Voting

In spite of how it might seem sometimes, I'm politically independent - I tend to support specific policies (and to a very limited degree individuals), not this or that party.

And one thing I have long objected to has been the existence of an 'American Royalty' within our political system. Here in Missouri we just got rid of one Republican governor who is the son of a long-term US Congresscritter. On the Democratic side, the Carnahan family has held or currently holds several important political offices.

Nationally, it's even worse. Look at the Bush family, and the debacle of having W rise to power almost solely on the power of his father & family. Al Gore is the son of a Senator. The Clintons have long operated as a family unit, sharing power and position.

And then there are the Kennedys.

If you only follow the mainstream news outlets, there's a fair chance that you have missed what is likely the biggest story this year - the current mass protests in Iran over the fraud of their recent election. From what I have seen and heard, it is being covered only in passing, and with absurd efforts to connect it to our own narrow political squabbles. But if you want to get a sense of what is really going on, I suggest poking around a bit - Andrew Sullivan is probably the best place to start. Though be warned, a lot of the material he is posting is pretty raw - meaning that it is bloody and violent, and much of it of indeterminate accuracy.

But given Iran's history (both recent and over the long scope of human civilization) and critical position in a volatile part of the world, what is happening there now is incredibly important. And in many ways, it shows both the best and the worst of humanity - the twin aspects of a quest for freedom and a dedicated hold on power no matter the cost.

Jim Downey

(Cross posted to my blog.)

I'm not sure what to make of the completely-unconfirmed-yet-fascinating possibility that arose today that Ted Kaufman, the newly appointed U.S. Senator from Delaware, might be an atheist. (Props to Trina at Examiner.com for beating me to the story...she is quick!) The germ of this idea comes from a New York Times article today in which Kaufman refers to his "way of thinking" as "humanistic."

Characteristically overblowing the word's implication, as is their wont, Gawker sounded the we-might-have-an-atheist-in-our-midst alarm. As has been noted, if Sen. Kaufman is an atheist, and he confirms it, he would be the highest-ranking avowed atheist in American political history. But I wonder if such a confirmation would really do anything to advance atheists in the political realm, rather than simply serve as a brief oddity.

Over the course of the last few days, many writers have congratulated or condemned President Obama for his inclusion of "nonbelievers" in his inaugural address. Though there is disagreement even within like-minded communities as to how important or meaningful the mention was, there seems to be from my anecdotal perspective a fairly universal acknowledgment that part of the reasoning for the shout-out was raw numbers. And that raw, magic number is 16.1 percent.

16.1 comes from the most recent survey by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life which sampled over 35,000 adults to see how many people believe what in the United States. Atheists are included in that very sizable number, and according to Pew, it is the fasted growing segment of all! Hooray!

But 16.1 percent of the country are not atheists. This number actually signifies those who are "unaffiliated." That means exactly what it sounds like, and I'm just going to quote the Pew website here to clarify exactly how this breaks down:

Some folks are just plain crazy. Case in point: David Caldarola, author of an op-ed piece in the Chicago Daily Herald claims that the election is a religious war, between "the faithful" and the dreaded, nasty, soulless, baby-eating atheists.

And here all along I thought that this Presidential election was between John McCain and Barack Obama. Silly me!

[link] Liberalism is socialism-Communism-Marxism; all of which require atheism.

[...]

This is not an election between Obama and McCain. It's between atheists and the faithful.

So, according to David "Batshit Insane" Caldarola, this is how it works: Liberalism = socialism = communism = marxism = atheism. Obama is a liberal, therefore, ipso facto, Q.E.D., Barack Obama is an atheist bent on world domination, who wants to distribute your wealth to puppy grinding facilities all over North America.

It's all so very simple - when you're crazy.

Holey frakkin' Christ crackers. I'm no Einstein, but I will be so glad to have this election over with, and finally have a President whose IQ is higher than mine. That would be a nice change.

Incredibly frightening satire from Alisa Valdes-Rodriguez over at AlterNet:

[link] So what else won’t change with me? I’ll tell ya. Freedom of religion won’t change either. You won’t find me settin’ restrictions on religion. It’s just gonna be a matter of learnin’ t’think about things a little different is all. We all know that there is really only one true religion and that’s why as governor of Alaska I made sure to add a Christian heritage holiday but did you see me do that for any of those other satan cults? No you did not and that’s because I know the difference, as a good a positive American, between religion and plain old superstition and crazy talk.

