Alright people, I'm feeling uninspired today so I shall direct your attention elsewhere. A few links:
Do people really abort because they find out the baby has Down's Syndrome? I thought that people had abortions because of the mother's circumstances, the mother's health, or because the baby had such severe abnormalities that it would only live a year or two.
But lately all these people have come out of the woodwork saying, "Yeah, we would have aborted it if it had had Down's." Really? Am I totally out of touch with the baby calculus going on in other people's heads?
Annnnnnd...did you know that, in NJ, you can vote by absentee ballot for any or no reason at all? I did not know that...until yesterday. From the NJ Division of Elections website page on Absentee Voting:
And here's the link to the application. I'm thinking about doing it, for a few reasons:
I'm thinking about not doing it for symbolic reasons:
The important thing is that you vote. Somehow, some way, it doesn't matter how you vote, just do it!
And now, for something completely different (well, perhaps not; it's about a proposition that's up for vote in CA): Frank Notes blogs about and against California's Proposition 8 here and here. I am tewtally down with commenter Mary, who says:
Stheriousy. My own comment (which came off a bit pessimistic):
People make such a big deal out of marriage, like it's some sort of ethereal existence. It's just one type of interpersonal relationship. It has not always existed. It has also played different roles in society throughout time, as Mary noted about its use of transferring property. Or transferring power. At some places and times it has represented - and continues to represent - the union of entire families rather than just two people. Sometimes multiple spouses (usually multiple wives) are allowed, accepted as normal and perhaps even encouraged, but even that is often done for reasons other than bco some spiritual union business. Basically, I doubt that very few people who get married actually do so for groovy mystical reasons.
I'd like to see state-recognized marriage and all its benefits as a civil function, i.e., a civil wedding takes place and is the legal wedding for purposes of all those lovely benefits. If people want to have a religious ceremony too, they can certainly do so. My father used to occasionally get pictures from then-Communist Poland of relatives' weddings. There seemed invariably to be two pictures: one of the happy couple at their civil wedding and one at their religious wedding. So in my mind, then, this idea of civil and religious weddings suggests a Communist approach. That's not necessarily a bad thing. But I assume that those who are afraid of the Pinko Commie Threat would oppose such an arrangement, but I bet a lot of such people wouldn't even know enough to make the connection to what Communist countries used to do.
Shorter: Just take religious institutions out of the state-recognized marriage business.
Even shorter: Separation of church and state.