Charles and Christy’s Weblog

While they shouldn’t quit their day jobs to write for The Onion or The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, this is a pretty good April Fools entry by the Project for Public Places.

Cars, Trucks Protest Against Placemaking

Fearful of losing their long dominance of the streets, millions of autos stage massive park-ins in public spaces around the nation to protest pedestrians and alternative modes of transportation.

The current round of Democratic primaries demonstrate just how much our democracy benefits from thick competition.

Witness the evidence:

• the media pay attention to the primaries for a long time
• the party’s message gets press for a long time
• record numbers of voters turn out in the primary
• the party gets energized
• the candidates must get better at connecting with voters or bow out
• TV commercials don’t mean as much
• negative ads don’t play well

So Terry McAuliffe doesn’t get it at all. He, as DNC chair, wants the campaign to narrow down to one candidate as soon as possible.

The 2-candidate or 2-party system simply does not do politics a service, nor does it do the public a service.

There’s been a lot of brouhaha since the Massachusetts Court decision around gay marriage. To me, the answer is simple and it sure doesn’t require a constitutional amendment.

Let the state’s only responsibility be to recognize the rights of couples to form civil unions. This provides committed partners the right to insurance benfits and household tax filings. It grants the right to access and make decisions about a hospitalized loved one. It grants the right to full legal status as a parent. The state should only recognize and grant these rights in the form of civil unions and should not have anything to do with marriages. The state evaluates couples of any orientation purely on the basis of whether they are fit for the legal obligations.

Then let the churches and other religious institutions perform the rite of marriage according to their customs and beliefs. Let them decide what “preserves sanctity. Religious groups then have complete power over the portion that is relevant to them - the spiritual portion. Couples that wish to have their household observed in the eyes of religion must find a spiritual home in which to hold their rite.

Heterosexual couples enjoy this freedom rather well as they can currently choose an officiant that best fits their beliefs. That may be a priest or a judge - the priest performs a rite while the judge simply grants rights.

To me, any other legislative solution confuses the roles and responsibilities inherent in the church and state separation. It is simply a question of right versus rite.