Design Build Reminder
The following Press Release, a reminder about the Design Build Conference this weekend.
May 14, 2008
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: Barbara Jackson
College of Architecture and Environmental Design
(805)756-1723
bjackson@calpoly.edu
Leading Experts on Design-Build Present Full-Day Seminar at
Cal Poly’s University Union, Saturday, May 17
SAN LUIS OBISPO ‑ Cal Poly is hosting a design-build seminar on water and wastewater projects Saturday, May 17th, from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. in the University Union.
Titled “Discover the Possibilities: Design-Build for Water and Wastewater Projects,” the seminar is being presented by Cal Poly’s California Center for Construction Education (CCCE) and the Design-Build Institute of America. A pre-seminar networking reception will be held the evening before at the Edna Valley Winery, Friday, May 16, from 5 p.m. to 7:30 p.m. The reception is free to seminar participants.
Design-build is an integrated design and construction approach where engineers, architects and contractors work as a collaborative team with agency officials to deliver a project from start to finish. Design-build projects have been approximately 6 percent less costly and delivered 33 percent faster than projects delivered under the traditional low-bid approach. This is especially important for California, where public officials are faced with the burden of repairing and upgrading aging systems, complicated by an economic downturn and budget shortfalls.
Designed to educate public officials, and professional practitioners at utility agencies and in private practice, the seminar will feature many of the nation’s leading experts in the area of design-build for public projects.
For more information, please contact Barbara Jackson at (805)756-1723 or bjackson@calpoly.edu. To register, call (805)756-6381 or visit http://www.construction.calpoly.edu/welcome/welcome_current.html.
And If You Can’t Make The Conference, Don’t Worry. The World Will End Shortly
The California State Supreme court has ruled that gay people can get married, which means the world will end shortly because, God knows, we do not want a government that believes “An individual’s sexual orientation – like a person’s race or gender – does not constitute a legitimate basis upon which to deny or withhold legal rights.”
Gee, ya think?
Well, not to worry. While Rome burns – war, global warming, economic crashes, lost jobs, increasing poverty and hunger, healthcare off into the ditch, the country sinking into a morass of HUGE problems – we can now drop everything and all turn our attention to the good old fear mongering God/Gays/Guns and get busy to get the California Constitution amended so we can once again re-create a two tiered system – First Class Citizens, with full rights and responsibilities, and Second Class citizens, i.e. those Gay People who need to get to the back of the bus.
Even our own State Assemblyman Sam Blakeslee supports this division. It’s o.k. by him to be the representative of a two tier system – full rights for his straight constituents and second-class citizenship for his gay constituents. Like God intended.
Frankly, I think the States should get out of the “Holy” matrimony business altogether. Since the States have a vested interest in certain property and child welfare issues, they need to establish and have the legal right to oversee “Civil” marriage for all citizens wishing to get “married” Then the “Holy” part of “marriage” can be decided by each person according to his or her religious beliefs and each church or synagogue or mosque can set their own rules as to who they will or will not “marry.”
Then we can get on with far more pressing issues.
Pages
Calhouns Can(n)ons
About the Can(n)ons
Calhoun's Can(n)ons was originally published in 1990 in the (now defunct) Morro Bay, CA, Sun Bulletin, and since 1992 has continued in the various resurrections of the Los Osos, CA. Bay News, Bay Breeze, Bay News, Bay News-Tolosa Press. A few years ago, the Can(n)on was added to the Central Coast NewsMission blogsite. Ann Calhoun lives in Los Osos. You can email her at Churadogs at gmail dot com
To be persuasive, we must be believable. To be believable, we must be credible. To be credible, we must be truthful.
Edward R. Murrow
It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; the essential is invisible to the eye.
Antoine de Saint-Exupery
The Little Prince
No one is exempt from talking nonsense; the misfortune is to do it solemnly.
Montaigne
Edward R. Murrow
It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; the essential is invisible to the eye.
Antoine de Saint-Exupery
The Little Prince
No one is exempt from talking nonsense; the misfortune is to do it solemnly.
Montaigne
Followers
Posts
Calhouns Can(n)ons
Search Calhoun's Can(n)ons
Adopt a Dog or Cat Today
Local Bloggers and Friends
Blog Archive
-
▼
2008
(205)
-
▼
May
(12)
- Your Monday PoemOops, got busy Sunday, and am now ...
- Yup, Déjà vu Some MoreI’m sure Neil Ferrell’s exce...
- Calhoun’s Cannons, The Bay News, Tolosa Press, SLO...
- Your Sunday PoemThis one from Billy Collins from h...
- Will The Real Number Please Stand Up?The following...
- Design Build ReminderThe following Press Release, ...
- And Now, A Word From Our On The Spot CDO Recipient...
- STOP THE PRESSES! No, wait, START YOUR COMPUTERS!...
- Calhoun’s Can(n)ons, The Bay News, Tolusa Press, S...
