A lot of people have been asking about our first dance song, so here it is!
We wanted a celebratory sounding song, something a little different and off the wall, and this song also had a lot in it's lyrics that made it seem like the song was talking about us. Love it!
Monday, November 17, 2008
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
'Gay Rights' continued!
A few arguments...
I have come to notice that one large problem with a large block of the electorate is the definition of marriage. That religiously, morally, etc. is defined as between a woman and man.
Here's the thing,
Do we drop marriage in the legal sense all together?
Bear with me here,
Wikipedia defines marriage as:
Marriage is a social, religious, spiritual, or legal union of individuals. This union may also be called matrimony, while the ceremony that marks its beginning is usually called a wedding and the married status created is sometimes called wedlock.
Marriage is an institution in which interpersonal relationships (usually intimate and sexual) are acknowledged by the state or by religious authority. It is often viewed as a contract. Civil marriage is the legal concept of marriage as a governmental institution, in accordance with marriage laws of the jurisdiction. If recognized by the state, by the religion(s) to which the parties belong or by society in general, the act of marriage changes the personal and social status of the individuals who enter into it.
People marry for many reasons, but usually one or more of the following: legal, social, and economic stability; the formation of a family unit; procreation and the education and nurturing of children; legitimizing sexual relations; public declaration of love; or to obtain citizenship.
(underlining added for emphasis on things I plan to elaborate on)
I would say for example, my parents, many family, and friends have had all four of the types of marriage described in the first definition of marriage.
Social, they had family and friends present.
Legal, they had documents from the state signed, sealed, and delivered.
Religious, they took place in a church with both participants being baptized and a current member of a major religion.
Spiritual, the participants believed God was present in the moment and thereafter.
Non-denominational people only fit three definitions.
Secular folks only meet the first two definitions.
Some who elope even only really meet the legal aspect.
Now I will also list the definition of marriage from the Catholic standpoint. Why? Because that is how I was raised...
Catholics define marriage as an indissoluble bond between a man and a woman, created by human contract and ratified by divine grace.
Now with that being said, shouldn't any secular marriage legally be disallowed? Divorce as well?
Here is my dilemma,
So where we are concerned within the law, shouldn't the legal aspect be the only definition we are concerned about? Shouldn't wise, intelligent human beings who are solid in their faith be able to separate the legal and religious definition of marriage and there by not stand in the way of gay marriage? (I understand I used the term human beings in there and by default we are imperfect beings, so this may not happen, but is that not logical at least?)
The final part of the definition of marriage only includes one part a gay couple could not do without help from an outside member of the marriage. Procreation. And even then, plenty of heterosexual couples need sperm donors or surrogate mothers to help them have children.
CIVIL UNIONS
Many argue that Civil Unions take care of this gay marriage issue.
The argument is that gay Civil Unions should be allowed and that they should have the full protection and rights as a Marriage. They said the same thing about schooling and other social utilities in the last century in respect to divisions between White and Black. I am no Civil Rights scholar, so I cannot pretend to understand a lot about the Separate but Equal policy, but I plan to do some reading. But from what I understand it doesn't work and was considered illegal by the courts.
Again from Wikipedia,
The repeal of "separate but equal" laws was a key focus of the civil rights movement of the 1950s and 60s. In Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954), attorneys for the NAACP referred to the phrase "equal but separate" used in Plessy v. Ferguson as a custom de jure racial segregation enacted into law. The NAACP, led by the soon-to-be first black Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall, was successful in challenging the constitutional viability of the separate but equal doctrine, and the court voted to overturn sixty years of law that had developed under Plessy. The Supreme Court outlawed segregated public education facilities for blacks and whites at the state level. The companion case of Bolling v. Sharpe, 347 U.S. 497 outlawed such practices at the Federal level in the District of Columbia. In 1967 under Loving v. Virginia, the United States Supreme Court declared Virginia's anti-miscegenation statute, the "Racial Integrity Act of 1924", unconstitutional, thereby ending all race-based legal restrictions on marriage ("anti-miscegenation laws") in the United States.
So the argument for Civil Unions with the same rights and protections as marriage would be unconstitutional per this precedent. Or so I think. Again, not that smart and not a lawyer.
(Plus can we agree there is a certain similarity to what is going on with the Anti-Miscegenation laws from as late as 1967 in the U.S. and in South Africa as a part of apartheid as late as 1985? I believe a large portion of the electorate would consider those Anti-Miscegenation laws reprehensible now, but still support banning gay marriage.)
