Heroes Update

My continued apologies to Heroes fans; I'm up to the eighth or ninth episode of season 1, and I am definitely intrigued.  It strikes me as the type of show, though, that could easily veer off-course, delaying the big reveal of the mystery season by season because it's being renewed.

(Rather, I understand, like what's happened to Lost.)

The Simone story is...meh...and I sometimes skip past the Jessica/Niki bits -- I'm just not taken by that story yet.

I like Hiro a lot -- his enthusiasm is definitely endearing (and all the Star Trek references don't hurt :-)), and his excitedly showing Niki's kid the comic book that's about him was just awesome, and Mohinder's accent is...well, melt-worthy -- yay for the intro and epilogue he does on all the episodes.  I sense nothing but bad happening with the whole Claire and her father thing.

By the way -- it seems a huge stretch that Hiro's friend (Ando?) watched Niki on-line, so I imagine that'll have some meaning later, but we'll see...it's just that years of watching Babylon 5 and other arc-driven shows have given me something of a sixth sense for things that are too convenient.

Also?  Niki's (ex-?) husband reminds me of Gunn on Angel...a lot.

It's HOT!

Earth to Crazy Person

So, I've  been reading a really interesting discussion on Peter David's blog about the marriages that began taking place yesterday.

(Most of the pictures here are pretty cool, including a couple more of that couple in their 80s.)

Anyhow, it reminded me of...how to say this nicely....

Okay, I'll go for pure objectivity.

There was coverage on the channel 11 news yesterday of the marriages.  The coverage was largely positive, but they did talk to a protester who was -- well, eloquent she was not.

(Not that I would be if a TV reporter came up to me and started talking to me on-camera, but whatever.)

Anyway, when asked why she was protesting, she said, more or less (slightly paraphrasing from memory, here),  "It's just -- the state of families today -- they're falling apart.  There are so many kids coming from single parent homes!"

At which point, my Earth logic kicked in, and demanded, "Wait.  You're protesting couples formalizing their relationships and becoming legal families because there are too many broken families out there? Bwuah?"

You know, I won't agree with you, but I'd be far more likely to take your argument seriously if you weren't honestly trying to convince me that making 2-parent homes is somehow related to a rise in single-parent homes.

Or, you know, if you employed Earth logic.

Yum

Backwoods Inn + stuffed baked potato + Bea's Bakery + dobosh torte + not dropping the box a second time = happy SpooWriter.

Yummy.

Warning: Political Post

I've debated how to discuss this, and came to a few conclusions.

I could discuss the fact that I believe banning same-sex marriage is in direct opposition to Equal Protection under the law, as it prevents a couple from obtaining a marriage license based on the gender of one of the two people applying for such.

But I won't.

I could discuss the fact that marriage, as the state sees it, is a civil contract, and that the state allowing same-sex marriage does not prevent Homophobic Church #4 from refusing to allow same-sex couples to participate in the religious ceremony of marriage if they so choose.

But I won't.

I could discuss the fact there are, no doubt, churches that continue to refuse to marry people of different races, and that that is their right if they choose to do so.  I don't agree with it, but the civil contract aspect of marriage that entitles people to rights, protections, and responsibilities within the federal and state government is entirely separate to the religious ceremony of marriage.

But I won't.

I could discuss the fact that there are not, in fact, a limited number of marriage certificates, and that allowing same-sex couples to apply for, and receive, them does not mean that there will be fewer for heterosexual couples.

But I won't.

I could discuss, in an effort to persuade any reluctant readers, the fact that allowing people to go to city hall and get a marriage license in no way compels you to perceive them as religiously married, nor does it require you to approve of their marriage any more than you are required to approve of any other marriage, whether that's because those getting married are too young, are drug addicts, or in some other way don't meet your requirements for a good marriage.  It is a matter between them and the state.

But I won't.

I could, and someday may, be able to eloquently (I hope) defend, in a calm and rational manner, why I think that the California ruling allowing same-sex marriage is such a wonderful -- long, long overdue -- thing.

But I won't.

I could point out that, while you can go to City Hall and be married in the eyes of the state whether or not you have wedding in church, the opposite is most definitely not true.  The government is not regulating what your church decides is or is not applicable.  It is looking at the City Hall part of the process.

But I won't.

What I will say is simply this:  congratulations.

(P.S.  This picture makes me smile.  So does this one.)