Time flies when you're having fun...

My lack of activity on the blog has been due to an increase of other activities. Work is very intense right now, as I am currently set for a big trial in mid-July, and I have been working on some major court-imposed deadlines--and there is so much more to do. There is a good chance the trial date will be reset, but unless and until that happens, I am going to be extremely busy. And then there is a matter of a major family medical situation with my father, and that is definitely top priority around here. So don't expect a lot of posting here for the near future. That should give folks time to go work on some counterpoints to previous posts, if they are so inclined.

In the meantime, here are some quick sports-related thoughts:

• Congrats to the Carolina Hurricanes. I was backing Edmonton all the way, but Carolina was just slightly better. Being able to roll four excellent lines all the time and Cam Ward (the MVP) in goal were the difference. However, I thought Brind'Amour should have received the Conn-Smythe trophy (for MVP). Still, for Edmonton to make it to Game 7 in the Finals was a great accomplishment. It was a great run for the Oilers, and it was a great final series.
• The Mavericks either got complacent after two games or choked. Either way they blew it, and they allowed one person--Wade--to beat them. Did the Mavs get screwed over by the refs? Yes. Did that cost them the series? No. Blowing big leads (remember Game 3?) time and again cost them the series.
  
• The U.S World Cup team was pitiful in their opening match with the Czech Republic. Now we are out of the tournament. Very disappointing.
• Otherwise, this World Cup has been entertaining. Even if you are anti-soccer, you should watch some World Cup matches. There is no other sporting event in the world that matches the World Cup's passion and excitement.
  

Some questions about a Constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage

Bush's basis for banning gay marriage

On June 5, 2006, Bush gave a short speech concerning the effort to create a Constitutional amendment which would ban gay marriage. During that speech, he said the following:

The union of a man and woman in marriage is the most enduring and important human institution. For ages, in every culture, human beings have understood that marriage is critical to the well-being of families. And because families pass along values and shape character, marriage is also critical to the health of society. Our policies should aim to strengthen families, not undermine them.

In light of these comments, I have three questions:

1) How does a legally recognized union between two women or two men affect the union of a man and a woman in marriage?

I have seen a few divorces among my friends over the years, and I have seen plenty of divorces due to my profession, and I can say without doubt or reservation that the end of those marriages were in no way due to homosexuals being allowed to have some sort of relationship. All of my friends and family members who are currently married are in good marriages, and I just do not see that those marriages would be threatened by the oh so dangerous challenge presented to them personally by gays getting married. What does two homosexuals being married have to do with the relationship issues between a married man and woman?

2) If the basis for a Constitutional amendment which would ban gay marriage is the protection of the institution of marriage between a man and a woman and the well-being of families, why hasn't there been a push for a Constitutional amendment banning divorce?

It seems to me that divorce is a direct and significant threat to marriage and family. Getting accurate statistics on divorce rates can be problematical, so I will present parts of a summary provided by a group "supporting cultural and legislative efforts to reduce divorce," Americans for Divorce Reform.

• Defining what number the "Divorce Rate" is, however, is elusive and perhaps impossible. There are many different valid measurements. Probably, 40 or possibly up to 50 percent of marriages will end in divorce if current trends continue. However, that is only a projection and a prediction.
• Divorce greatly increases, two- or three-fold, the incidence of all kinds of bad effects on children of divorce, including psychological problems, juvenile delinquency, suicide, undereducation, and teen motherhood. Problems arise from conflict during and after divorce more than from conflict during the marriage, and there is an increased incidence of detriment even if the divorce is low-conflict. Problems persist into early adulthood and affect the marriage and mating choices of children of divorce.

[I am citing portions of the summary that suit my purposes here. Read the entire summary and other statistices on the site to get a more complete picture.]

If current trends continue, 40% of marriages could end in divorce, and divorce greatly increases the occurrence of problems which definitely undermine the means to "pass along values and shape character." Using the same reasoning as Bush for wanting to ban gay marriage, this country absolutely needs a Constitutional ban on divorce!

3) If the basis for a Constitutional amendment which would ban gay marriage is the protection of the institution of marriage between a man and a woman and the well-being of families, why hasn't there been a push for a Constitutional Amendment banning cohabitation?

Cohabitation--often known as "living in sin"--is also an obvious threat to the institution of marriage for the simple reason that it keeps people from getting married. So why not ban that if the reason for a ban a gay marriage is to protect and strengthen the institution of marriage?

Searching for a special Starbucks--and Bonnie Hunt

Once again, life is good. That means that, once again, Bonnie Hunt was on the Letterman show. And now she is available. She said that Dave had suggested that she go to a Starbucks to meet someone, and then she noted that Dave told Halle Berry the same thing a few days later. Bonnie was not happy with Dave, for she felt that if she went to Starbucks the same time as Halle Berry that everyone would only want to meet Halle Berry and no one would want to meet her.

Oh, Bonnie Hunt, you are so wrong. And now I only have to find that one Starbucks where you might be, and if Halle Berry is also there, I won't care.

Hey, a man can dream, can't he? And I'll get back to that dream as soon as I finish laughing at myself. :-)

UPDATE: Wednesday morning I turned on "Good Morning America" just in time to see Bonnie being interviewed, and then she was on "The Daily Show" Wednesday night. Life is very good...but I now am jonesing for a venti white mocha.

Hey, Bill O'Reilly--SHUT THE F**K UP!

Go to this link and then click on "Factor Fiction" next to the picture of Keith Olbermann.

Watch the video.