Divine Nonsense, the

You know, I'm pretty sure if my father could have been responsible for scripting November 4th, 2008, he would have not only had John McCain winning the Presidency - but also had every last person in the State of California vote 'Yes' on Proposition 8.

Yes, my father is a bit afraid of those gays. A homophobe in the truest sense of the word, he knows that their bedroom activities do not include him and would not affect him even if he didn't know about it - but he still fears that if we grant homosexuals the same rights as everyone who 'plays by the rules', he will somehow end up with a dick in the butt.

Is it crazy? Yes. Is it archaic? Yes. Is it funny? Sort of.

It can only be viewed as funny if you think about his fear, and not about his mindset. He truly believes that homosexuals are second-class citizens (of this or any country), which means that he believes that there are second-class citizens. Which is wrong on all accounts, but especially so in a country which pretty openly stresses that it views all men to have been created equal. "Liberty and justice for all" is a great catch phrase for people like my father, because it perpetuates their own freedoms while granting them the liberties of restricting others.

The idea that marriage is anything other than A.) a commitment which requires a ceremony involving friends or family witnessing two people stating what was usually already fairly obvious to everyone else, or B.) a legal phrase that we assign to couples who don't mind the alteration in their taxes or people knowing that they are attempting to stay with one person for the rest of their lives - is ludicrous.

I've heard the argument that there are people who would use same-sex marriages with 'malicious' intents such as guaranteeing themselves insurance coverage from their employers, or ensuring that any children that they have or may have will be the sole executors of their estate, thanks to a friend who is willing to pose as a lover to help meet those ends. Yes, because heterosexual coupling has never produced anything that could even be construed as illegal.

The fact of the matter is that prohibiting gays, lesbians and/or transgendered people their right to marry whoever they see fit is an action that serves only to show the cowardice of those who introduce such a bill, and the weak-mindedness of those who would vote for it.

Actually, I take that back - it also violates one of the founding principles of the United States: separation of church and state. Of course many of the arguments for the establishment of that separation are founded on the idea that a government should have a complete lack of authority in the realm of individual conscience. But keeping with the theme of checks and balances that was also established in this country, shouldn't the ideals of a religion have no authority in the realm of social contracts? Should freedom of religion take priority over freedom of expression - such as the expression of love between two people, regardless of their gender?

I distinctly recall the words of Thomas Jefferson, stating that "no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinion in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish enlarge, or affect their civil capacities."

... And if we look to the other side of the argument, the non-secular view of the world offers many contradictory points in reference to being with a person of your own gender. Apparently being a homosexual will in turn banish that person to a firey pit of torment for all of eternity not spent on Earth, unless the mass hatred poured out towards homosexuals is to be counted. And speaking of that hatred, don't the same books that state that homosexuality is 'wrong' also speak of not judging other people, as God will do so with infinite wisdom?

This argument could go on forever, and I'm only discussing it with myself at the moment. So to conclude I will say this - I would rather burn in Hell if it allows two people who truly love each other, be they two men or two women, to have the right and the confidence to state and express that love how, when and wherever they see fit.

Keeping History Alive

Tradition is important. To a degree tradition is what keeps us human, as most of our lives are dictated by patterns - and tradition is not just a big part of that, it is its very definition:

"A continuing pattern of culture beliefs or practices."

Whether they be noble or wicked - conspicuous or inconsequential, traditions are what help define our lives, our societies and our world. That said, some traditions are not meant to last - and one could argue that others even deserve to be snuffed out as quickly as possible. But regardless of one's opinions towards specific traditions or the idea of tradition itself, we all have our own traditions - for which many of us would fight to protect and preserve for future generations.

And it is within this mindset that we can begin to understand the divide between 'traditional' journalists and bloggers.

Once, there was a question posed of CNN and its then-radical format, "Is a 24-hour news cycle really necessary?" And we can see the answer to that in the development of channels like MSNBC/CNBC, the SportsCenter formatting of all the various ESPN channels, C-SPAN or even the hundreds of specialty channels ranging from programmes about history to surgery coverage.

And it is in those 'Breaking News' updates to which we grew so accustomed, along with the sudden and massive popularity of the World Wide Web that both the demand for and the ability to deliver instant news came about.

So what is the problem with this version of presenting news? Perhaps those who work for newspaper and television outlets are intimidated by the fact that the Internet serves as a level playing ground, on which they are forced to compete against the common man. Or that those who oppose blogs see them as a poor substitution from a tradition that they believe needed no fixing.

The common argument is that blogs are a cesspit of ignorance, ridicule and poor grammar. And that those who contribute to them, whether through columns or comments - are of the lowest quality of person, whether in opinion or personality. Some even still view blogs as nothing more than personal diary entries made public. And while it is true that a blog is a journal - it is not necessarily a diary.

The same comparison can be used towards newspapers - that they are nothing more than a daily record of occurrences, experiences, or observations. Besides, many prominent and respected journalists have blogs that they use to provide extra insight on the news stories they cover. Does that detract from their professionalism or integrity, or does it simply provide a more thorough and personal look into the lives of those whom the public trust to present them their news?

... And what 'traditional' standards are we fighting so hard to preserve? The ones that drive journalists to this?

There is a tradition much more valuable than any of that, the tradition of innovation - without which, we would never even be able to have this discussion, due to our lack of Internet and/or computers.

Much like the parallel rise of reality television and programmes that depict true-life situations, there is only so long that one can present realism without then being pestered to provide reality. And while we here at Bafflegate don't support the position, we do understand it. Because as so many generations and technological advances have proven - news is a tradition, its format is not.