I want to take a moment to talk about equality. Yes, this is about gay marriage and gay rights. So, if it offends you or if you are just sick of the posts about this, then I certainly wouldn't blame you for hitting the "back" button on your browser. But, this has been bothering me lately and I just want to get this off my chest. So, in a way, this is actually more of a personal blog update, although I will not hide it.

I know the arguments that people use to explain why same-sex marriage and equality is bad or will lead to the erosion of America. But, I can't help but think that hasn't occurred in the other countries in which same-sex marriage is legal. It was even legal in China until the Communist Party put a stop to that. Seriously, China!

I would never tell someone that they aren't allowed to have their own opinions on things. However, a lot of the reasons that are given are bogus, in my opinion. Nobody says that you have to like gay marriage or homosexuality. I suppose people will call you a bigot if you don't, but that's your prerogative. However, I can't see why someone's religious beliefs or just being uncomfortable with the chosen lifestyle of some people should be enough to stop them from living their life as full citizens. A lot of people are uncomfortable with nudists, but we don't stop them from practicing their lifestyle or from getting married. True, they can't be out in public naked, except in designated areas (nude beaches, for example), so maybe that's not the best example. But, still, they aren't stopped from getting married and enjoying their life and raising families. Provided that they're heterosexual. And, we don't even totally ban incest. Certain family members can legally and do legally get married to one another. Sure, you can't marry your sister, but you sure can marry your second cousin. Now, I'm not saying nobody looks down on this and says things about it. But, people are allowed to have and express their own opinions, no matter if they're nice or not. Still, nobody stops these people from getting married. Not legally.

I've heard people say that you can use the same argument that many same-sex marriage supporters use to advocate gay marriage to also advocate pedophilia and make it legal. I don't see the comparison. How can two consenting, legal adults and their lifestyle which hurts no one be compared to the "lifestyle" of one adult taking advantage of a child who has no legal right to consent or deny? Its not the same thing.

People are allowed to have their own religious beliefs, of course. But, I don't think those religious beliefs should be used to dictate whether two consenting adults should be allowed to get married and live their life.

Just because people do not agree with or do not like your lifestyle doesn't mean that they get to deny you the same rights as everybody else has. I think that making decisions like this is un-American. I would not deny consenting adult Americans any right that other consenting adult Americans have.

Also, with the recent veto of the Hawaiian HB 444 by Hawaii Governor Lingle, I think the idea that some people only oppose marriage equality due to the word "marriage" and that if it were not for that they'd be all for it...is also losing credibility. HB 444 was a civil union bill, but it gave all the rights of marriage to anyone getting a civil union (gay or straight couples). She said that she would not veto a bill like that if it passed and came to her desk for her signature. But, yet, that's exactly what she did. So, the word "marriage" obviously was not what bothered her. Maybe that's just her. But, it makes me quite skeptical. I would rather see "marriage" than "civil union," though. As now "civil union" gives a less-than connotation.

I wouldn't ever tell a church to go against its own doctrine in order to allow gay and lesbian congregation members to be open about themselves and their lifestyle or to marry same-sex couples. I'm talking about legal marriages, not spiritual marriages. To deny someone the same rights as someone else just because one person has a lifestyle that "bothers" you but is not illegal is, to me, un-American.

First, this is not a post meant to simply bash President Obama. I voted for Obama, and I am happy with a good number of the things he's done and a good number of the things he seems to still be interested in doing.

However, I read an article recently that has me greatly concerned about the current administration's response to this oil spill. Aside from the fact that I wish that he would be more pro-active in motivating BP to do its job of stopping and cleaning up that oil spill, I know that it is not something that can be fixed overnight. Especially at that depth. I hope that this Top Kill works and that it does not cause another leak, as I've heard that it very well could.

However, in this article, it mentioned that the Obama administration is refusing to release test results done on the water, etc. to the public. I can only think of one reason that the administration is refusing to do this. President Obama is still in favor of offshore drilling. Considering the public health risk of this spill and what it is and can continue to cause in the public, it might change the minds of many citizens who are still in favor of offshore drilling despite this current disaster. That would be a problem for President Obama's plans. Sure, he could just go ahead and do it anyway. But, he would receive a hell of a lot more opposition from every direction than he already was. There are currently a lot of people still in favor of offshore drilling because it means that we will be a more independent country. I don't see why we can't go toward green alternative fuels, which would also make us independent...but that is another post. :p

It doesn't surprise me that BP is being irresponsible, though. As the article states (and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to put it together without the article stating it for you) BP gains more by making it appear as though things aren't as bad as they truly are. If people are going around cleaning up using respiratory equipment its going to scare people more, and perhaps put the disaster in a little bit more perspective.

Either way, I think this is despicable, but nothing surprising. It really only proves that politicians, no matter how much good they do or attempt to do, are still really just politicians. And, at least in the US, the oil companies rule over all.

I wish that we could just begin a serious transition to green fuel alternatives. It is possible, they're reliable alternatives, they're better for the environment, and they're better for people as a result. It isn't a transition that can be done overnight, and many things need to be considered when doing so, but its still the best and safest alternative. Not just for the environment and animals, but for us, as well.

I'm not surprised at the way British Petroleum is handling this. They're in damage control mode at the moment. No matter what they do right now, they'll look like the bad guys. But, they can at least reduce the damage (they think) by making things appear to be less worse than they actually are. They don't want people to get even more frightened, they don't want people to get more concerned about their environment than they already are. That would be bad for BP and, possibly, the oil industry itself which (in turn) is still bad for BP. Why should BP care about the environment or the general populace when they have money to make?

Ground Zero, as was mentioned in the article, also had a policy of not letting volunteers use respiratory masks. Look what happened with that. How many of those who were at Ground Zero ended up with health problems? Permanent and very real health problems? When will we learn from our mistakes and stop putting people at risk just for the sake of saving face?