So you guys, I’m super happy to tell you today that you are finally free to be religious and that’s exactly what the founding fathers wanted when they wrote the USS Constitution out there in Pearl Harbor that time with the pilgrims and the Indians because they were Christians like me even if the liberals keep insisting they were Deists which also, is total crazy talk because there’s no such thing and never was as someone who believes in nature as God because God knows just like I know that nature is nothing more than his gift to us so that we can go huntin’ and drillin’ and drive around on ATVs. So you are free to pick the Christian church you wanna go to! Isn’t that awesome? There’s so many to choose from, it’s like when you go into the Target and you can’t decide which kind of disposable diaper to get. I’m all about choices.

For the first time in a long time we are on the brink of a political situation that could very easily become a death blow to this great American experiment of ours.

"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag, carrying a cross ." - Sinclair Lewis

Heinlein nailed it more than 50 years ago in the postscript to his "2nd American Revolution" collection called "Revolt In 2100", but apparently we didn't pay attention:

[R.A.H.] "As for the second notion, the idea that we could lose our freedom by succumbing to a wave of religious hysteria, I am sorry to say that I consider it possible. I hope that it is not probable. But there is a latent deep strain of religious fanaticism in this, our culture. It is rooted in our history and has broken out many times in the past. It is with us now; there has been a sharp rise in strongly evangelical sects in the country in recent years, some of which hold beliefs theocratic in the extreme, anti- intellectual, anti-scientific, and anti-libertarian."

"It is a truism that almost any sect, cult or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so. . . . The custodians of the True Faith cannot logically admit tolerance of heresy to be a virtue."

". . . Could any one sect obtain a working majority at the polls and take over the country? Perhaps not -- but a combination of the dynamic evangelist, television, enough money, and modern techniques of advertising and propaganda might make Billy Sunday's efforts look like a corner store compared to Sears Roebuck. Throw in a depression for good measure, promise a material heaven here on earth, add a dash of anti-Semitism, anti-Catholicism, Anti-Negroism, and a good large dose of anti- furriners' in general and anti-intellectuals here at home and the result might be something quite frightening -- particularly when one recalls that our voting system is such that a minority distributed as pluralities in enough states can constitute a working majority in Washington."

". . . Impossible? Remember the Klan in the Twenties and how far it got without even a dynamic leader. . . The capacity of the human mind for swallowing nonsense and spewing it forth in violent and repressive action has never yet been plumbed."

Dang. I just got a little chill down my back there.

I had never even heard of Sarah Palin until Vox Day picked her as the VP nominee two full days before it was announced by the McCain camp. (How the heck did you see that one coming, Vox?)

Now, a week or so later, I am a bit worried.

You see, like Mrs. Palin's future son-in-law Levi, I'm also a fuckin' redneck. I like to to camp, hunt, ride dirt bikes, shoot guns, and hang out with the boys. Like Todd and Sarah, I too have five kids. I worked in blue-collar, 12 hours a day, up-to-your-elbows-in-grease jobs most of my adult life. I like country music. I wear a cowboy hat. I ride horses. I drink Coors Light. I listen to the Blue Collar Comedy guys, and think Larry The Cable Guy is an unsung comedy genius.

Like I said - a redneck.

The one thing I don't share with my farmer-tanned brethren is god belief. I don't have any, but most of them do. This places me into a really weird position politically. For most of my life I voted Republican. Heck, I was a conservative Republican. But the overt and covert religiosity, and the growing dominionist, theocratic themes in the GOP turned me away. I switched over to the Libertarian Party - but it's not a great fit for me either. I don't think I'll ever be a registered Democrat. I just don't identify with enough of their platform. That's not to say that I won't vote for a Democrat though, or for a Republican for that matter, if I decide that they happen to be the best person for the job.

In any case, my point is that Sarah Palin could have stood up at the Republican National Convention and read the phone book (well, People Magazine, anyway,) and the redneck "Get 'er Done!" folks would have still voted for her - not McCain alone - in droves.

