This post is not going to be nice.
Because I'm tired of trying to write after I've "calmed down." I know it makes you sound more mature and it gives your argument more weight and validity if you don't sound like a screaming child, but I've had it... and I'm venting. Why should I try and be a civilized person and act like an adult when the other side simply calls me a "Godless Nazi" anyway? So here's the deal....
Yet another story to make you want to tear your hair and scream
How they can find fault with a 44 BILLION dollar donation to charity is beyond me! I'm talking of course about Warren Buffett pledging his fortune to the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation-- an organization which busies itself trying to end minor problems like oh say... combating disease and poverty in developing countries!!
Sure, less than one percent of their charity funds go to Planned Parenthood BUT that money is ear-marked for non-abortion services. Planned Parenthood is an organization which provides women with reproductive health check-ups, affordable contraception, pap and cancer screenings and information regarding many other women's health issues-- not to mention, offers counseling and sex education (including a focus on abstinence and SAFE sex).
How many of us can imagine having 44 billion dollars-- let alone donating it all to charity? Yet, the Catholic Church and pro-life zealots (read: idiots) are foaming at the mouth over this because less than one percent is going to Planned Parenthood-- and not even for abortions!!!
Rev. Thomas Euteneuer (a Roman Catholic priest who is president of Human Life International) compared Buffett to Josef Mengele, the infamous Nazi death camp doctor; Euteneuer said Buffett, "will be known as the Dr. Mengele of philanthropy unless he repents."
Here's a clue, Buffett doesn't have to repent to you. You're not Jesus. You're a priest on a soapbox who has decided that he speaks for God and knows exactly how God feels on every issue (even though Jesus never said one word on abortion.) As far as I'm concerned Rev. Euteneuer is just another face in a looming Catholic faction who have devoted themselves away from the word of Christ and become a cult of hatred and misogyny. Earth to uber-conservative one-track-mind priests….YOU ARE NOT GOD. You are simply a "celibate" man in a dress (celibate providing you can stay away from those tempting alter boys) who has no business commenting on what reproductive choices are available to women. Maybe if you'd ever grow up and acknowledge that women don't want to pop out kids constantly and want some say in their body, we could take you seriously. And probably not even then because you don't have families and you don't even allow women to hold the same position of power within the church as you do (Um yeah "No girls allowed clubs" are so 4th grade).
Tony Perkins, president of the conservative Family Research Council, holds the Buffett family partially responsible for the approval of RU-486 (the abortion pill) because their financial contributions went to research for the drug. Perkins said, "Since then, approximately 500,000 American babies have been killed with RU-486."
Okay once again going to have to explain the obvious: Buffett didn't kill any babies. First and foremost because abortions don't "kill babies" they terminate a pregnancy. It is illegal to murder infants. It is not illegal to terminate a pregnancy, or fetus, or in some cases a literal cluster of cells that has the POTENTIAL to become human life.
How can we ever hope to make headway in this country between moderates when those shrieking loudest are these incompetent fools who want the world's population to explode until there's no room, water, or resources to feed them all? In their world a woman cannot have control of her reproductive destiny. Well obviously this is not a problem certain celibate priests have taken the time to ponder....
Wonder if they've noticed that most of their Catholic followers use contraception anyway and the majority of their priests don't even buy into this bullshit nonsense? I've met progressive priests and NUNS-- they are out there and they are getting sick of this garbage)... Sadly I also know priests and priests-to-be that have decided to focus all shreds of energy to this problem of the "murdered unborn." To them I say without apology: I don't think you are real Catholics. Real Catholics, they read the bible and go to church and applaud people like Warren Buffett for giving so generously of his fortune to help the sick, needy and hungry... something Jesus was all about!
Thursday, June 29, 2006
Saturday, June 24, 2006
The Religious Right is trying to kill you
Seriously!
Where could I be going with such a dramatic statement? Let's talk stats first.
Did you know that the Human Papillomavirus (HPV) -- a sexually transmitted disease-- infects over 80% of 15-50 year olds and can cause cervical cancer?
The American Cancer Society estimates that in 2006, over 9,700 women will be diagnosed with cervical cancer and 3,700 women will DIE from this cancer in the U.S.