So if marriage is an unacceptable term, and separate Civil Unions are unconstitutional, shouldn't we just dissolve marriage from the legal aspect completely and make everything a Civil Union? Is this possible to form as a proposition to go on a ballot?
I personally don't want to stop the institution of marriage, just rename it if that is the major problem. But is that really what is necessary?
Again, I welcome dialogue please!
(I avoided using statistics to argue my case because they can be misconstrued very easily and are therefore often disbelieved the second they are put forth as an argument.)
I have come to notice that one large problem with a large block of the electorate is the definition of marriage. That religiously, morally, etc. is defined as between a woman and man.
Here's the thing,
Do we drop marriage in the legal sense all together?
Bear with me here,
Wikipedia defines marriage as:
Marriage is a social, religious, spiritual, or legal union of individuals. This union may also be called matrimony, while the ceremony that marks its beginning is usually called a wedding and the married status created is sometimes called wedlock.
Marriage is an institution in which interpersonal relationships (usually intimate and sexual) are acknowledged by the state or by religious authority. It is often viewed as a contract. Civil marriage is the legal concept of marriage as a governmental institution, in accordance with marriage laws of the jurisdiction. If recognized by the state, by the religion(s) to which the parties belong or by society in general, the act of marriage changes the personal and social status of the individuals who enter into it.
People marry for many reasons, but usually one or more of the following: legal, social, and economic stability; the formation of a family unit; procreation and the education and nurturing of children; legitimizing sexual relations; public declaration of love; or to obtain citizenship.
(underlining added for emphasis on things I plan to elaborate on)
I would say for example, my parents, many family, and friends have had all four of the types of marriage described in the first definition of marriage.
Social, they had family and friends present.
Legal, they had documents from the state signed, sealed, and delivered.
Religious, they took place in a church with both participants being baptized and a current member of a major religion.
Spiritual, the participants believed God was present in the moment and thereafter.
Non-denominational people only fit three definitions.
Secular folks only meet the first two definitions.
Some who elope even only really meet the legal aspect.
Now I will also list the definition of marriage from the Catholic standpoint. Why? Because that is how I was raised...
Catholics define marriage as an indissoluble bond between a man and a woman, created by human contract and ratified by divine grace.
Now with that being said, shouldn't any secular marriage legally be disallowed? Divorce as well?
Here is my dilemma,
So where we are concerned within the law, shouldn't the legal aspect be the only definition we are concerned about? Shouldn't wise, intelligent human beings who are solid in their faith be able to separate the legal and religious definition of marriage and there by not stand in the way of gay marriage? (I understand I used the term human beings in there and by default we are imperfect beings, so this may not happen, but is that not logical at least?)
The final part of the definition of marriage only includes one part a gay couple could not do without help from an outside member of the marriage. Procreation. And even then, plenty of heterosexual couples need sperm donors or surrogate mothers to help them have children.
CIVIL UNIONS
Many argue that Civil Unions take care of this gay marriage issue.
The argument is that gay Civil Unions should be allowed and that they should have the full protection and rights as a Marriage. They said the same thing about schooling and other social utilities in the last century in respect to divisions between White and Black. I am no Civil Rights scholar, so I cannot pretend to understand a lot about the Separate but Equal policy, but I plan to do some reading. But from what I understand it doesn't work and was considered illegal by the courts.
Again from Wikipedia,
The repeal of "separate but equal" laws was a key focus of the civil rights movement of the 1950s and 60s. In Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954), attorneys for the NAACP referred to the phrase "equal but separate" used in Plessy v. Ferguson as a custom de jure racial segregation enacted into law. The NAACP, led by the soon-to-be first black Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall, was successful in challenging the constitutional viability of the separate but equal doctrine, and the court voted to overturn sixty years of law that had developed under Plessy. The Supreme Court outlawed segregated public education facilities for blacks and whites at the state level. The companion case of Bolling v. Sharpe, 347 U.S. 497 outlawed such practices at the Federal level in the District of Columbia. In 1967 under Loving v. Virginia, the United States Supreme Court declared Virginia's anti-miscegenation statute, the "Racial Integrity Act of 1924", unconstitutional, thereby ending all race-based legal restrictions on marriage ("anti-miscegenation laws") in the United States.
