the amount of money I actually spent has really set in yet (or will at all).

Last Sunday, I started my blog again. I had made an old one with only one post. I was in the middle of writing a gigantic post about the John Mayer concert, but suddenly got stuck. I couldn't write anymore. I had been going on tangents throughout the past 2 pages and the whole thing had no structure (kinda like how I feel this is heading). So I stopped writing, saved the page, and went to bed. I never went back to finish my article, and as I said on my first blog, lost it.

So back to blogs... I think one of the main reasons I am so attracted to blogs, is the ability to express myself freely and to some extent, anonymously. As a male, I am restricted. I can't talk about how sad and lonely I sometimes feel to my "bros". In addition, I think chemically, males are simply incapable of expressing their emotions. Raise of hands, how many of you have punched a wall or done some impulsive act of violence just because? A half of my dressing cabinet's front panel is missing because of this phenomenon:



I’m glad I have a blog now. It provides me a masculine diary in which I can, in a socially acceptable manner, talk about myself. I also hope that the continuation of this blog will improve my writing skills. As you can tell, I tend to go on tangents and fail to write eloquently and with any substance. My brother told me that his blog greatly improved his writing skills, and I hope the same will happen to me.

Columbia Presidential Forum

(5:01:44 PM) Eddy: ooo presidential forum!!!
(5:02:00 PM) Eddy: its on live!
(5:02:05 PM) Eddy: no mccain and obama or vice versa
(5:02:14 PM) Eddy: its at columbia university i think
(5:02:25 PM) littleidiot239: what are you talking about?
(5:02:32 PM) Eddy: turn on fox news
(5:02:35 PM) Eddy: its starting
(5:02:45 PM) littleidiot239: i don't have cable
(5:02:45 PM) Eddy: "the 9/11 Presidential Forum"
(5:02:54 PM) Eddy: turn on some news network
(5:03:15 PM) Eddy: its on cspan too

So today, Eddy excitedly told me on AIM that a presidential forum was taking place on TV. I immediately went to my tv and flipped my 7 channels trying to see if any station was broadcasting, none were. I had to go to MSNBC.com to get the live feed.

Let me tell you now, it was the boring-ist discussion i've ever watched. The questions were so in-intrustive, vague, and just plain stupid. The entire discussion was centered on volunteer work, and how Americans should volunteer more. Both candidates gave generic answers, both of which were strikingly similar.

The funny thing though, was that the live feed broadcasted the noise from the microphones no matter the instance. Some interesting things I picked up with the unknown mics and just funny quotes:
----------
Host: "Hey, step out a little so we can have a single shot of you"
*Obama walks toward the middle of the stage alone and waves*

McCain: *SNOREEEEEEEEE*

Obama: "We need to mobilize the seniors"

Junior States of America

Today, I went to JSA for the first time. Had went the week prior to last, which was mostly a veterans meeting, but was dragged to anyway. Missed last week, the “first” meeting because of supa secret Asian Club meeting in which nothing happened.

The meetings take place in Ms. Chassman’s room. I’m not sure why, but even after knowing her, and I assume her knowing me, I’m still uncomfortable with her or in her room. Perhaps it’s that scary dog of hers, silently sitting and watching you… But as I first stepped into the room, none of the “leaders” had yet showed up: Jeremy, Eddy, Nicolia (in no particular order, although gotta give props to Jeremy for being an Asian). It’s an interesting combination, one that I never saw occurring. All with seemingly conflicting political views and social networks, yet coming together for weekly for a club.

So the first topic of discussion, although commenced unofficially was: Legality of Assisted Suicide. I think assisted suicide should definitely be legal (allowed). Our world, regardless of nation, is created on a natural right, where every person and object is entitled the right to live. We disregard natural right by removing one’s power of life (or in this case, the lack of). To me, the conflict is as simple as that. Everyone should have the freedom to do what they desire. If that desire so happens to be a volatile one such as death, then so be it.

Second discussion, the official topic of the day: Is the United States safe from terrorism?. I thought this was an interesting question, and I’m sad that I did not have the courage to share my thoughts out loud. I guess that’s what blog are for. The question itself seemed a bit ridiculous. The idea of a clear black and white of “safety” was nonexistent. Being safe from terrorism is the same as being safe from being struck by lightning, safe from an earthquake, or safe from the from getting beat up at school. There is no black and white of safe and not safe. No matter what defensive measures we take or how much intelligence we have, there will always be a threat of an attack. This is backed by Thomas Hobbes, who states that people are innately evil and that we live in an endless state violence. Wars and violent conflicts are imminent as long as man exists.

With that said, of course the United States is not safe from terrorism. However, the United States is safer from terrorism. I have great faith in the military power of the United States and its total dominance over the rest of the world. Because of this dominance, I believe that America is able to stand up to any threat. Because of this belief, I feel safe. Because of my feelings, I am safe from terrorism.