There is promising news. An vaccine has been created to prevent HPV. It has already been tested in over 11,000 females (ages 9-24 years) in many countries around the world and there are no serious side effects (only problem reported was soreness at injection site). The vaccine contains no thimerosal or mercury and there are no infectious materials.
This vaccine will guard against 70% of cervical cancers and 90% of genital warts. Clearly women would still need pap tests to regularly screen for possible cancer. And this vaccine would not prevent other S.T.I.'s (Sexually Transmitted Infections).
Public Health officialls are speaking out for administering this vaccine before females are sexually active (the proposed age of vaccination would be for girls 11-12 year olds with catch-up vaccination for 13-26 year olds).
So what does all this good news have to do with the religious right? Or the religious WRONG as they ought to be known...
Because those bible beaters are doing everything they can to ensure this vaccine never becomes a reality. True, it has already become FDA approved (they failed there) but the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) will vote on June 29th whether or not to recommend the vaccine and if so, who should get it and at what ages. Even then laws will vary from state to state regarding, age of vaccination and insurance coverage. You can bet the religious wrong are lobbying hard.
The religious wrong in this country and the pro-life groups have come out against the vaccine suggesting among other things, that it will simply incite youngsters (read: especially women) to become more promiscuous. They say it will give kids the green light to have sex and send the wrong message.
These religious wrong is basically saying: "Sluts deserve to get cancer."
Think about it, that IS what they are saying. Since they know women are getting cervical cancer every day but keep preaching that if you don't have sex you're a good person and God loves you then what does that mean for the infected? They are bad. They deserve it. If they had simply done what they were told, they'd be healthy now.
The Religious Wrong are gambling with your lives and trying to tamper with medical information. They do this by constantly lobbying against life-saving vaccines and Emergency Contraception going over the counter. The continually lobby for the FDA to change warning labels on condoms so the label will talk NOT about what condoms actually do, but rather talk of the condoms' ineffectiveness.
Well to that I say, read this article --- BOO YAH!
It's sad that people had to conduct a whole study proving to these morons that YES condoms are effective.
"A three-year study of female college students -- all virgins at the start -- found that women whose partners always wore a condom during sex were 70 percent less likely to become infected with the human papilloma virus, or HPV, than those whose partners used protection less than 5 percent of the time."
Notice that in the numbers, condoms do not 100% prevent HPV. Well that's a given. Every one knows the only way to 100% prevent a S.T.I. or pregnancy is to abstain. However, if you are going to engage in sexual activity and want to DRAMATICALLY lower your odds of contracting HPV or a number of other diseases... WEAR A CONDOM. This is not rocket science.
We shouldn't have to prove that this is scientifically the right thing to do. It should only take common sense. But in a world of these nutjobs... we have to prove common sense with exspensive scientific studies.
Wearing a condom is safe. It prevents disease. Getting a vaccine against a widespread S.T.I. is a great medical breakthrough. If it's safe and approved, why not sign up your daughters?
Think... even if your daughter was a virgin on her wedding day, her husband could still pass her the virus if he had even just ONE other sexual partner. Does that mean she should contract cerivcal cancer and die? OF COURSE NOT! Stop punishing people for engaging in sex!
Help protect your community's health!
For more info:
http://www.cdc.gov/std/hpv/
http://www.cdc.gov/std/pubs/
Or browse for more internet stories
http://www.sci-tech-today.com/story.xhtml?story_id=1010001QQOY6
Where could I be going with such a dramatic statement? Let's talk stats first.
Did you know that the Human Papillomavirus (HPV) -- a sexually transmitted disease-- infects over 80% of 15-50 year olds and can cause cervical cancer?
The American Cancer Society estimates that in 2006, over 9,700 women will be diagnosed with cervical cancer and 3,700 women will DIE from this cancer in the U.S.
There is promising news. An vaccine has been created to prevent HPV. It has already been tested in over 11,000 females (ages 9-24 years) in many countries around the world and there are no serious side effects (only problem reported was soreness at injection site). The vaccine contains no thimerosal or mercury and there are no infectious materials.
