Drink this...

The government has no authority to redefine this...

Although it recognizes marriage, the government didn't define marriage--what gives it the authority to redefine it to satisfy an unknown percentage of a small portion of our country's population?

I'm about to go off on a tangent with this...

Why don't we just take marriage out of government completely?

Moving forward, any man and woman who want to receive their God's blessing of marriage can do so in the manner of their own choosing or as prescribed by their spiritual faith.

This union shall not be recognized by the government or other authorities.

Rather, a new civil union shall be established.

Any two* people of same or opposite sex who want to make a permanent commitment to each other can apply for a license for a civil union to be recognized by government, employers, insurance providers, etc.

Dissolution of said unions shall be discouraged and severely punished (read: alimony, palimony, child support and inconvenience tax will be applied and enforced).

* Arguments will be made for polygamous, incestual and any other number of desired unions and the government will be called upon to define "equal protection"

Like I said, I was off on a tangent. I'm not really sure how I feel about this--still sorting it out in my mind, and now out loud.

But I am tiring of the debate.

I understand and respect the desire for equal treatment under the law, but I don't understand the desire to undermine a long standing spiritual tradition of many countries, cultures, generations, races and religions.

I question any argument's ability to convince me otherwise.

The barometer on this...

David Williams, a columnist for The Daily Barometer, Oregon State University's student newspaper, tells us why he's cooler than Andy Rooney.

Lite footing this...

Litefoot, the first Native American hip-hop artist, speaks out on the OutKast controversy:

Litefoot: Outkast, Stereotypes, Native America

Outwit, outplay, outlast Outrage this...

I haven't been sufficiently inspired to post about the Native Americans taking offense to OutKast's grammy performance until today.

I heard about the outrage before I saw the performance so I watched with a skewed perception and am not sure if I would have been sensitive to the offense had I not known about it beforehand, but I'm inclined to think not.

What I saw was a themed performance. I saw a celebration of talent, creativity, courage, determination, and survival. And I thought it was outstanding.

I immediately went into my standard diatribe about not being able to do anything without offending someone.

A few found this insensitive but most agreed. What I found interesting was an admitted favorable bias and sympathy toward the native american (read: built-in sense of guilt) among those who found it offensive. Upon examination, I can't admit the same bias.

A few days ago, I inquired to Donna, a fellow blogger of some native-American heritage, her thoughts on the subject.

She hadn't seen so couldn't comment on the performance, but she did agree that political correctness is out of control and led me to this...

Questioning the sincerity of this...

Britney Spears has gone celibate!
Wednesday February 25 2004 15:17 IST

NEW YORK: Pop sensation Britney Spears has pledged to remain celibate as she renews her relationship with Christianity.

According to British magazine Star, the singer has given up sex after a string of disastrous relationships and dates with Justin Timberlake, Colin Farrell, Fred Durst and her choreographer Columbus Short.[full story]

This lil diva needs to get her life back on track and I don't know of any better route she could take. I just hope she's sincere in her attempt.