So the argument for Civil Unions with the same rights and protections as marriage would be unconstitutional per this precedent. Or so I think. Again, not that smart and not a lawyer.
(Plus can we agree there is a certain similarity to what is going on with the Anti-Miscegenation laws from as late as 1967 in the U.S. and in South Africa as a part of apartheid as late as 1985? I believe a large portion of the electorate would consider those Anti-Miscegenation laws reprehensible now, but still support banning gay marriage.)
So if marriage is an unacceptable term, and separate Civil Unions are unconstitutional, shouldn't we just dissolve marriage from the legal aspect completely and make everything a Civil Union? Is this possible to form as a proposition to go on a ballot?
I personally don't want to stop the institution of marriage, just rename it if that is the major problem. But is that really what is necessary?
Again, I welcome dialogue please!
(I avoided using statistics to argue my case because they can be misconstrued very easily and are therefore often disbelieved the second they are put forth as an argument.)
Sunday, November 09, 2008
'Gay Rights'
I have a strange question for all of you...
Would you mind sharing with me their thoughts/feelings on Gay rights?
Specifically the following subjects:
Gay Marriage
Civil Unions
Gay Adoption
Non-Discrimination Clauses
I am looking for people's honest feelings on this subject because I am seriously debating this subject with various people right now, and I would like to hear a wide variety of opinions. Not just yes/no answers but preferably qualified answers, or even not answers, but thoughts on the subject.
I will say that I would love to have a dialogue with everyone about this, so if you do not want me responding to your opinion, I would say so, and I will do my best. That said, I don't know how many responses I will get, so I can't say I will respond individually to everyone.
I am debating whether or not to share my opinion on the subject in case it alters the responses in anyway. Some of you know anyhow, I'm sure.
So... assume I am not on either side. Or if it works better for you, assume I am opposite your position.
Thanks! Any questions are welcome, and again, mention it if you do not want me posting your answer or would prefer me to post it anonymously.
Dave
Would you mind sharing with me their thoughts/feelings on Gay rights?
Specifically the following subjects:
Gay Marriage
Civil Unions
Gay Adoption
Non-Discrimination Clauses
I am looking for people's honest feelings on this subject because I am seriously debating this subject with various people right now, and I would like to hear a wide variety of opinions. Not just yes/no answers but preferably qualified answers, or even not answers, but thoughts on the subject.
I will say that I would love to have a dialogue with everyone about this, so if you do not want me responding to your opinion, I would say so, and I will do my best. That said, I don't know how many responses I will get, so I can't say I will respond individually to everyone.
I am debating whether or not to share my opinion on the subject in case it alters the responses in anyway. Some of you know anyhow, I'm sure.
So... assume I am not on either side. Or if it works better for you, assume I am opposite your position.
Thanks! Any questions are welcome, and again, mention it if you do not want me posting your answer or would prefer me to post it anonymously.
Dave
Sunday, August 17, 2008
Huzzah!
So I guess there is a possibility some people haven't heard, but I can't imagine how...
JoVanna & I are getting married!!!
I would love to get into the story, but JoVanna & I did an extensive write up on our knot website telling our story:
http://weddings.theknot.com/pwp/view/co_main.aspx?coupleid=5509177727778302
Of course that tells the story up until the engagement.
Wow! That seems like such a long time ago!
The preparation for our wedding has been fun, creative, crazy, and always time consuming. I can't imagine what it will feel like to not be planning a wedding. I can't imagine it!
The best part is, I'm not at all nervous about BEING married. That's not the nervy part that my brain is worried about, it's the actual procession of the day that I worry about. I can't imagine being nervous about both!
I can't wait to see all of you on that weekend. I will be marrying the woman I love, we will be sharing it with all our friends and family, and we will be throwing one kick-ass party!
Be there or be SQUARE!!!
JoVanna & I are getting married!!!
I would love to get into the story, but JoVanna & I did an extensive write up on our knot website telling our story:
http://weddings.theknot.com/pwp/view/co_main.aspx?coupleid=5509177727778302
Of course that tells the story up until the engagement.
Wow! That seems like such a long time ago!
The preparation for our wedding has been fun, creative, crazy, and always time consuming. I can't imagine what it will feel like to not be planning a wedding. I can't imagine it!