This vaccine will guard against 70% of cervical cancers and 90% of genital warts. Clearly women would still need pap tests to regularly screen for possible cancer. And this vaccine would not prevent other S.T.I.'s (Sexually Transmitted Infections).
Public Health officialls are speaking out for administering this vaccine before females are sexually active (the proposed age of vaccination would be for girls 11-12 year olds with catch-up vaccination for 13-26 year olds).
So what does all this good news have to do with the religious right? Or the religious WRONG as they ought to be known...
Because those bible beaters are doing everything they can to ensure this vaccine never becomes a reality. True, it has already become FDA approved (they failed there) but the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) will vote on June 29th whether or not to recommend the vaccine and if so, who should get it and at what ages. Even then laws will vary from state to state regarding, age of vaccination and insurance coverage. You can bet the religious wrong are lobbying hard.
The religious wrong in this country and the pro-life groups have come out against the vaccine suggesting among other things, that it will simply incite youngsters (read: especially women) to become more promiscuous. They say it will give kids the green light to have sex and send the wrong message.
These religious wrong is basically saying: "Sluts deserve to get cancer."
Think about it, that IS what they are saying. Since they know women are getting cervical cancer every day but keep preaching that if you don't have sex you're a good person and God loves you then what does that mean for the infected? They are bad. They deserve it. If they had simply done what they were told, they'd be healthy now.
The Religious Wrong are gambling with your lives and trying to tamper with medical information. They do this by constantly lobbying against life-saving vaccines and Emergency Contraception going over the counter. The continually lobby for the FDA to change warning labels on condoms so the label will talk NOT about what condoms actually do, but rather talk of the condoms' ineffectiveness.
Well to that I say, read this article --- BOO YAH!
It's sad that people had to conduct a whole study proving to these morons that YES condoms are effective.
"A three-year study of female college students -- all virgins at the start -- found that women whose partners always wore a condom during sex were 70 percent less likely to become infected with the human papilloma virus, or HPV, than those whose partners used protection less than 5 percent of the time."
Notice that in the numbers, condoms do not 100% prevent HPV. Well that's a given. Every one knows the only way to 100% prevent a S.T.I. or pregnancy is to abstain. However, if you are going to engage in sexual activity and want to DRAMATICALLY lower your odds of contracting HPV or a number of other diseases... WEAR A CONDOM. This is not rocket science.
We shouldn't have to prove that this is scientifically the right thing to do. It should only take common sense. But in a world of these nutjobs... we have to prove common sense with exspensive scientific studies.
Wearing a condom is safe. It prevents disease. Getting a vaccine against a widespread S.T.I. is a great medical breakthrough. If it's safe and approved, why not sign up your daughters?
Think... even if your daughter was a virgin on her wedding day, her husband could still pass her the virus if he had even just ONE other sexual partner. Does that mean she should contract cerivcal cancer and die? OF COURSE NOT! Stop punishing people for engaging in sex!
Help protect your community's health!
For more info:
http://www.cdc.gov/std/hpv/
http://www.cdc.gov/std/pubs/
Or browse for more internet stories
http://www.sci-tech-today.com/story.xhtml?story_id=1010001QQOY6
Tuesday, June 20, 2006
South Dakota will decide
It's official. On November 7th South Dakota will decide whether to legally ban all abortions *(even those performed in cases of rape and incest)* --- it will be up to the voters at large. The abortion ban was originally scheduled to take effect July 1, not it's suspended pending the outcome of the public vote. Come November, we will find out just how the state of S.D. really feels.
Even if the ban is voted in, it will immediately be challenged because of its unconstitutionality under Supreme Court decision Roe v. Wade. Still, I have high hopes that South Dakota will defeat the ban on their own. True, many people are opposed to abortion in South Dakota. It's quite clear. I drove through less than a week ago and saw 5 anti-choice billboards ("Abortion stops a beating heart") before I saw ONE speed limit sign! Um, priorities anyone? But I think generally, the population has enough common sense to realize that such harsh restrictions (no abortions even in cases of rape or incest) are too much.