- Look Out, Shandon, Nipomo, Santa Margarita, Here T...
- A Sunday PoemA NOTELife is the only wayto get cove...
- Why Does Mother Calhoun Have To ‘Splain This AGAIN...
-
▼
May
(12)
Central Coast News Radio
Central Coast NewsLinks
CCNM Disclaimer: Calhoun's Can(n)on content copyright wholly owned by Ann Calhoun. Central Coast NewsMission site name and branding images, content and customization copyright © 2005 - 2009. Images courtesy page author, Ann Calhoun, and CCNM editor, Greg McClure; sponsors; and public domain. All writers are responsible for their articles. Permission granted to quote articles herein on a fair use basis, please credit the writer.
6 comments:
Ann writes: "Frankly, I think the States should get out of the “Holy” matrimony business altogether. Since the States have a vested interest in certain property and child welfare issues, they need to establish and have the legal right to oversee “Civil” marriage for all citizens wishing to get “married” Then the “Holy” part of “marriage” can be decided by each person according to his or her religious beliefs and each church or synagogue or mosque can set their own rules as to who they will or will not “marry.”"
This is an idea that has been supported by some (politically liberal) Evangelical Christians for some time.
A civil union could be handled by the state for the purposes of taxes and contracts and insurance and the like ... but a real marriage should not be defined by any State but by the laws of God and one's religious tradition.
I think that to even suggest the state has rights over what constitutes a marriage (a sacrament in the Catholic church) should be offensive to Christians and all people of faith. It is a mis-use of the word marriage for a contractual arrangement. It is a sloppiness of thinking that muddles the issues.
Inlet sez:"A civil union could be handled by the state for the purposes of taxes and contracts and insurance and the like ... but a real marriage should not be defined by any State but by the laws of God and one's religious tradition.
I think that to even suggest the state has rights over what constitutes a marriage (a sacrament in the Catholic church) should be offensive to Christians and all people of faith. It is a mis-use of the word marriage for a contractual arrangement. It is a sloppiness of thinking that muddles the issues."
Amen! Amen! That's it in a nutshell. And getting stuck on the word "marriage" is the perfect example of how sloppy thinking can get you in so much trouble. When you define a term and then refuse to look at the term again, pretty soon, the term begins to define you and sticks you in a dead end.
That's where this argument is now. Alas, we'll see the old fear-mongering start up and some Constitutional amendment initiative is bound to show up. I can only hope that enough people have enough sense to just let this whole disgraceful, embarassing mess drop and pretend it never happened (like our laws forbidding marrying somebody of another race. Eeeuuu, those laws were on the books until, I believe, the 1960's? Eeeuuuu, quel disgrace.)
For anyone arguing for a new constitutional ban, I'd suggest that they be forced to remove any and all references to "god" or "sacred" or "holy" or any religious words or meanings at all from the word "marriage," THEN start the argument as to why the STATE will be harmed if gay folks are given equal rights with straight folks for something "commonly known as 'marriage'" (as in Formerly Known as Prince.) Then we might have a discussion worth having.
Heaven only knows - that not to be taken literally - this topic has been hashed, diced, parsed and argued ad infinitum. So let's not even try to go there again. Ann's point is at the root of the issue. Which was oh so perfectly set up by Shark's response:
> A civil union could be handled by the state for the purposes of taxes and contracts and insurance and the like... but a real marriage should not be defined by any State but by the laws of God and one's religious tradition. I think that to even suggest the state has rights over what constitutes a marriage (a sacrament in the Catholic church) should be offensive to Christians and all people of faith. It is a mis-use of the word marriage for a contractual arrangement. It is a sloppiness of thinking that muddles the issues.
And there you have it. Luke 20:25: Render therefore unto Caesar the things which be Caesar's, and unto God the things which be God's. And don't confuse them and keep them apart. (Bolding is mine ;-) (sigh) If only Jesus had been a bit more precise. But dang, he was a prophet, a preacher, and a Saviour, not a *#@$% lawyer for god's sake. (To be taken literally.) I mean, how much more clear did he need to be? As Shark so succinctly says, a civil union for the purpose of taxes, contracts, insurance and the like. And marriage for the purposes of the church. What's so bleeping difficult about that? Is this simply a semantics issue? If so then let's just create a new word and get on with it. As much as I like Ann's approach - XXX formally known as marriage - I think that only fans the flames unnecessarily. A civil union is not a marriage. AND, a marriage is not a civil union! Those who want the sacrament of a church? Good for you. Go to your church and do whatever it is you do. Those who want to be joined in civil partnership? Good Good for you. Go down to City Hall and sign the papers. Some (read: most) will probably want to both. But that's their choice. If they're married in a church AND want the tax benefits and health benefits and legal protections which come with civil union then they gotta sign the civil union papers too. Herein lies the problem: A marriage (within the rules of most churches) is a commitment of soul(s) made before God. Not a commitment bound by signatures. A civil union is a commitment of the world bound by signatures (read: contract). Speaking for God, He/She/It doesn't care about taxes, health insurance, property rights, contracts, etc. But, by necessity, government & business does. Jesus got it right the first time. Don't confuse the issue. They are not the same thing. They are not equivalent. Don't try to make them equivalent. To do so only creates confusion and ..... conflict.