The best part is, I'm not at all nervous about BEING married. That's not the nervy part that my brain is worried about, it's the actual procession of the day that I worry about. I can't imagine being nervous about both!
I can't wait to see all of you on that weekend. I will be marrying the woman I love, we will be sharing it with all our friends and family, and we will be throwing one kick-ass party!
Be there or be SQUARE!!!
Monday, April 14, 2008
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
Another reason for my choice
'Obama is willing to acknowledge his indiscretions and not apologize for them. His drug use was part of his journey. He returned the campaign contributions of a former friend with an unsavory past. Clinton seems to think that admitting mistakes or acknowledging indiscretions—having second thoughts—is a sign of weakness. ' -Martin Linsky, Special Guest Columnist, Newsweek
This is what got us into trouble with Gee-Dub.
He refuses to admit any mistakes, and therefore compounds them. I remember being told as a child, that lies can get out of hand when they start building up on one another. Admitting a lie/mistake and moving on clears room for future truth/positive outcomes, whereas creating a stack of lies and mistakes blinds people from seeing the truth or making headway towards positive outcomes.
Yet again, another reason I am hoping for an Obama led U.S. in November...
This is what got us into trouble with Gee-Dub.
He refuses to admit any mistakes, and therefore compounds them. I remember being told as a child, that lies can get out of hand when they start building up on one another. Admitting a lie/mistake and moving on clears room for future truth/positive outcomes, whereas creating a stack of lies and mistakes blinds people from seeing the truth or making headway towards positive outcomes.
Yet again, another reason I am hoping for an Obama led U.S. in November...
Friday, February 15, 2008
Hello Primary Season, Goodbye Soul...or, wait....there is another option?
I can't believe I have stayed fairly silent about the political events going on over these past few months, but rest assured I have had some opinions. Of course, I now feel the need to share some things. Sorry if it seemes like preaching or anything...
Lately I've been hearing a lot about who had what idea first being a reason to vote for one person or another...
Does it matter who had the idea first?
Shouldn't it matter if a person believes it is a good idea and puts it into practice?
I'm tired of politicians, pundits, and citizens who complain about so and so did this first. We can't put all of our faith and hopes on a single person and that single persons ideas. That single person who will end up becoming the president of this country should come up with great ideas, yes, but also know a great idea when they see one and adopt it into their program.
Why the slavish adherence to what the polls suggest?
I think Bill Clinton was, and Hillary Clinton will be a poll-politician. They look and see what the people want, and pander to them. I am not suggesting Obama or any other politican doesn't listen to polls and take them under advisment. Just that they aren't as driven by them. Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed Clinton as a president moreso than any other president dyuring my lifetime, but I don't think any president can ever be the end all be all for a party. Clinton was not the epitomee of a great president. Reagan was not the epitomee of a great president. We can't look to the past and believe it was such a great time. We need to always be looking forward at what we can become.
I find myself watching American President over and over again this time of year. I kind of see why Christina used to watch it ALL THE TIME. She seriously watched it 30 times in a 30 day span once. I'm sure it was mostly due to the romance quality of it back then. But I know now that we can watch it over and over again becuase of how inspiring it is. Go back and watch that speech Michael Douglas gives. It gives me chills. Unfortunately that movie and the show the West Wing (both written by Aaron Sorkin) are the closest I have gotten into being inspired in politics. Until now.
A perfect storm of opportunity has hit this country to get someone in office that can not only affect policy stateside for the betterment of our people, improve our image and our role in the international community, and inspire citizens to work for the betterment of our country and humanity around the world.
Vote Obama for the world, for humanity, not just America. For all of us, not just for ourselves. Let's have a little less selfishness in this world, and a little more giving.
Let's get inspired people.
Lately I've been hearing a lot about who had what idea first being a reason to vote for one person or another...
Does it matter who had the idea first?
Shouldn't it matter if a person believes it is a good idea and puts it into practice?
I'm tired of politicians, pundits, and citizens who complain about so and so did this first. We can't put all of our faith and hopes on a single person and that single persons ideas. That single person who will end up becoming the president of this country should come up with great ideas, yes, but also know a great idea when they see one and adopt it into their program.
Why the slavish adherence to what the polls suggest?