I am *already* hearing it from my redneck friends and family members. "She's just like us!" They exclaim. "That nice Levi boy is going to marry Bristol, and she's not going to kill her baby! And her mom supports her!" And what about "Iron Dog" Todd Palin, commercial fisherman, champion snowmobile racer, and oil field worker? "The First Dude is a real man - did you hear how he finished a snowmobile race with a broken arm? Very cool. I think it'd be awesome to hang out with him and have a beer." Not to mention the absolutely golden video of little Piper Palin licking her hand and smoothing down Baby Trig's hair was about the cutest thing they say they've ever seen.

Do not underestimate the redneck vote. They will rise up in a flurry of mullets and "Who Farted" hats and absolutely crush Obama and Biden if those two don't get their poop in a group and do something quickly. (Here's a tip, Barack my friend; I like you, but ease up on the anti-gun stuff, and please try to stop coming across like an Ivy League asshole when you talk to us regular joes. It's going to lose you this election if you're not careful.)

I don't know if McCain made this choice, or if it was orchestrated by Rove, but whoever did it thought it through. It is either an act of sheer genius that will sweep McCain into the Oval Office, or Palin will self-destruct even past the point where getting the redneck vote can save her. The Republicans are betting that she holds it together, obviously, and she well might.

If she does hold it together, then we might all be in a lot of trouble. Because make no mistake about it, she is a far, FAR right religious theocrat who has used her political power in the past to endorse her own wacky theology. She seems to believe that she was chosen by her God to do well in the political arena, spurred by her prophetic pastor's encouragement from his pulpit - and the VP nod is only going to fuel their conviction that she is being supported supernaturally by Binky The Magic Space Clown (or whoever she thinks made the universe with magic.)

In short, we've got to win this one folks. If we don't, we're screwed. McCain is just too damned frail to have someone like Palin sitting in the on-deck spot.

Your thoughts? What am I missing here? Is it as bad as I think it is?

[Hillary Clinton] That is our duty, to build that bright future, to teach our children that, in America, there is no chasm too deep, no barrier too great, no ceiling too high for all who work hard, who keep going, have faith in God, in our country, and each other.

To all the atheist children out there - sorry, but you're screwed. Apparently for them there is indeed a chasm too deep, a barrier too wide, and a ceiling too high. It's called "acceptance into the Democratic party".

I'm sorry, but I just am seriously uncomfortable with both major-party candidates at this point.

McCain is, well, McCain - a Republican who panders to the religious right. And Obama is a member of the Democratic party which seems to be hellbent-for-leather to exclude atheists, agnostics, and secular folks from their ranks at all costs this year. (And WTF is that all about, anyway?)

Obama sounds good on church-state separation issues, but he's so incredibly inexperienced, that I have reservations about voting for him. In the same way that I would never hire an inexperienced technician for my department, I don't think I'll be able to "hire" Obama for the position of my President.

McCain isn't as far-right as he's been made out to be this year, and he has a pretty good track record of working well across the aisle, and he's a bona-fide war hero which I like. However, he also says some pretty stupid things about how this country is a "Christian Nation", and that just turn me right off. He might just be pandering to the religious folks to counter his moderate image, but it still troubles me greatly.

Bob Barr is my party's candidate, but he's just a Republican who secured the Libertarian nomination by virtue of being the highest-profile politician ever willing to pretend like they are a Libertarian. And the Libertarians fell all over themselves nominating him as quickly as they possibly could. He's farther-right than McCain in my view. Bleh.

All I know is that I've been voting since I was 18 and I have never gotten this close to an Presidential election without a friggin' clue who I'm going to vote for. It's scary.

I think I may end up writing-in Jim Downey. ;)

Who are you going to vote for?

[John McCain] "The Constitution established the United States of America as a Christian nation." "But I think the number one issue people should make [in the] selection of the President of the United States is, 'Will this person carry on in the Judeo Christian principled tradition that has made this nation the greatest experiment in the history of mankind?'"

[Barack Obama] "We are no longer a Christian nation. At least not "just". We are also a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation, a Buddhist nation, and a Hindu nation, and a nation of non-believers."

Videos below the fold...

So, we know some people on TV. And yes, this is an odd post.

The folks that Mandy and I know are Doug and Noelle. Doug is the Dad and Noelle is his daughter, who happens to be a former student of Mandy's as well as one of the bridesmaids in Mandy and my wedding.

They're participating in a show on the Lifetime network called "Your Momma Don't Dance". This week, they're in trouble. In my (and Mandy's) opinion, they don't deserve to be in trouble...especially for this week's performance.