I can't believe we're here again. It wasn't long ago... in fact the generation of women who fought tooth and nail for our rights are still alive! They are alive and kicking. I've talked to so many women who have warned me. They tell me, "We had to raise major hell. We had to take to the street, go nights without sleep. We were spit at and called every name in the book... but by the end of the day woman had autonomy over her body. She could make a decision about her future without the interference of government, religion, or a group of male doctors. Don't forget how hard we fought."
The battle seems monstrous.
On June 17, Louisiana voted to criminalize abortion as well.
"An amended version of SB 33, the abortion ban, passed the Senate unopposed. The ban, which provides only an exception if the woman's life is in danger, would go into effect if the U.S. Supreme Court were to overturn Roe v. Wade."
Brilliant move Louisiana, I mean, people are still wandering around in your state without homes since Katrina, but lets devote Senate time to abortion!
It makes me want to cry to think we're so close to losing it all.
The fight to ensure women have access to basic health care like contraception, emergency contraception, and abortions. Even the fight to make sure our children are taught real, VALID sex education... why do we always have to fight for common sense?
I urge people to read this story:
There are major problems in the world that need addressing. Issues that involve living, breathing human beings, not a potential human fetus.
If you read this article, stop for a moment and think about the women refugees who are gang raped endlessly, then bear children as a result of this rape. Some are mutilated with guns, knives, whatever is around... and to think, in our country, if that happened to a woman she may not be entitled to emergency contraception or even an abortion.
It makes my blood run cold.
Even if the ban is voted in, it will immediately be challenged because of its unconstitutionality under Supreme Court decision Roe v. Wade. Still, I have high hopes that South Dakota will defeat the ban on their own. True, many people are opposed to abortion in South Dakota. It's quite clear. I drove through less than a week ago and saw 5 anti-choice billboards ("Abortion stops a beating heart") before I saw ONE speed limit sign! Um, priorities anyone? But I think generally, the population has enough common sense to realize that such harsh restrictions (no abortions even in cases of rape or incest) are too much.
I can't believe we're here again. It wasn't long ago... in fact the generation of women who fought tooth and nail for our rights are still alive! They are alive and kicking. I've talked to so many women who have warned me. They tell me, "We had to raise major hell. We had to take to the street, go nights without sleep. We were spit at and called every name in the book... but by the end of the day woman had autonomy over her body. She could make a decision about her future without the interference of government, religion, or a group of male doctors. Don't forget how hard we fought."
The battle seems monstrous.
On June 17, Louisiana voted to criminalize abortion as well.
"An amended version of SB 33, the abortion ban, passed the Senate unopposed. The ban, which provides only an exception if the woman's life is in danger, would go into effect if the U.S. Supreme Court were to overturn Roe v. Wade."
Brilliant move Louisiana, I mean, people are still wandering around in your state without homes since Katrina, but lets devote Senate time to abortion!
It makes me want to cry to think we're so close to losing it all.
The fight to ensure women have access to basic health care like contraception, emergency contraception, and abortions. Even the fight to make sure our children are taught real, VALID sex education... why do we always have to fight for common sense?
I urge people to read this story:
There are major problems in the world that need addressing. Issues that involve living, breathing human beings, not a potential human fetus.
If you read this article, stop for a moment and think about the women refugees who are gang raped endlessly, then bear children as a result of this rape. Some are mutilated with guns, knives, whatever is around... and to think, in our country, if that happened to a woman she may not be entitled to emergency contraception or even an abortion.
It makes my blood run cold.
Thursday, June 08, 2006
Great articles
A great article:
What happens when there's no Plan B -- very interesting and illuminating.
Another interesting read:
Contra-Contraception
Just makes you mad to read it... One pro-life group states, "The mind-set that invites a couple to use contraception is an antichild mind-set."
Ummmm, okay? And I guess we can't enjoy married life sexually unless we're wanting to create children? No common sense... so sad.
I cannot fathom why people put up this intensly silly argument..
"Sexual union in marriage ought to be a complete giving of each spouse to the other, and when fertility (or potential fertility) is deliberately excluded from that giving I am convinced that something valuable is lost. A husband will sometimes begin to see his wife as an object of sexual pleasure who should always be available for gratification."