I think Bill Clinton was, and Hillary Clinton will be a poll-politician. They look and see what the people want, and pander to them. I am not suggesting Obama or any other politican doesn't listen to polls and take them under advisment. Just that they aren't as driven by them. Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed Clinton as a president moreso than any other president dyuring my lifetime, but I don't think any president can ever be the end all be all for a party. Clinton was not the epitomee of a great president. Reagan was not the epitomee of a great president. We can't look to the past and believe it was such a great time. We need to always be looking forward at what we can become.
I find myself watching American President over and over again this time of year. I kind of see why Christina used to watch it ALL THE TIME. She seriously watched it 30 times in a 30 day span once. I'm sure it was mostly due to the romance quality of it back then. But I know now that we can watch it over and over again becuase of how inspiring it is. Go back and watch that speech Michael Douglas gives. It gives me chills. Unfortunately that movie and the show the West Wing (both written by Aaron Sorkin) are the closest I have gotten into being inspired in politics. Until now.
A perfect storm of opportunity has hit this country to get someone in office that can not only affect policy stateside for the betterment of our people, improve our image and our role in the international community, and inspire citizens to work for the betterment of our country and humanity around the world.
Vote Obama for the world, for humanity, not just America. For all of us, not just for ourselves. Let's have a little less selfishness in this world, and a little more giving.
Let's get inspired people.
Monday, February 04, 2008
If i cared about the money, I wouldn't be doing this this week, but I am back to walking hard on the treadmill, and it felt great!
The first couple of times i went to work out this session, the only things available were bikes and ellipticals. Boo. So I wasn't too keen on going back. I didn't feel good, or feel like i got a good workout.
But this Sunday I got focused and made a schedule for work outs this week. I am going to try and make sure I am at the gym like I have to be at work, Early or on time. And since my shifts are at weird times of day, I can get a machine no problem at 10:15 in the morning!
I worked out today and it felt great, and I even found some songs that help me hit a fast stride and get the heart rate up at a safe level! I've always just shuffled songs on the ipod before, but it is hard to find ones you really want to hear during your work out when you have about 6000 songs, so about half of my time is spent shuffling. A little over halfway through my workout, I hit these four songs in a row, and they are totally going to be the end of a playlist I make for working out. (Yes, I'm that sickly excited about working out that I used the word 'totally'.)
Here's they are:
Styx - Blue Collar Man
Guns n Roses - Sweet Child of Mine
Maroon 5 - Harder to Breathe
Abba - Gimmee, Gimmee, Gimmee (A Man After Midnight)
I think some of the other workout people were staring at me because I was smiling the entire last half of my workout instead of looking like I was going to die. It was a very strange juxtaposition. Walking fast with a sweat-drenched shirt on a treadmill and smiling.
And now, over 8 hours later, i feel really energized and really good. I can't wait to go hit the treadmill again tomorrow! Watch out everyone, I'm going to take all of your money next session!!
ps. Family - there is a little something more in your emails, don't just read this and not read those! Thanks!
The first couple of times i went to work out this session, the only things available were bikes and ellipticals. Boo. So I wasn't too keen on going back. I didn't feel good, or feel like i got a good workout.
But this Sunday I got focused and made a schedule for work outs this week. I am going to try and make sure I am at the gym like I have to be at work, Early or on time. And since my shifts are at weird times of day, I can get a machine no problem at 10:15 in the morning!
I worked out today and it felt great, and I even found some songs that help me hit a fast stride and get the heart rate up at a safe level! I've always just shuffled songs on the ipod before, but it is hard to find ones you really want to hear during your work out when you have about 6000 songs, so about half of my time is spent shuffling. A little over halfway through my workout, I hit these four songs in a row, and they are totally going to be the end of a playlist I make for working out. (Yes, I'm that sickly excited about working out that I used the word 'totally'.)
Here's they are:
Styx - Blue Collar Man
Guns n Roses - Sweet Child of Mine
Maroon 5 - Harder to Breathe
Abba - Gimmee, Gimmee, Gimmee (A Man After Midnight)
I think some of the other workout people were staring at me because I was smiling the entire last half of my workout instead of looking like I was going to die. It was a very strange juxtaposition. Walking fast with a sweat-drenched shirt on a treadmill and smiling.
And now, over 8 hours later, i feel really energized and really good. I can't wait to go hit the treadmill again tomorrow! Watch out everyone, I'm going to take all of your money next session!!
ps. Family - there is a little something more in your emails, don't just read this and not read those! Thanks!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
