Shocking Developments

This has yet to be confirmed, but I feel like I've been added to the list of contributors to this blog for one reason and one reason only:  to drop knowledge.  We have people to make jokes, people who rant about random things, and even people that will stir your soul with recommendations of where to go, what to watch and what you should be eating and why.  Not my job.  Don't want to step outside my role.  I write things that make you go..."DAMN."  So without further ado...

There is a bill in the Illinois Assembly as I write that will grant same sex couples the same rights and privileges of heterosexual couples.  From what I can tell it doesn't go as far as granting the right to MARRY, but it does allow for civil unions, which essentially means that for all purposes under Illinois law the term "spouse" can also mean "partner" (unless they re-write all the laws which we know ain't happenin).

Now I know you're saying "that ain't making me say 'DAMN'."  Well let me get to that.

First, such a thing will never happen on a national level because the 43rd president signed a law which basically says that marriage = man + woman for the purposes of federal law.  This same law even says that (in contrast to the US Constitution) if one state makes gay marriage legal, and two people marry in that state, another state doesn't have to recognize the union if it doesn't want to.  This is a big deal considering the 43rd president won several states in 2004 on the issue of gay marriage.  There continues to be a big deal about gay marriage across the country, but in my humble opinion gay marriage is politically irrelevant.  (Did he just say that?  DAMN!)

We live in a country that supposedly separates church and state.  Laws are stricken down because of this distinction (ex. the Illinois law allowing for "moments of silence" in schools was ruled unconstitutional recently because it violated the Establishment clause of the US constitution).  This is key for me in the gay marriage argument because you really can't argue AGAINST gay marriage without bringing in religion.  Note that the issue is gay MARRIAGE, not GAYNESS.  So saying "it's unnatural" or "it wasn't Adam and Steve" is just stupid.  We're talking about the right of two people to decide under the law that they want to spend the rest of their lives together, not whether or not it's okay for two people of the same sex to like each other.  Indeed many states that used to have laws against sodomy have had those laws stricken from the books as unconstitutional.  Thus the law ALREADY says it's okay to BE gay or to have homosexual sex.

Marriage in the US is made of two parts: the legal (getting the marriage license from the state) and the ceremonial/religious.  Most religions frown upon the idea of homosexuality, so if the churches choose not to marry same sex couples I have no problem with that.  But what are the real reasons behind not allowing two people of the same sex to obtain a marriage license from the state?  Marriage is not considered to be a fundamental right under the US constitution, so the government is allowed to restrict the right to marriage for just about any reason.  It doesn't even have to be a good one.  But those that wish to restrict this right often point to justifications that sound religious.  Many of our laws are based on societal mores (for example we view killing people without justification as wrong so we have a law against murder; stealing is wrong so we have laws against burglary and robbery) and often those mores are based in religion, Christianity in particular.  To deny people ANY right or privilege (as opposed to restricting bad behavior) based on "societal mores" with roots in religion is flat out wrong in a place where we supposedly separate our politics and our prayer.  I'm glad Illinois is finally getting something right in the realm of politics.

In other news, Illinois is also deciding whether or not to get rid of the death penalty.  If the law passes, anyone with a death sentence will get life in prison.

This upsets me because now my state tax dollars will go to feed and house these criminals for the rest of their days.  At least there was a chance the bastard would die at some point.  But the problem with the death penalty is that it's given out but rarely executed (no pun intended).  There are all sorts of arguments as to why we should or why we should not have the death penalty, but the fact is this punishment is only given for the worst crimes.  Maddoff won't get the death penalty for stealing, but if he raped and killed the people he swindled then yes he likely would be sentenced to death.

Part of the problem is deciding who "deserves" to die and even better, who gets to decide and why do they get to decide?  Punishment is usually determined by judges--why are they so special that they get to decide who lives and who doesn't?  To me it's very simple: if you take a life, or make someone else's life so miserable that death would be the better alternative, they you get the death penalty.  Period.  I'm a huge proponent of the Golden Rule; it should apply to punishment as well.  But we're supposed to be more evolved than that.  Eye for an Eye is what those crazy Muslim third world countries do.  That CAN'T be the United States.

Well it should be.  You rape someone, you get to be someones bitch in prison.  You kill someone you die.  You kill a child, you should suffer before you die.  You rape a child, I'm not sure there is a level of equivalent cruelty.   The point is, Illinois HAS to get rid of the death penalty, not because we're so evolved, but because we can't figure out when, where or even how to use it.  Black men used to be strug up with their balls cut off and stuffed in their mouths while people gathered around to watch.  Today that's cruel and unusual punishment.  Now we can't give lethal injections because THAT'S inhumane.  Is there really a humane way to kill someone?  Did the bum think of that shit when he/she was killing/maiming/harming their victim?