That's just plain old offensive to men. Suddenly if men know they can have sex with their wife without possibility for a child, he'll decide she's simply an object... as opposed to the other option where women are supposed to be incubator-like objects, ready to pop out a kid at any moment?
People who make arguments like that are the REAL problem. Apparently they are incapable of finding any respect, spirituality or love in sexual relationships. They feel "dirty" and "used" for pleasure when they have sex. But you know what I say to them? That is your issue, not mine! The fact that you find sex so damaging... take that up with your therapist. But leave the majority of people (those who can enjoy married life and a healthy, happy and nurturing sexual relationship) ALONE. Leave them alone! They want to enjoy sex and there's nothing wrong with that! You cannot dictate when other Americans bear children.
Get a new soapbox.
What happens when there's no Plan B -- very interesting and illuminating.
Another interesting read:
Contra-Contraception
Just makes you mad to read it... One pro-life group states, "The mind-set that invites a couple to use contraception is an antichild mind-set."
Ummmm, okay? And I guess we can't enjoy married life sexually unless we're wanting to create children? No common sense... so sad.
I cannot fathom why people put up this intensly silly argument..
"Sexual union in marriage ought to be a complete giving of each spouse to the other, and when fertility (or potential fertility) is deliberately excluded from that giving I am convinced that something valuable is lost. A husband will sometimes begin to see his wife as an object of sexual pleasure who should always be available for gratification."
That's just plain old offensive to men. Suddenly if men know they can have sex with their wife without possibility for a child, he'll decide she's simply an object... as opposed to the other option where women are supposed to be incubator-like objects, ready to pop out a kid at any moment?
People who make arguments like that are the REAL problem. Apparently they are incapable of finding any respect, spirituality or love in sexual relationships. They feel "dirty" and "used" for pleasure when they have sex. But you know what I say to them? That is your issue, not mine! The fact that you find sex so damaging... take that up with your therapist. But leave the majority of people (those who can enjoy married life and a healthy, happy and nurturing sexual relationship) ALONE. Leave them alone! They want to enjoy sex and there's nothing wrong with that! You cannot dictate when other Americans bear children.
Get a new soapbox.
Ann Coulter is Satan
This story just made my head spin.
Now I was trying to think of a liberal media personality who was as outspoken and well known as Coulter. All that came to mind was Michael Moore. And to my knowledge Michael Moore has never said something so heartless as Ann Coulter. He has never said of uber-conservative families that they "enjoy" losing sons or daughters in the war because they're "godless" right-wingers.
But Ann Coulter (who is the biggest bitch on the planet-- and not bitch in a good, positive woman-affirming way, but bitch as in evil, heartless, devil) suggested in her recent book Godless: The Church of Liberalism, that widows of men who died in the World Trade Center enjoyed their husband's death, profited from it and now enjoy their "Celebrity status."
I'll say it again. Ann Coulter is Satan.
To watch a great video clip where an anchor let's her have it. Click here
I really appreciate this guy's scrutiny of Ann Coulter. She is a particularly evil human being. First of all, to insinuate that liberals are Godless is just stupid. I mean, I'd understand if it was something said in a moment of annoyance, frustration etc. I myself have been known to go off the deep end and just randomly call all conservatives "jerks" -- my last post for example. I realize now in hindsight that it wasn't very kind or accurate to say that all people who oppose gay marriage are either bigots or uneducated. I have close family members who are against gay marriage, and while I don't understand their opinion, I have discussed it with them at length and it doesn't appear to come from a hurtful, oppressive place. And it isn't as if they are "stupid." They just believe differently. And they are willing to give homosexuals civil unions, so that's a starting point...
But Ann Coulter... that crazy wrote a whole book on how all liberals are godless. She calls the widows of men who died in the world trade center "witches." Well, only widows that speak out against our current administration or support a democratic candidate. Coulter writes of these women, "I’ve never seen people enjoying their husbands’ deaths so much." She suggests that these women never really had the love of their husbands anyway.
She writes:
"And by the way how do we know their husbands weren't planning to divorce these harpies? Now that their shelf life is dwindling, they'd better hurry up and appear in Playboy."