I'd love if you could help them out by voting for 'em. To vote for Noelle and Doug dial 1-877-472-4702. You can vote 10 times per phone line. Thanks folks!

Here's Noelle's casting video * Warning. This link will take you to the Lifetime Network. You may experience a slight drop in testosterone levels when the site opens.

Rather than stating this in the comments of the post, I think a response to Brent's opening paragraphs in his latest review of Vox Day's book warrant a full post.

Brent, unsurprisingly, I agree with you.

Kind of.

Sort of.

Mostly.

Here's what I agree with you about:

I have my own opinions, political views, and values. I have my own, personal, rational for being a person in whom god-belief is absent (an atheist). I recognize no "atheist leaders" or spokesmen, and I endorse no one who claims to speak for me, or insinuates that they speak for me in any way.

Here's where our opinions may part:

I have lately (within the last few years) come to believe that the entire social and political "atheist movement", as it nominally exists, is a big, fat exercise in futility. Atheists are not, in any way, shape, or form, a "group" in the same sense that Methodists, Shriners, or Republicans are a group. The atheists who organize activist marches, set agendas and identify themselves as part of this "atheist movement" group seem to be lying to themselves. There is no cohesive atheist political movement.

more below the fold

Hello All,

This is my review of Vox Day's new book called "The Irrational Atheist". I'd like to make some things perfectly clear before I proceed with this review. I am still, and barring some pretty convincing evidence that I find personally credible, will most likely always be an atheist. What I mean by "atheist", as I have written volumes about in the past, is someone in whom god-belief of any kind is absent.

I have lately (within the last few years) come to the conclusion that the entire social and political "atheist movement" is a big, fat exercise in futility. Atheists are not, in any way, shape, or form, a "group" in the same sense that Methodists, Shriners, or Republicans are a group. The atheists who blog and organize activist marches and identify themselves as part of this "atheist movement" group are lying to themselves. There is no "atheist group". Rather, a movement has emerged and become politically active lately that has co-opted the perfectly reasonable descriptive word "atheist" and has twisted its meaning into something that I do not agree with, endorse, or really even recognize any longer. Ellen Johnson telling all of us atheists to "Vote your atheism first..." was the last straw for me. I mean, what in the heck does that even mean? I am not a member of your little club, Ellen.

I have my own opinions, political views, and values. I have my own, personal rationale for being a person in whom god-belief is absent (an atheist). I recognize no "atheist leaders" or spokesmen, and I endorse no one who claims to speak for me, or insinuates that they speak for me in any way.

I speak for myself, and myself alone.

I find it troubling that one of the recent trends in the "atheist blogger" community is to label someone who does not seem to toe the party line as an "appeaser" or as a "concern troll". It's complete crap. I didn't sign a fucking "atheist loyalty oath", and my lack of belief in a god isn't dependent on kowtowing to the self-anointed leaders of this misguided abortion of a political movement, whether or not they exist. If after this review someone uses the "no true Scotsman" fallacy on me in this fashion, they can go fuck themselves. With a jagged stick. Sideways. The political and social issues that concern me - personal liberty, civil liberties, honesty, personal responsibility, fiscal responsibility, freedom, justice, the American Way, all of that, don't require my allegiance to some new political movement. I was concerned with those things before I started calling myself an atheist, and I still am today. Atheism has nothing at all to do with any of that stuff. (See my first paragraph above.) Nether does "theism" for that matter.

I evaluate the books I read, the beliefs I come across, and the philosophies I examine fully, and with an eye towards the facts. I have a highly-sensitive bullshit meter, honed through 20-plus years of discussion, research, study, debate, and arguments with theists (that is, folks in which god-belief of any kind is present.) So, when you read the review below, keep in mind that I was really, really trying hard to find something that I could latch onto and argue intelligently and forcefully against. I was positive that it had to be there. I had my BS meter cranked up to 11 as I read through the book twice in an attempt to sniff out something that I could use - and the damned thing only went off a couple of times, and only when Day was explicitly talking about God and/or Jesus and his personal belief in the Christian mythology.

Shit. Double shit.

Ah, well. I am ethically and morally bound to review TIA honestly, and that is what I will do - regardless of how much it hurts me to do so. Heh. ;)

So, hang on to your hats and join me below the fold.

