It has been quite a while since I last posted my thoughts for anyone else to see. Frankly, with all that's been going on, I guess I didn't feel the need to do so. Self-delusions about the value of my words aside, there are times which writing helps me think. If others share a little in that thinking process... well, the human race already operates on herd mentality. It's time I partook of some of it.

I find it sad to hear that in this day and age that such obviousness about the nature of things is overlooked in favor of what idealism one brings about from an object. Namely, the Bible. The original bible was written as small little books, disparate and at completely different times. The Old Testament, the Book of Mark, the Book of Luke, and so on. The Bible as we know it today wasn't brought about in one cohesive manifestation. It also wasn't written in the language we speak and understand today. We can even surmise that it wasn't even free of bias, though I'm sure some would say "the hand of God guided those transcribing the Bible and kept it's word true." However, "God's Word" has been misused and twisted in so many ways in the past, from the Spanish Inquisition to the Salem witch trials to name a couple. These two examples were religiously motivated acts that I would wager most would consider abhorations to current religious teachings. It pains me to try and comprehend people who look at this 'God inspired' work of man as the literal truth on life and purpose in the Universe.

When I heard about one of the Republican candidates, Mike Huckabee, state in a speech to voters that "...what we need to do is to amend the Constitution so it's in God's standards rather than try to change God's standards." To be specific, he is (so much as any politician's word can be trusted) stating specifically on the issues of abortion and marriage. This thought of his is followed up in an interview done on Beliefnet.org in which be brings up this incredible statement:

[Beliefnet]: Is it your goal to bring the Constitution into strict conformity with the Bible? Some people would consider that a kind of dangerous undertaking, particularly given the variety of biblical interpretations.

[Huckabee]: Well, I don’t think that’s a radical view to say we’re going to affirm marriage. I think the radical view is to say that we’re going to change the definition of marriage so that it can mean two men, two women, a man and three women, a man and a child, a man and animal. Again, once we change the definition, the door is open to change it again. I think the radical position is to make a change in what’s been historic. (emphasis mine)

Direct Reference -- Story page 1

It is too bad for Huckabee that historically marriage has been a little different than it is today. In fact, Marriage has had many different forms over the years. Marriage used to be arranged 'contracts', it was used to ally territories together. Polygamy has even been defined as acceptable within the bible and, though the site GotQuestions.org states in its conclusion to the 'original intent' of God was not that polygamy was ok but simply necessary, some of the conditions (women outnumber men in society) still exist today. And, in an odd collection of words, Huckabee places any other marriage arrangement than one man and one woman in the same class as pedophilia and bestiality, two acts that very much cause harm to at least one of the involved parties.

How did people view marriage in Abraham's time, I wonder? Was it looked at as necessary, but otherwise unacceptable? Was it acceptable that women were made inferior by society at that time? Certainly, if man was capable of taking care of himself, then woman was as well, if given the chance. I doubt much as changed in all the time since Humanity first walked the earth in either aptitude of either sex or ability. I would speculate that it was simply men that made woman into some docile creature that needed caring for and protection, making polygamy "necessary."

This all brings me back to what history had to say about marriage. Marriage has meant so many things in history, even within the Bible. How is it even possible to state that 'historically, marriage has been between one man and one woman'? And how can we validate that it is so anyways? Through the words in a hand-me-down, incomplete book of moral code? Even today, Mormons see polygamy as acceptable and permissible under the definition of marriage. To do as Huckabee suggests and amend the constitution, a document that has to this date never mentioned marriage, not only subjugates other beliefs and violate the First Amendment freedom of religion, it also seeks to do something that has historically been a classical failure. It would prohibit behavior within a set of amendments that serve to grant rights to the people or to the states.

August 23rd, 3 days after my daughter's birth. That was the last time I had a spare moment and the inclination to sit down and write something. It's not because I disliked things so much that I had nothing to write about. Quite the contrary. There's been so much going on that I've wanted to involve myself in that so much. It's been three months since that day and I've been happy to have my daughter as a part of our family.

I want to keep this brief, because if I try to regail the past three months, I will lose track of things and ultimately fail to finish. I am just amazed. In 3 months, my daughter has grown from a ~6 lb infant to what I can only estimate is around 13 lbs, maybe a little more. She went from uncoordinated, flailing and her only vocalization a cry for hunger, for dirty, for needing comfort, to burbling and babbling, smiling and giggling mirthfully at nothing at all! In just three months, I would not have expected such a visible change, but it is there. Admittedly, the early early days are over, but I can see the personality starting to form in her, and I can say it is good.

chuckle The wrapup of the rest? Work sucks, overloaded as hell. Cars suck, but are at least passable. Party this weekend, Christmas next, OMG I need to buy gifts! And both sets of parents together for the holidays. Oh dear, won't we be having fun.


Ta!

Indeed, what a change a day makes. On the 19th, I posted about the panic we were under, such as it was. The resentment of the procedure, the disappointment in how things went, and the nervousness of the upcoming days. Well, the day has come and passed, and with a quiet little cry, my daughter was born. Delivered, really, but effectively the same. On seeing this child of mine that had until then been just a rounded lump within my wife's belly sent tears to my eyes. My wife experienced something similar, though being anxious and on the table and looking vary harried, when they drew down the sheet of the 'sterile field' they were using for the procedure and she saw her progeny, she lost it as well. In its way, it made the whole experience acceptable.

Ok, I know I overexadurate, but following this weekend, I'm going to be a father. That just sounds wrong, so let me say it again. I am going to be a father. It seems less and less likely as the days pass that the baby growing in my wife's belly is going to turn for us and allow us to go through a natural birth. Maybe he/she can't, that's entirely possible and unfortunately one of those things that we cannot know. Regardless, this weekend is going to be a whirlwind of preparation for the 'big day'. My parents are coming out to help us. The last time my parents came out was over 6 years ago, and I don't recall if that was an extended stay or not. The wife's parents (or mother, at the very least) have said they intend to come out as well, but with the days ticking down and them having to fly out to our neck of the woods, that just doesn't seem likely.