Sorry! I need to implement cute/inspiring themes like some of my friends do, whose blogs I am obsessed with, but then I would feel like I'm totally ripping them off.
We'll see.
Anyhoo! Let's give an update of the last month, shall we? Well, you can't answer because you are cyberspace that I hope will turn in to real people reading this, but alas, for now you are inanimate.
So I will answer with resounding fervor - yes!
July was a wee bit more relaxed for us, we didn't have something going on every weekend! The highlight of the month was for sure our trip to California with our best friend, Dan. At least I hope he is still our best friend after an entire week spent with us. Here are a few highlights from the trip.
This is us with Thelma and Johnnie Johnson - the cutest, sweetest, spunkiest couple you could ever meet! I want to be like them when I grow up.
They had these hideous sunglasses all over San Francisco! If you can't see, mine have Michael Jackson and Alex's have Obama. HAHAHAHAHA!
What would a photo album be without the funny face game? (For those of you uncultured swine (jk -that's from Toy Story) the funny face game is when you make a continuously changing crazy face and you snap the picture in the middle of it. Classic).
We stayed on this gorgeous beach with cute flowers everywhere.
And the last night we were there I threw up a few vital organs, so this is a shot of the morning on the way home. I didn't think I looked that bad! And this was after I felt a million times better.
So that was our fun, much-needed vacation. There was a lot more to it than those few pictures, but I won't bore you.
What I will do now is bore you with my rants on current events/politics.
Prop 8. I can't even tell you how much I hate how much animosity towards the church has been cultivated because of this. Why does everyone blame it on this single entity? The state of California VOTED. They voted. 50% of California is NOT made up entirely of Mormons. Do the simple research - scores of other organizations and religions supported this proposition just as valiantly as the LDS church did. AND - again, do the simple research - those opposed spent just as much money on their campaigning as did the proponents.
Also - who the heck does this judge think he is to OVERTURN a majority vote?! The people voted - they voted you in to office, mister! Who are you to sit on your high horse and decide what is "really" the right thing to do? Ugh.
Lastly, I don't care what the issue is, LEAVE ME TO MY BELIEFS and I WILL LEAVE YOU TO YOURS. Don't ostracize me and tell me that I am a horrible person because I believe what I do. We don't walk around vandalizing people who support animal rights. We don't spit on people who support organizations for the needy. But don't you realize that by protecting animals those people are denying the rights of people to beat their dogs?! GASP!
Listen, I realize this is different - but do you see the correlation I'm trying to illustrate? I believe one thing, you believe another. This does not make us bad people. Either one of us. I'm sorry that you didn't get what you wanted, but guess what? Obama is in the white house, I don't like any of the Supreme Court Justices, abortion is still legal, the ACLU is up in my grill ALL the freaking time telling me what I CAN'T do. That's life. That's America. It's called democracy. That means you don't always get what you want, but keep on voting and maybe it will come to pass.
Deal with it and don't freak out on me just because of what church I belong to.
Mmmmmmkay?!?!
Posts
3 comments:
I don't think this counts as telling you you're a horrible person, because that's actually QUITE the opposite of what I believe. If nothing else, the way you peel apples has convinced me mightily that you're a solidly great person. And though I do support gay marriage, I haven't always, so I think I get both sides of the argument somewhat.
Anyhow, I just wanted to point out that the judge overturning a majority vote - that's actually part of his job. The judicial branch is responsible for interpreting the constitution and upholding it when laws seem to contradict it. An easy example is the way black people have been treated in this country. Even though the citizens of certain states might have voted, by majority, to keep black people from voting, or to keep black children from attending schools with white children, the supreme court upheld its responsibility by interpreting the constitution and combating that majority opinion. Oppressing a race of people wasn't okay just because more than 50% of the people wanted that oppression.
And so I know some people don't see marriage as a civil right, and that's not the argument I'm making. But it's a similar situation: a judge, appointed by president bush (not voted in by the people), saw a law as violating the constitution, so he did his job and overturned it. And we'll see what happens from here.
I stand corrected on the origin of the judge's appointment, but I have to bring up some thoughts on what I believe a judge's power should include.
As all of us well know, as of late the constitution has become one of those documents that is "up for interpretation". So although it does follow under the umbrella of a judge to protect and uphold the constitution, the way that he/she does that is a matter of personal belief.
There are thousands upon thousands of people (simply consult the ACLU) who believe that any sort of display of Christianity in public is unconstitutional. Well, I firmly believe that it is not. Simply telling me what I can and can't do in my school, my work, my public life to me is a sign of unconstitutionality. But they want to take away our national day of prayer, just in case it might offend someone. They want to take the word "God" out of anything and everything. What could be more unconstitutional than that? They are infringing on my right to practice religion by doing that.
Obviously, these are different issues, but I hope that it makes sense.
It is all about what individual people believe, and apparently the majority of California believes that gay marriage should not be legal AND that it is not unconstitutional to ban it (which is the key point here), and I think the judge should respect that and put his individual beliefs aside.
Also, to point out one of the more horrendous things I have discovered about this judge: in 2005 he upheld a complaint made by a city because two employees were putting up flyers promoting "natural family, marriage and family values", stating that this was discriminatory against homosexuals - and this was 6 years after he dismissed complaints made by parents who were concerned about a teacher making pro-gay comments in their son's classroom. Doesn't this seem hypocritical? We can talk about being pro-gay all over the place, but don't you dare talk about being pro-family! This is exactly the type of ambiguity I am talking about in "interpreting the constitution".
Thanks for the friendly debate :)
Post a Comment