It's official. Huckabee wants to amend the Constitution to bring it into "God's standards".

[link] "[Some of my opponents] do not want to change the Constitution, but I believe it's a lot easier to change the constitution than it would be to change the word of the living God, and that's what we need to do is to amend the Constitution so it's in God's standards rather than try to change God's standards," Huckabee said, referring to the need for a constitutional human life amendment and an amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman.

Huckabee often refers to the need to amend the constitution on these grounds, but he has never so specifically called for the Constitution to be brought within "God's standards," which are themselves debated amongst religious scholars. As a closing statement he asked the room of nearly 500 supporters to "pray and then work hard, and in that order," to help him secure a victory in Tuesday's GOP primary.

We are in deep trouble if this lunatic gets elected. Get out and vote, folks. Anyone is better than this guy. It absolutely floors me that in this day and age a Presidential candidate can make a statement like this - and be dead serious. This country is teetering on the brink, and will self-destruct if a religious fanatic like Huckabee is elected to the Presidency. It is up to us to stop it.

Damn. This scares the crap out of me.

(Video below the fold.)

I hate Democrats. I don't want to hear another effing word from Democrats complaining about the war or the lack of health care or the big oil companies or torture or any other stupid-ass complaint Democrats have about our government.

NH Primary Results
In yesterday's primary the only two candidates who are convincingly anti-war got 1% of the vote. Kucinich got 3,845 votes and Gravel got 397 votes. Are you kidding me? To all registered Dems, please STFU from now on. I just don't want to hear it.

Dems: You overwhelmingly cast your votes for Hillary Clinton (110,550). The same Hillary Clinton who voted for us to get into this war. The same Hillary Clinton who didn't bother to read the NIE before voting to go to war over Saddam's non-existent WMDs. The same Hillary Clinton who will not apologize and admit a mistake for that vote. The same Hillary Clinton who just recently cast a vote to classify Iran's Republican Guard as a terrorist organization (which is just another gold plated invitation for Bush to start another war).

Do you wanna know just how valued democracy is on the far Right? Here's a clue:

If Republicans end up with a divided convention between Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani, I say we pick Gen. Pervez Musharraf.

Musharraf has declared emergency rule in Pakistan, shut down the media and sent Supreme Court justices home. What's not to like about a guy who orders policemen to beat up lawyers? I bet he has a good plan on illegal immigration, too.

Need a bit more?

You wouldn't know it to read the headlines, but Musharraf has not staged a military coup. In fact, he was re-elected -- in a landslide -- just weeks ago under Pakistan's own parliamentary system.

But the Pakistani Supreme Court, like our own Supreme Court, believes it is above the president and refused to acknowledge Musharraf's election on the grounds that he is disqualified because he is still wearing a military uniform. That's when Musharraf sent them home.

Friends

A quick reminder the election is coming up rather quickly and as usual, your local Board of Elections needs poll workers. As a matter of fact, the deadline may have already passed but still, you should make the effort. And if not this year, next year for sure!

I'm taking a vacation day Tuesday November 6 so I can work the polls. Start time is 5:00am and quitting is 7:00pm with about an hour clean up. Pay is something like $120. Not bad for 15 hrs. work! I'll be donating my pay to the ACLU on top of the dollar a day donation to NPR.

Please join me this year in working the polls and thereby, in part, let the world know the Atheists are willing to do something positive and patriotic.

Ron Paul is an interesting candidate on the surface. A Republican, he voted against the Iraq war, and against the Patriot Act. Democrats are starting to support him. Michael, a left-leaning blogger who writes the "Blog For Arizona" blog from my own state, talks about why Democrats should support Paul:

[link] I don't want to see another Republican President any more than the next Democrat. But I do want to see a Republican nominee who stands up for civil rights, who speaks sensibly about America's place in the world, who insists on the rule of law and rejects the exceptionalism and emergency powers advocated by every other GOP candidate. I want to see the Republican part rally around a voice that is not encouraging them to tear apart the Constitution in fear of terrorism. I want to see a Republican nominee who will enable the American people to experience a campaign of hope and ideas, not of fear and McCarthyism.

But does St. Paul really stand up for our civil rights? What about the first one? What exactly is his position on the First Amendment, for example? Separation of church and state and all that stuff?

[Ron Paul] The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers.

