sundries

[rm]

Offensive? Inexplicable? All of the above? Anti-healthcare ad in which a bunch of people proclaim "I guess I'm a racist." I am FLOORED. Convoluted rheotrical strategy FAIL, and, oh yeah, RACIST.

The Tiger Woods thing is not interesting to me. The New York Post's headline about his "harem" though made me want to punch something (racist exoticization and removal of female agency! All in one!).

Space tourism is almost here.

Gay marriage bill on the move in New Jersey.

Meanwhile, the Supreme Court has agreed to hear an appeal from a Christian student group that's been denied recognition by a public law school in California because they exclude non-Christians and gays. The Times says "the case pits anti-discrimination principles against religious freedom," which isn't really how I'd interpret the scenario.

A MN Quaker group has decided to stop certifying het marriages until gay ones are legal too. via karjack

A manager at an Orlando McDonalds is completely horrible to a trans teen looking for a job.

The life of a stooper.

NY'ers: ellen_kushner and deliasherman are reading tonight at the monthly NYSRF thing.

Comments

[delchi.livejournal.com]

I like the way you think. It would be interesting if people in general would ' take back ' marriage from the churches and the government ( taxation , registration, etc ) and perform more meaningful personal ceremonies in protest. It would take alot of legal wrangling to get your rights ( both civil and legal ) in order, but imagine the backlash.

1. The bloated and socially overfed wedding industry takes a huge and much deserved hit.

2. People moving away from closed minded religious groups, and taking religion back to where it belongs - a personal relationship between the individual and how they address any higher authority. The rise of smaller community based religious organizations that have the betterment of it's members and community at the front of the line instead of politics and money.

3. Loss of revenue in the various legal processes associated with marriage , where possible. it won't be perfect but until we as a country get our heads screwed on straight it's better than letting other people dictate how to live our lives.

Imagne the change .....

[fabricdragon.livejournal.com]

given that i favor a complete seperation of the civil govt "marriage" form the religious "marriage" i would generally agree with you..... BUT

not all religions CAN be divorced from the community/church. for many religions the whole point is apostolic succession of the priesthood, for example. or a need to have at least 10. or something.

[delchi.livejournal.com]

Right, so what I was suggesting in that case is that the members of the community steer the church in such a way that it's focus is on the religion/community and not involvement in politics.

[misch.livejournal.com]

That's one of the interesting points of the New Jersey legislation, S1967. Section 5 specifically states that if a religious group doesn't want to perform the marriage ceremony they don't have to. Civil authorities who are already authorized will have to.

Of course, this doesn't speak to the non-discrimination in public accommodations vs. religious freedom argument. But, hey, that's another court case.

[delchi.livejournal.com]

Interesting. I'l have to grab a copy of that .... ( I live in NJ at the moment )

[misch.livejournal.com]

Here you go.

You can find your legislative members here.