Wow. Classy. First she says, "their husbands never really loved them" then she calls them sluts.
The widows issued this statement:
"There was no joy in watching men that we loved burn alive. There was no happiness in telling our children that their fathers were never coming home again. We adored these men and miss them every day. It is in their honor and memory that we will once again refocus the Nation's attention to the real issues at hand: our lack of security, leadership and progress in the five years since 9/11."
Those women are so brave and it sickens me that Ann Coulter slandered them.
I'm not going to dignify Ann Coulter's disgusting smear campaign with any formal response. She is clearly evil. She sits on T.V. wearing her crucifix while calling widows of murdered men, "harpies" and "witches" and suggests they enjoyed their husband's deaths, and have no morals. But why am I surprised? This is a woman who proudly said, "We should invade their countries, kill their leaders, and convert them to Christianity" when it comes to fighting Muslim countries.
Ugh. Now that's smart. Gee, why didn't we try that before? Oh right. Countries have tried that "invade, conquer, convert" method before... and wow, wouldn't you know it, it NEVER works.
Ann Coulter has also said on numerous occasions that she thinks the U.S. would be a better country if women didn't vote!!!! Seriously. And she's a woman? Does she not vote?
This woman is insane. Plain and simple.
Sunday, June 04, 2006
History of marriage-- complications of "I do"
This summer I have a wedding almost every weekend. Many of my close girlfriends are planning their ceremonies. It’s an exciting and happy time. But this makes me really take a closer look at the institution of marriage…For instance, I know a gal (we’ll call her Katie) with extremely evangelical, traditional Christian values. Katie felt the need to quiz her sister on whether or not she and her fiancée had ever engaged in pre-marital sex. First of all, it isn’t uncommon in this day in age for people to engage in sexual relations while in serious, monogamous relationships. And contrary to the “NO SEX BEFORE MARRIAGE” message, people don’t regret having sex before marriage. It doesn’t ruin you or ruin what you will have with the person you are going to marry. On the other hand, I completely respect people who choose to wait. If that’s what makes them happy and comfortable, I say “mazaltoff!” But let adults decide what God wants for them and when they’re going to be sexually active. Even if you think it’s a better choice to remain celibate until marriage, it’s still none of your business, so back off.
Marriage is such a hot-button issue these days that even the U.S. Senate is getting involved. The Federal Marriage Amendment (the “one man, one woman” law) is once again being deliberated. On May 18th of this year, 10 Republicans said "aye" to writing marriage discrimination into the U.S. Constitution—and all 8 committee Democrats said "no." The amendment will now be sent to the Senate floor for a full vote.
You might be thinking, “I haven’t heard about this!” That’s because sneaky republicans are hiding this from you. Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter (Republican-Pa.) moved the vote from the committee's normal room in the Dirksen Senate Office Building to the obscure President's Room in the Capitol, where there are no cameras or press allowed. Hence, no public scrutiny.
According to President Bush in a 2004 radio address, "The union of a man and woman in marriage is the most enduring and important human institution, and the law can teach respect or disrespect for that institution."
For once I agree. Marriage is wonderful and important. I hope people approach it with respect. When you say “I will take this person in sickness and health,” I hope you mean it. I hope when you start a family, you commit to them fully. I want people to commit to their family’s safety, both emotionally and financially. BUT… I don’t believe for one second that same-sex couples don’t understand this and can’t be part of the institution of marriage.
People that don’t want gay people to get married are bigots disguised as religious crusaders. There’s no reason, other than ignorance that you could argue for the Federal Marriage Amendment. Maybe you've heard people say:
“We need to get back to the way marriage used to be”
And what “way” would that be exactly?
According to the Old Testament, the ancient Hebrews were polygamous. Ancient Egyptian royalty practiced brother-sister marriage in homage to the Egyptian gods Osiris and Isis. And in some Native American cultures, transgendered women born as biological males were among the most prized of wives.
The history of marriage is surprisingly not dominated by love. The institution was created to help the elite consolidate power, wealth, and property.