Well. Isn't that special? Apparently he thinks it's a dandy idea to have government-sponsored prayer in schools - as long as it's the state's decision, not the Federal government's decision. You know, because when the state forces you to pray to a magical man in the sky that's A-OK.

Not to mention that his supporters come across as - how should I put this delicately - fucking nutballs when they are defending his honor against the heathens who dare to be critical of St. Paul.

"Godless" from the No God Zone, has an excellent analysis of Ron Paul's position on the First Amendment. And Paul's position does not fill me with confidence, to say the least.

[link] But how well does he know the Constitution? He wrote:

[Ron Paul] The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers. On the contrary, our Founders’ political views were strongly informed by their religious beliefs. Certainly the drafters of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, both replete with references to God, would be aghast at the federal government’s hostility to religion.

Let us put aside for a second his opposition to "rigid separation between church and state" and concentrate, not on Constitutional theory, but on Constitutional facts. Mr. Paul claims that the Constitution is "replete with references to God". Now replete means abundantly supplied or filled. So if the Constitution is abundantly filled with references to God how many are there? Let's get precise. How many times is God mentioned in the Constitution?

Zero! And if you don't believe me you can go check Ron Paul's own congressional website where he has a copy of the text. Go to the page and read it yourself. It is worth reading now and then. But if you don't have time do a page search for "God" and see all the abundant references on your own. All zero of them.

(Tip of the ballcap to UTI commenter McMillan.)

During the course of my life (I'll be thirty mid-August) I've often wondered why my perspective on various issues differed from most of the other people I've met. Skepticism has, of course, played a major roll in why I view the world as I do...but I don't think that's all there is to it. I think, and I hope, that part of the reason that my worldview is outside of what's considered "normal" is that I don't buy into any particular ideology. As it says under my portrait, I'm a "liberal libertarian with conservative leanings". What that ends up meaning, government wise, is that I want to leave the parts of government that I think work and ditch the parts that I think are extraneous or don't work. The same idea applies for me philosophically.

It seems to me that when most people buy into a philosophy, religion, or even just a course of action they commit themselves wholeheartedly to it. When RAH's book "Stranger in a Strange Land" was released people bought in and formed "nests" of their own...despite the fact that a "nest" by itself leached off of the society around it for support (much like any cult or religion). In my short time on this planet I've had some things change my perspective. One of those was reading Ayn Rand's books, particularly "Atlas Shrugged". John Galt is and was an inspiring character and I can indeed see the "virtue of selfishness". Despite loving the book , I can still see the flaws in the idealized system that Rand seems to be extolling. They're as obvious to me as the flaws in any communist, socialist or laissez-faire capitalist worldview. When everyone is a hero, the ideological system always works and seems fabulous.

The point is that I think people end up finding something that their comfortable with and then buy into that idea completely, including any flaws. Yes, I'm accusing most people of being intellectually lazy. Whether it's Objectivism, Christianity, Islam, Liberalism, Libertarianism or a conservative worldview I want to be able to take the positive aspects of each and leave the chaff behind. I welcome people that challenge how I view the world and would really like it if the rest of humanity would accept the challenges that they encounter too; without just disregarding them because they don't fit nicely within their ideologically limited window of perspective.

Coturnix from A Blog Around The Clock interviews Democratic candidate for President John Edwards about his views on science and science education.

[Sen. Edwards] We need to strengthen scientific education in this country. We need to send more kids to college and invest in graduate programs to create a new generation of scientists who will continue to make America stronger and lead the way for the rest of the world.

Check it out.

The elections aren't exactly upcoming, but with candidates starting to declare it seems like a good time to post my positions on various issues. This is meant to be an interactive endeavor. You can challenge a position I've taken or suggest one that I've not addressed at your leisure. Let's get started with my first position.

Gay marriage: Who the hell cares? Well, I do if the state decides who can and cannot marry. If the state is going to sanction a union between two people, it should be any two people that choose to get sanctioned. Hell, this will really freak out the fundies but if 3 or 4 people (or whatever number) want to combine their efforts into a family "unit" I don't have a problem with that either! I do want to add...it's not a bloody slippery slope. No one's going to marry their dog or cat or a monkey. A non-sentient being can't give consent.

You can expect my positions on various issues to be espoused over the coming weeks. If you have suggestions for issues that I should address you can email them to me @ ulreyric@gmail.com.