All Mixed Up -Tuesday, March 02, 2004 -6:25 am-
You're all invited to bring music over because I am finally happy (at least for the moment) with my stereo. Last night I built speaker stand-ish things that have made a world of difference. Basically, all they are is a open-topped, open-bottomed box with 50lbs of sand inside. The speaker sets directly on the sand and the sand sets directly on the floor. All the box does is keep the bag of sand from bursting. They're only prototypes, of course. The next revision is going to be twice as tall (you have to set on the floor to get in the sweet spot right now) and a little more than twice as heavy. For a seven dollar investment in parts, it certainly blows away $1000 spend on electronics. Come listen!
I was thinking about some things today with the intent of blogging, only to find that Kuro5hin had beat me to it. I'm going to blather anyway. I'm sure it surprises none of you to learn that I oppose the possibility of a Constitutional Amendment defining marriage to be just one man with just one woman. What will likely surprise many of you is why. In the specific, limited context of a Constitutional Amendment, I don't find the my beliefs about the rights of gays to marry relevant. To clarify, I don't care that the amendment would do something immoral. What upsets me is the direction? polarity? of the proposed amendment. Looking at the words and actions of the Framers, Constitutional Amendments are meant for two things only. The must either fix a problem with the operation of the government (see Amendments XII, XVI, XVII, XXII, etc) or secure to the People a right (see Amendments I through IX [with the exception of III, cause III is dumb], XIII, XV, XIX, etc.). The one time the country broke this ideal (e.g. Amendment XVIII), organized crime thrived, the economy suffered, and most of the People were criminals. I wouldn't be surprised if there was a plague of frogs in there too. This oversight was corrected swiftly (on a governmental timeline). To me, the fact that the proposed amendment would deny rights to a group of people is the key point. It doesn't matter who is being excluded, or why, or from what. Words obstructing the rights of the people have no place in our Constitution. Laws, however, are a different matter. I strongly oppose any and all laws defining marriage as only one man and only one woman on moral grounds. To deny to others rights you yourself enjoy (with the noted exception of the criminal justice system) is immoral. Interestingly, there are some conservative Republicans starting to make oppositional statements based on this same logic (well, the don't want gay's to marry, but the agree with me about the Amendment).
writebacks...
gothicsquish wrote
Make a comment...