Update on Chicken Man

You may remember a story I wrote back in December about a man who wanted to become a chicken through hormone therapy. Well now there is an update. This man also sought to be legally declared a chicken, but was dealt a blow today by a Washington state court judge who instead of legally declaring him a chicken, had him legally declared a Bobwhite quail. However, only one week later that judge was overruled by a circuit court judge on the grounds that the prior judge was clinically insane and legally unfit to oversee the case, because, according to the circuit court judge, "It was quite obvious that the man more closely resembled a wood duck."

The man/chicken/Bobwhite quail/wood duck in question was born Leroy Jones. However, it is still unclear what his name will be once he gains full bird status. However, the birdman's psyche has been severely shaken as this devastating series of court rulings have come down. Rumors have it that the birdman might actually sue both of the judges for emotional damages in order to cover his psychiatry bills.

Great Paradox

Sometimes, when you feel most powerful, you are in fact the most insignificant. Then, when you feel quite insignificant, you are the most powerful. It is a strange state of irony, but it very often holds true. The more our confidence pushes us toward arrogance, the weaker our moral position becomes, while the more our confidence pushes us to understand the greatness of the whole and our small part in it, the more the world opens up to us. It wanes toward the biblical and the God-fearing, and I find it interesting.

I have had a philosophy for some time now, that I am better off being bold, brazen, and visible rather than quiet, meek, and hidden. My rationale is that if I am confident, and believe I have something good to give or share, it is my duty to share it. It's like the candle under the bushel. I'm not a fan of that. It might catch the bushel on fire. So, while many might find my ways arrogant and cocky, the motives behind them are pure my aim is to be anything but that. I hope at times that my confidence, ambition, and determination inspire hope and optimism rather than irritation, cynicism, and contempt. But the world cannot judge us by our motives.

As much as people would like to prosecute 'hate crimes' differently than other crimes, we cannot become a society that looks to punish for motive. We punish for the deed. What differentiates a 'hate crime' from 'crime?' There are in fact both wrong, but I think the hubris required to attempt to punish someone for their intent, without being able to really gauge it is folly. In the same way, I will continue to be me. I will say what I say, stand up for what I believe, and try to be a visible example. Of course I will falter, make mistakes, do and say stupid things, but my intent is good. And men cannot judge my intent. That is for God.

Civil Unions

Ok, here's a topic I'm prepared to take the heat for. I'm sure you're all well aware that in California the Supreme Court decided to legislate from the bench and say gay marriage is okay. Well I'd like to take issue with that. In my opinion, and in the written text of most dictionaries I am aware of, marriage is between a man and a woman.

Now before everyone blows up at me for being intolerant let me say that I am fine with gay people having civil unions with legal rights similar to marriage. However, my problem is in the wording. Marriage should not be used when referring to a gay union. It is a union, but not a marriage. It would save everyone a whole lot of trouble if that's how we kept it.

Here is the webster definition of marriage:

mar·riage
Pronunciation:
\ˈmer-ij, ˈma-rij\
Function:
noun
Etymology:
Middle English mariage, from Anglo-French, from marier to marry
Date:
14th century
1 a (1): the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law

And here is wikipedia's explanation of a civil union:

A civil union is a legally recognized union similar to marriage. Beginning with Denmark in 1989, civil unions under one name or another have been established by law in many developed countries in order to provide same-sex couples with rights, benefits, and responsibilities similar (in some countries, identical) to opposite-sex civil marriage. In some jurisdictions, such as Quebec, New Zealand, and Uruguay, civil unions are also open to opposite-sex couples.

Most civil-union countries recognize foreign unions if those are essentially equivalent to their own; for example, the United Kingdom lists equivalent unions in Civil Partnership Act Schedule 20.

Many people are critical of civil unions because they say they represent separate status unequal to marriage ("marriage apartheid"). Others are critical because they say civil unions allow same-sex marriage by using a different name.

Now that wasn't so hard now, was it?
Read article.