[x]close

use comma(,) if mutliple email addresses i.e(friend@domain.com, friend2@domain.com)

Of afterbirth and wedding vows Carlos R. Davalos | Sat, Apr 30 2011 12:00 PM

As the week comes to an end, the curtain falls on two questionably newsworthy events in world history.

Birthers finally have what they asked for - proof that President Barack Obama was born in the United States and is legitimately holding the office of POTUS. (It's not as though he was seemingly ushered in by a Supreme Court decision, but I digress.)

Not surprisingly, some of Obama's detractors who clung to this issue and waved it about as though it were a light saber slicing through The Dark Side still won't be mollified. They'll find fault with the birth certificate they wanted to see or discover yet another underlying conspiracy.

While resenting someone for their politics and policies is relatively reasonable, calling into question someone's legitimacy despite evidence and facts is just silly. Alarmingly so. Mad even.

It just goes to show you that there's no satisfying some people no matter what you do. And so maybe The Onion wasn't too far off the mark in 2009 when it wrote "Afterbirthers demand to see Obama's placentia."

At first glance, how the issue of Obama's citizenship gained traction and stuck around for so long is puzzling.

But when you consider that maybe - just maybe - some birthers used the citizenship issue as a cover for their opposition to a black man as president, then I guess I see how that silliness was able to stick around for as long as it did.

But what's still inexplicable is this country's fascination with The Royal Wedding. Or weddings in general.

As of today Prince William and Kate are officially husband and wife. Good luck, I guess.

Don't know what William was thinking. Not even 30 and already he's tying the knot. It's not as if this is his last chance at ever finding a proper woman who will want to be with him. He is a prince, after all. Do you know how many phone numbers that would get him in the Gaslamp?

And Kate wouldn't be any worse off if she didn't walk down the aisle with William or anyone else. After all, we do live in a time when women don't need men for their daily bread. Or even procreation.

I'm not against marriage. I think gay and straight couples should have the right to commit to each other however they want.

But the institution of marriage is a mystery to me. because I don't see how a ceremony and a ring make love any stronger than a ringless commitment based on the same trust and love.

Marriage, royal or not, is as archaic as the notion of fairy tales, helpless damsels and happily ever after.

Rate This Article 0 vote(s)
Average Vote 0/5
Leave Comment
Name
Email

(will not be published)

Comment(s)

The Star-News | 296 3rd Ave., Chula Vista, CA 91910 | Phone: 619-427-3000 | Fax: 619-426-6346 | info@thestarnews.com| Site Feedback| Corporate