Crazy Talk

Gay marriage

2008-05-18T02:32:27Z

I guess I should weigh in on this gay marriage business since it could change the face of this nation and all.
Personally, I have always thought of marriage as another tax scam to keep people dependant on the state.
I know couples love each other and all that, but when I hear couples talk about possibly getting married, it isn’t long until I hear, “The tax break will be nice.”
I have never figured out why love just can’t be love. Why do people need a government document (marriage certificate) confirming their feelings toward one another?
Furthermore, why do we need to get permission from the government (marriage license) to marry the person we are in love with?
Would the marriage be any less valid if my partner and I were married by anyone other than a preacher or a judge?
In the eyes of the state, yes, the marriage is not valid unless performed by an agent of the state (which includes priests and pastors.)
So why does the couple need the state to recognize their marriage? The love and respect are still going to be there. The ceremony is still going to be beautiful. The cake will still be good. The band will still play “The Macarena.” Everything is the same except one thing. The newly married couple won’t get the tax break. It’s a scam, I tell you.

Which brings me to gay marriage. It’s not an issue I pay too much attention to because of my general feeling toward (state-approved) marriage.
I had always thought gays wanted to be married so they could get those tax breaks that married people get. I figured that makes sense. They’re Americans, they were born free, they should have the right to enter a marriage contract with whom they choose and get those tax breaks if they so desired.
Then I’m told that there’s such a thing as a civil-union contract, which extends the same benefits and protections to gay couples as a marriage contract does for straight couples.
Now I’m curious as to why, even with the same protections as straight couples, why gays need to have their union called a “marriage.” What is it about that word that makes gays think it will make their lives better? Have they seen the “divorce” rate? (OK, that was an easy shot.)

Of course when big news happens it is usually discussed at length in the newsroom. Since I don’t really care one way or the other, here’s some of the ideas that have been talked about.

1.) One of the major concerns I hear is that the gay marriage issue is less about getting the same rights as married people and more about forcing society to accept their lifestyle.
I really hope this isn’t the case. In general I support peoples’ right to live and form unions with whomever they choose. But once you start crossing the line and forcing me to accept something that I may oppose, I have to stand against it on principle.
It’s the old “Don’t force your beliefs on me” doctrine, which gay people have been known to use ad nauseam. Ironic, isn’t it.
2.) Another concern is that if gay marriage is approved, it will force churches to recognize and perform ceremonies for gay folks. That would be tantamount to condoning a lifestyle that many churches and their parishioners believe to be an abomination (God’s words, not mine). Quite simply, you can’t do that. You can’t force people to take part in your lifestyle. It’s un-American.
Religious people are some of the most tolerant and understanding people in the world. But if gay marriage is approved and the church has to conform to the homosexual lifestyle, the religious folks will rise up with a level of intolerance never experienced before. And it would be their right to do so. Sorry gays, but your rights end where another person’s rights begin. Don’t expect opponents of the homosexual lifestyle to accept it just because some judge says so. Opponents have every right to stand up for and defend their own personal beliefs and their way of life.
Most people will “go along to get along” just to keep the peace. But if you really want to push churches, and by extension the congregation, to the point of war, you will get a war. And it will be ugly. And you will lose.
3.) The real bummer is that church leaders will have to comply. Regardless of their doctrine and theology, most churches in this country are just an agent of the state. They are nothing more than another 501c3 non-profit organization, which are required to obey the whims of the state’s laws, statutes and judgments. (That’s why a marriage by a priest or pastor is valid in the eyes of the state, he’s just another agent of the state.) A church’s doctrine and theology are its lifeblood. If churches are forced to abandon their deeply held beliefs, the church will implode, which may make some of you gay folks happy.
While there will likely be a mass exoduses from the church, all those folks are going to be pissed and they will come after you and put you to death (Old Testament style).
4.) There is also the issue of going from state to state. If a gay couple gets married in California, the marriage won’t be recognized in other states. San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsom said of the issue, “As California goes, so goes the rest of the country.” (That’s a paraphrase.) Didn’t California vote in 2000 to keep marriage between a man and a woman? I think the percentage was like 60-40 in favor of traditional marriage. And California is supposedly a liberal state. If gays are beaten that bad in one of their own states, they will waste a lot of taxpayer money trying to get the rest of the nation to “go gay.” That personally ticks me off, because making every state gay is not what that big chunk of change missing from my paycheck every payday is supposed to be used for.
5.) The other issue is what to do about polygamous relationships. If the gays get their way and get to redefine marriage (and the marriage contract), then folks who have three or more parties in their relationship will also want the same benefits and protections. I believe it would be their right, too. But I have to come back to the question of, “Why do you need to be ‘married’ in the first place?” There are gays that are now in loving and fulfilling relationship and there are polygamous people who are also now in a loving and fulfilling relationship. What is it about “marriage” that makes it so desirable? Ask around. I bet it won’t be long until you hear the words “tax break.”

