Saturday morning... the update
I've been desperately trying to catch back up with everyone who's called and emailed me... and I'm actually making strides. I've made a couple calls today, and sent a few emails today... but it still doesn't feel like I'm doing enough. There are just so many people... and too much to do here in Chicago. Gah... and then I think about people who I want to talk to who haven't called, and who haven't emailed... and I just get very easily overwhelmed.

This has nothing to do with anything, but just sos y'all knows, the name of my Level 5 show is "Maybe This Isn't The Right Forum For This, But Please Stop Making Your Dog Wear Hats". It's a long name, but I still think it's hilarious.

Onto a real issue. I just saw here that Bush is supporting a possible amendment to the constitution that would define marriage as a "union between a man and a woman". Here we go...
The president went on to say (according to a "Major News Website" which, by the way, doesn't mean that I pulled it from the biased bastards at Fox News): "For ages, in every culture, human beings have understood that traditional marriage is critical to the well-being of families." What the shit does that statement even mean? First of all, define ages. Did the people in feudal Europe believe that marriage was critical to the well-being of families? I suppose you could argue they did... but most people were more worried about keeping themselves and their families alive to really care about "traditional" marriage leading the their well-being. You know, now that I think about it, the President is probably right, I suppose. It was just 'understood' by every culture that what you do is get married and have children and die and that's life. But, as everyone who reads this blog has enthusiastically told me, time's have changed and it's no longer a societal necessity for everyone to get married and have children. We, as a society, can explore other life-paths. So, while the Prez may be correct, the answer to this question does not lie in the past... we, our generation, will have the freedom to re-invent the family and the family structure. We have to come up with new solutions to new problems... and reinventing the Constitution should be the last option.
He went on to say: "And because families pass along values and shape character, traditional marriage is also critical to the health of society. Our policies should aim to strengthen families, not undermine them. And changing the definition of traditional marriage will undermine the family structure." That, at least, is an argument. Albeit, a weak argument and possibly a logically invalid argument, but an argument none-the-less. This argument is predicated on the (I believe) false believe that a man/woman marriage is the most healthy kind of marriage for all parties involved. And, let's face it, there are plenty of man/woman marriages that we can all point to that are worse off than if we let two men start a family together (or two women). That kind of blanket belief system is something that can only come from someone who is unwilling to acknowledge the complexity of the situation.

In summation, this issue (to me) is along the same lines as banning abortions. We are a nation of opportunity, a nation that boasts itself as a "melting pot" of different cultures and ideas; we are not and SHOULD NOT be a nation that tells people what they can and cannot do. I understand that we have tons of "laws" saying what we can't do... but the Bill of Rights and the Constitution is all about what we as a people have the RIGHTS to, not what we don't have the rights to. I realize that our system is not perfect, but the Constitution is about what we aspire to be... what are ideals are. Let's face it, restricting freedoms isn't what we aspire to do (at least not publicly).