“For the lower classes, common-law and other informal arrangements were more customary,” says Stephanie Coontz, a family historian working on a new book about the history of marriage. “They had little property to protect, and there simply weren't enough priests or judges to officiate their nuptials or organized records to track them. And slaves, a substantial percentage of the population, were forbidden to marry.”
As marriage became more accessible across class lines, it still remained a relatively business-centered deal. For example the wife of a hunter might process his furs — and a legal marriage helped the husband lay claim to the benefits of his wife's labor.
Romance didn’t enter the picture until the 20th century! "According to the director of research and public education for the Council on Contemporary Families, as late as 1967, one poll of American college students showed that 75 percent of the young women said that they would marry a man they didn't love if he met their other criteria — if he was a good provider, and he was decent and sober."
Marriage has changed as our society has changed. This change has a great deal to do with the women’s movement. Women are no longer business deals, sold by their fathers to husbands to work in a husband’s fur trade. Women work outside the home and may even be the primary breadwinner. Women also control their reproductive destiny with birth control. All this has contributed to shaping the modern marriage. It has allowed Americans to be pickier about whom and when we get married, how our careers progress and the number and spacing of our children.
This is the first time in the history of humanity that marriage has become strictly about love—a rather unpredictable emotion.
Even with all the changes and divorce at high rates, people still believe in marriage. They find a person with whom they think “forever” is possible. It’s the sweetest, most hopeful sight in the world. I look forward to bearing witness as so many friends take their walk down the aisle to the person they love.
But marriage still feels bittersweet to me. Even with all our social advances:
*Women and children are no longer property of the husband,*
*interracial couples can now legally be married*
*people are allowed divorce if the marriage is unhealthy*
Yet we still find same-sex marriage such a threat that we’re willing to write discrimination into our constitution!!!
People want to tell you that marriage has always been between one man and one woman (but that’s not true) and people want to tell you that sex is only for marriage (well that’s also not true because marriage used to be something only reserved for the elite class, and not even associated with religion or ethics, rather business).
The people who want to “educate” you on proper sexual behavior pre-marriage have a giant stick up their ass. Tell them to mind their own business and move on. People that want to deny homosexuals the right to marry are uneducated at best, and bigots at worst. Never trust people who pick and choose parts of history and the bible that suit their agenda.
Read this article for more
Go here to oppose the marriage amendment
Friday, June 02, 2006
Update on Yvette Cade
Update on the Yvette Cade story. The wife who was set on fire by her estranged husband.
From the Washington Post:
WASHINGTON — A Maryland man who set his wife on fire was sentenced by a Prince George’s County, Md., judge Friday to the maximum penalty of life in prison after a jury found him guilty of attempted murder and assault charges.
Circuit Court Judge William Missouri told Roger Hargrave, 34, that he had failed to take responsibility for the Oct. 10, 2005, attack in which he doused his estranged wife, Yvette Cade, with gasoline and then lit a match to her.
“You never once said I am sorry for what I did to my wife,” Missouri told Hargrave. “You said I’m sorry for what happened to her. You’re avoiding responsibility for what you did.”
A Prince George’s jury convicted Hargrave of first- and second-degree attempted murder and first-degree assault on April 28. The attack occurred when Hargrave walked into a mobile phone store where Cade worked in Clinton, Md., poured gasoline on her head from a bottle and chased her outside, where she fell to the ground. Hargrave then lit a match and dropped it on her.
Hargrave did not testify at his trial, and his defense attorney did not dispute that his client had set Cade on fire. The attorney contended, however, that Hargrave was not trying to kill Cade.
Cade, 32, suffered third-degree burns — the most serious kind — on much of her torso and underwent more than a dozen surgeries.
Friday morning, inside an Upper Marlboro courtroom packed with members of the Cade family, reporters and curious courthouse workers, Hargrave spoke publicly about the attack for the first time.
Dressed in a dark blue suit and silver-colored tie, he read from a statement he had written himself. He often mumbled and spoke in a voice so low that Missouri several times prompted him to speak up so the court reporter could hear him.
Hargrave apologized to Cade’s co-workers who witnessed the attack and to Cade’s family, and he said he was sorry for what happened to her.
“I still can’t figure out what I thought I was doing,” Hargrave said. “I can only explain my actions as those of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde.”