It is my opinion that gays are pushing the issue at this point. I, and most people, don’t care what other people do with their lives. “I am who I am and you are who you are.” “Live and let live.” “Go along to get along.” These tired old truisms have, up to this point, served society well when it comes down to tolerating different lifestyles and beliefs. We may not agree, but we don’t have to.
While I respect that gays are seemingly standing up for the principal of “equal rights,” I think they are taking part in the very behavior they supposedly oppose. Namely force-feeding their agenda to society at large, and especially to those of a conservative or religious persuasion.
While I am neither religious nor conservative, I personally feel the gay issue is a distraction to other more important issues that affect everybody. Taxes, the economy, energy, the environment, etc.
I also think gays are stepping over the line when they try to force acceptance by court order. The California Marriage Amendment will go on the November ballot. I don’t know how I’m going to vote yet. But the more I hear about how the homosexual lifestyle is so horrible without “marriage” benefits, the more I lean toward making sure “marriage” is kept between a man and a woman, just out of spite.

Good guys and bad guys

2008-03-08T21:30:05Z

I’m very glad our local newspapers took on the Paradise Police Department in its March 6 article investigating claims of police brutality. Without saying the officers in question are guilty or innocent, it is necessary for government agencies to get a good once-over, especially the police. Police departments, at least in the minds of many people, tend to get a free pass, where Joe American might get stuck with a ticket, a court date or worse. Regardless of innocence or guilt, it is a good exercise because it lets government agencies - police, city halls, water districts, etc. - as well as the general public that we’re watching. It makes me proud to be a member of the news profession. Investigating and exposing government malfeasance is what we’re supposed to be doing. I think Post reporter Elizabeth Stevens and Enterprise-Record reporter Terry Vau Dell did an excellent job at investigating and presenting a fair and balanced story.

***
Here is my story of police abuse of authority: About ten years ago I worked with a couple of Mexicans in Chico. It was lunch and we were going across town to eat. My apartment was on the way and I needed batteries for my Walkman. As I was pulling into my apartment parking lot at least two sheriff’s patrol cars literally rushed in after me with lights-a-flashing. The deputy took the ID of my two Mexican friends and me. I was not told why I was pulled over. I asked the deputy what was going on.
“Nothing yet,” were his exact words. He wasn’t very nice about it. I wasn’t smart enough to get his name.
Over the scanner I heard “white Chevy Nova (my car at the time), possible drug deal.”
We were held there for about 20 minutes. Finally, still sitting in my driver’s seat, I asked again why I was pulled over.
The deputy was clearly irritated. He looked around my car for a second.
“You have a broken windshield,” he said. “You need to get that fixed.”
Then they left.
I may have been naive at the time, but I was no dummy. You don’t send in two, maybe three patrol cars in after someone, take everyone’s ID, and keep them there for 20 minutes for a broken windshield.
It is my belief the deputy saw two brown people in a beat up vehicle and thought “drugs.”
It would be something different if the deputy said, “Your vehicle matches the description of a suspect vehicle. Sorry for the hassle.” But that isn’t what happened.
All in all, it was a minor incident - there was no violence or anything like that. But it is still telling of what happens to some people when they put on a uniform and a badge. I still see that deputy from time to time. I think he recognized me a couple of times. It was this incident that confirmed what I already thought – you can’t always trust the police.