It should also be noted that some couples want both: A holy sacrament AND a civil union. And if a church doesn't want to bless them with such sacrament then that is church business. Take it up in the church. That's church business. Two separate issues. What's so difficult about that?
Other than The Church (whatever that is) doesn't want to give up their privileged position in civil issues. (sigh) And therein lies the rub. And millennium of bloody conflict. And a whole lot of unnecessary angst. But, sad to say, angst is what drives The Church. And there you have it. It's all just so unnecessary.
Fair disclosure: I go to church. I am a Christian. Of sorts. ;-)
The problem with Ann's modest proposal (not a "Modest Proposal", by the way) is that the extremes on both sides want the muddling. Some of the religious right like the idea of marriage, something they value in their faith, being enshrined in the laws of the nation ... and perhaps with special advantage.
Similarly, some gay folks want the term marriage to be used to describe their relationships. In particular, my friend would not be satisfied unless his relationship gets the name marriage.
The only drawback I can really see to Ann's modest proposal is that there are some churches which have a version of marriage which would seem to violate other aspects of state laws ... like the number of individuals involved and their ages.
Inlet Sez:"The only drawback I can really see to Ann's modest proposal is that there are some churches which have a version of marriage which would seem to violate other aspects of state laws ... like the number of individuals involved and their ages."
Ah, NOW you get into the dialogue that needs to be had in a pluralistic, secular society that pretends to offer "freedom of religious belief" to its citizens. Why are Muslims forbidden to have their requesite number of wives? The problem with the FLDS church (the recent Texas case)isn't so much the many "wives," but that they're impregnating children, which is another whole issue.
Get's interesting, doesn't it, this defining of the word "marriage." What -- really -- is the difference between a guy or gal with 5 wives/husbands with a kid from each of them, only he/she did it linearlly, that is one after another, not all at the same time. The result is the same: "marriage" to five "husbands" and 5 "kids" and so we end up with a "family." And what's the difference, really, between a Mom with Two Dads raising their respective kids (one from each dad) under one roof at the same time, versus the same two kids being raised by the same two dads, but one is a "step dad" and one is an "ex husband" who lives next door to The Wife they both shar(ed)? Is that what "marriage" is all about?
Not too long ago, "holy"matrimony was until death do you part. One spouse per person, period. Nowadays, our "family" "marriage" arrangements are very fluid and constantly changing. Not a whole lot "holy" about it.
The irony is that our biological habits towards sex and procreation are hard-wired and ancient. Our attempts to justify, control, limit, codify these hard-wired activities requires a whole lot of cultural/religious/mythic 'splaning. Often gets weird.
When I lived in a Central American country almost forty years ago, a wedding always consisted of two ceremonies, usually on the same day. First the local Alcalde (the mayor) would be invited to the house to perform the official marriage in a civil ceremony while the official witnesses looked on, surrounded by guests. A quiet, dignified reception with champagne and comestibles followed until everyone would go home to rest and prepare for the traditional wedding.
Later, usually in the cool of the evening, the crowd would gather at the church (or in the case of one wedding I attended, the Masonic Hall) for the traditional ceremony. The guest list was often larger than for the morning ceremony. The maid of honor and best man were not necessarily the same people who witnessed the morning nuptials. Another celebration followed that would go on into the night. It was always open bar.
Weddings had lots of onlookers, as simply watching the spectacle of the bride, groom, and guests coming and going provided a great deal of entertainment for the poor. If onlookers were lucky, the evening reception would be held at a club with lots of open windows and doors, along with patios and balconies, to provide maximum access to the sights and sounds.
For the poorer classes, the marriages and celebrations were adjusted to what they could afford, but everyone had to have the civil ceremony. Some people never got married in the church, because they could only afford one wedding which had to be the civil ceremony. The church was quite a bit more liberal there and acknowledged the hardships people faced in rendering unto Caesar the things that were Caesar's.
Prior to the wedding day, paperwork had to be hand carried to the capital city to receive the official government seal and red ribbon. This certificate was then hand carried back to the town where the wedding would take place. The bride and groom or a relative usually had to make the trip unless someone else happened to be making the trip anyway and would carry the paperwork for them. Given the chicken bus transportation and the condition of the roads - especially in the rainy season - to get the certificate officially signed, sealed, and delivered back to the local government office was quite a statement of devotion.
Though I don't know if the practice has changed, at that time it was impossible to have the church wedding without the civil ceremony being performed first. The process they followed seemed as good a way to separate church and state as I've seen.
Post a Comment