Hargrave asserted that he was not trying to murder his estranged wife. Saying that he now has embraced Christianity, he said he hopes someday to be able to help people afflicted by physical and emotional abuse.
Cade, given the opportunity to speak before Hargrave was sentenced, said she did not know what else she could say about the attack. Then she asked people in the courtroom to close their eyes and bow their heads as she recited the Lord’s Prayer.
In addition to focusing attention on domestic violence, the widely publicized case has embroiled a Prince George’s district court judge in controversy.
About three weeks before the attack, District Court Judge Richard Palumbo dismissed a protective order Cade had obtained against Hargrave, according to court records.
Last month, the Maryland Commission on Judicial Disabilities formally accused Palumbo of misconduct in the Cade case. The commission also accused Palumbo of a broad pattern of insensitivity in domestic violence cases and charged him with violating judicial standards by his behavior in two traffic incidents in which he encountered Maryland State Police troopers.
Palumbo’s attorney this week filed a written response to the charges in which the judge denied any wrongdoing. The response said that the dismissal of Cade’s protective order was a clerical error.
The commission is scheduled to hold a public hearing on the charges in August.
From the Washington Post:
WASHINGTON — A Maryland man who set his wife on fire was sentenced by a Prince George’s County, Md., judge Friday to the maximum penalty of life in prison after a jury found him guilty of attempted murder and assault charges.
Circuit Court Judge William Missouri told Roger Hargrave, 34, that he had failed to take responsibility for the Oct. 10, 2005, attack in which he doused his estranged wife, Yvette Cade, with gasoline and then lit a match to her.
“You never once said I am sorry for what I did to my wife,” Missouri told Hargrave. “You said I’m sorry for what happened to her. You’re avoiding responsibility for what you did.”
A Prince George’s jury convicted Hargrave of first- and second-degree attempted murder and first-degree assault on April 28. The attack occurred when Hargrave walked into a mobile phone store where Cade worked in Clinton, Md., poured gasoline on her head from a bottle and chased her outside, where she fell to the ground. Hargrave then lit a match and dropped it on her.
Hargrave did not testify at his trial, and his defense attorney did not dispute that his client had set Cade on fire. The attorney contended, however, that Hargrave was not trying to kill Cade.
Cade, 32, suffered third-degree burns — the most serious kind — on much of her torso and underwent more than a dozen surgeries.
Friday morning, inside an Upper Marlboro courtroom packed with members of the Cade family, reporters and curious courthouse workers, Hargrave spoke publicly about the attack for the first time.
Dressed in a dark blue suit and silver-colored tie, he read from a statement he had written himself. He often mumbled and spoke in a voice so low that Missouri several times prompted him to speak up so the court reporter could hear him.
Hargrave apologized to Cade’s co-workers who witnessed the attack and to Cade’s family, and he said he was sorry for what happened to her.
“I still can’t figure out what I thought I was doing,” Hargrave said. “I can only explain my actions as those of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde.”
Hargrave asserted that he was not trying to murder his estranged wife. Saying that he now has embraced Christianity, he said he hopes someday to be able to help people afflicted by physical and emotional abuse.
Cade, given the opportunity to speak before Hargrave was sentenced, said she did not know what else she could say about the attack. Then she asked people in the courtroom to close their eyes and bow their heads as she recited the Lord’s Prayer.
In addition to focusing attention on domestic violence, the widely publicized case has embroiled a Prince George’s district court judge in controversy.
About three weeks before the attack, District Court Judge Richard Palumbo dismissed a protective order Cade had obtained against Hargrave, according to court records.
Last month, the Maryland Commission on Judicial Disabilities formally accused Palumbo of misconduct in the Cade case. The commission also accused Palumbo of a broad pattern of insensitivity in domestic violence cases and charged him with violating judicial standards by his behavior in two traffic incidents in which he encountered Maryland State Police troopers.
Palumbo’s attorney this week filed a written response to the charges in which the judge denied any wrongdoing. The response said that the dismissal of Cade’s protective order was a clerical error.
The commission is scheduled to hold a public hearing on the charges in August.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