***
All that being said, I have had a few non-work-related encounters (traffic violations) with Paradise Police. I got a ticket a couple of times and I got let off with a warning a couple of times. They were professional each time. I would say that is probably what happens to most people when they encounter an officer for a minor infraction of the law. I can’t speak for those who have had to deal with police regarding major infractions of the law.

***
When it comes to the Baltierra, Schumacher and Funk cases outlines in the March 6 article, I have no opinion. All I really know is what was in the paper. When it comes to officer Timothy Cooper’s shooting of Darlene Stace in the cemetery that unfortunate Sunday afternoon, I am going to have to side with the officer. I heard the dispatch recording and if I was Cooper, having no back-up, facing someone appearing to be imbalanced who was leveling a weapon in my direction, I think I would have acted in the same way.

***
I believe most police officers do want to help the community. I think they are just people with jobs to do, the same as you and I. I think since they are people they make mistakes too, the same as you and I. I think the way they handle their mistakes is telling of their characters. But I also know there are sick and twisted people out there who are attracted to power, and that means no government agency, be it a small town police department or the White House is immune to abuse of power. That is why journalists exist. So when an authority figure abuses his or her power, the people will find out who it is and justice can be served.

The right is wrong on liberal bias

2008-02-29T17:15:14Z

I am always amused if not a little irritated when I hear complaints from conservatives that journalists and college professors are mostly liberals and are pushing liberal bias. I haven’t checked out how valid the claim is, mostly because I don’t much care, but the conservatives need to put a sock in it and quit whining.
Here is the simple fact of the matter: If conservatives did a better job at inspiring their children to go into journalism and education, there would be more conservatives in those professions and all that liberal bias would go out the window. Duh.
So while it may be true that those professions tend to attract more liberals, it is only the fault of the conservatives. You can’t fault a liberal for wanting to be a professor or a newsperson. Those are great jobs. At least those folks are working. And it’s better than shoveling poop. Would conservatives rather have them living on unemployment and welfare? Then we’d have to listen to conservatives whine about that, too. (I’m also amused that conservatives usually accuse liberals of being the whiners, yet here they are crying, “Colleges and news outlets are too liberal. Boohoo.Waaaa.”)
The real question is: Why don’t more conservatives choose journalism and education as a profession? I don’t know the answer to that one and I can’t even speculate.
Conservative seem to pride themselves on being of the practical, hard-nosed and common sense wing of politics. But they are way off the mark on this one. So, conservatives, teach your youth the value of education and freedom of the press and quit crying about liberal bias like little girly-men.

I'm crazy and so are you

2008-02-26T23:06:20Z

Welcome to my new blog, Crazy Talk. I tried to think of a different name because fellow blogger Jim Herndon’s site is called Back Talk and I thought the names were too similar. But when it comes down to it, Crazy Talk best describes the things that are going to be said here.
Most of the comments on this site are not acceptable to those who blindly follow the party line. At the same time, it is these folks who most need to be educated about the damage that blind faith can do. And I guess that is what it comes down to. Are you a follower or are you a skeptic?
Do you really believe global warming is all man’s fault (and women’s fault, lest you accuse me of being sexist) despite growing evidence and a number of studies that contradict the mainstream propaganda promoting global warming as gospel truth? To me that’s crazy.
Do you really believe 19 cave-dwelling Arabs with plastic box cutters and a documented lack of ability to fly a small propeller plane, much less a passenger jet, could thwart U.S. defenses and pull off the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks all by themselves without help from rich and powerful traitors inside the U.S.? To me that’s crazy.
Yet, being skeptical about these and other propaganda-laden lies that politicians tell us is crazy to a lot of you people.
And so it looks like everybody in the world is crazy.
So before you call me out as being an idiot, a lunatic, a simpleton, a liberal, a conservative or any of the other epitaphs you want to call people like me who would rather know the ugly truth than swallow a pretty lie, take a look at yourself and ask yourself if you really know all that you think you do.
I’m willing to bet that once you question even your deepest held beliefs in search of real truth, you’ll find that you have been lied to more often that you think.
Ultimately, this blog is about truth and freedom, not just for America but for all who desire it. There was a wise man a long time ago who said, “The truth will set you free.”
They thought he was crazy, too.