June 29, 2009
Jackass quote of the week....
....and it's only Monday.
I have been doing a lot of soul searching on that front. What I find interesting is the story of David, and the way in which he fell mightily, he fell in very very significant ways. But then picked up the pieces and built from there.
I remain committed to rebuilding the trust that has been committed to me over the next 18 months, and it is my hope that I am able to follow the example set by David in the Bible — who after his fall from grace humbly refocused on the work at hand. By doing so, I will ultimately better serve in every area of my life, and I am committed to doing so. - Gov. Mark Sanford
Strange considering the same Bible Mr. Sanford is using to justify himself has this to say....
And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death. Leviticus 20:10.
I have been doing a lot of soul searching on that front. What I find interesting is the story of David, and the way in which he fell mightily, he fell in very very significant ways. But then picked up the pieces and built from there.
I remain committed to rebuilding the trust that has been committed to me over the next 18 months, and it is my hope that I am able to follow the example set by David in the Bible — who after his fall from grace humbly refocused on the work at hand. By doing so, I will ultimately better serve in every area of my life, and I am committed to doing so. - Gov. Mark Sanford
Strange considering the same Bible Mr. Sanford is using to justify himself has this to say....
And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death. Leviticus 20:10.
June 26, 2009
June 25, 2009
Jackass quote from the past...
Coming to us via the newly released set of Nixon tapes....
“There are times when an abortion is necessary. I know that. When you have a black and a white..........or a rape.” - Richard Nixon
“There are times when an abortion is necessary. I know that. When you have a black and a white..........or a rape.” - Richard Nixon
June 24, 2009
June 23, 2009
Let he without sin....
It has to be obvious at this point that Jesus hates gay people.
Why else would the majority of Xians use his words, name, and anonymously authored best selling trashy novel to promote their disdain for homosexuals.
Religion and tolerance are (and have always been) polar opposites.
Women, interracial couples, other religions....they have all felt the sting of "Christian love".
Southern Baptists Reject Church
The slowly shrinking Southern Baptist Convention voted on Tuesday to sever 125-year-old ties with a Texas church that allowed homosexual members to have their photos in the church directory.
Messengers (delegates) to the SBC's annual meeting voted overwhelmingly to disassociate from Forth Worth's Broadway Baptist Church, following an executive committee ruling Monday that the congregation "failed to establish its compliance" with the SBC rules that ban churches that "act to affirm, approve or endorse homosexual behavior."
According to the Associated Baptist Press, "it was the first time the SBC has ejected a church simply because denominational officials perceive that the congregation is in violation of a policy prohibiting affiliation with pro-gay churches."
Full story here
Why else would the majority of Xians use his words, name, and anonymously authored best selling trashy novel to promote their disdain for homosexuals.
Religion and tolerance are (and have always been) polar opposites.
Women, interracial couples, other religions....they have all felt the sting of "Christian love".
Southern Baptists Reject Church
The slowly shrinking Southern Baptist Convention voted on Tuesday to sever 125-year-old ties with a Texas church that allowed homosexual members to have their photos in the church directory.
Messengers (delegates) to the SBC's annual meeting voted overwhelmingly to disassociate from Forth Worth's Broadway Baptist Church, following an executive committee ruling Monday that the congregation "failed to establish its compliance" with the SBC rules that ban churches that "act to affirm, approve or endorse homosexual behavior."
According to the Associated Baptist Press, "it was the first time the SBC has ejected a church simply because denominational officials perceive that the congregation is in violation of a policy prohibiting affiliation with pro-gay churches."
Full story here
![[nogorillas+mcs.jpg]](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhMOrmb_r56oDRBRpHi_Ntd_xMSQPV3b70C9qjKBcgM3r-h9m6fgJr-KLj3p7O3s1uBfd-ilTHl9huaUzcRWYGaDiYh-8dmHAtUxbCUFwyLpl9S1No35VtD7_PqffdRfLtkwOwrsA/s1600/nogorillas+mcs.jpg)
June 19, 2009
June 18, 2009
Fox News....smooth as sandpaper
If they hired JOURNALISTS, instead of spokesmodels.....this sort of thing might not happen.
![[molly+and+peter+listsgalore.jpg]](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj4MAmGzxpBD03IfykhvfvS13HPW8nEiNoNyrh8xmoRlKHJtLGvrI1-gixX5wwrYa73RCJifh67wW2fcvvNBuskccxogDOfT6myOpI2UTnkq7H8k0CXnpLoGgFKkcyw2NmhVPBxxQ/s1600/molly+and+peter+listsgalore.jpg)
June 17, 2009
June 16, 2009
Funiest thing I've seen all month
Justine says I pick on the poor poor Catholics too much. Probably true, but they earn it honestly.
This bit of religious WOO is by far the funniest thing I've read all month.
And for once, the poor poor poor Catholics get left out of it.
No worry. I'm sure the powers that be in Rome will do something insipid and make up for it before the month is out....
Religious row as Orthodox Jewish couple sue neighbours for 'imprisoning' them with automatic hallway light
A Jewish couple are suing their neighbours in a block of flats, saying an automatic security light is keeping them prisoner in their home because it forces them to break their Sabbath rules.
Dr Dena Coleman and husband Gordon claim they cannot leave their holiday flat on the Sabbath because when they do they automatically trigger the light in the communal hallway - contravening a religious ban on turning on electrical items from sunset on Friday to sunset on Saturday because it constitutes 'creating fire'.
They say their human rights are being breached and are now suing the flats' management company - their neighbours - for failing to accommodate their religion.
The other 35 owners of the seaside flats are liable to pay court costs if the claim is successful.
Dr Coleman, a 56-year-old headteacher at a Jewish orthodox school in London, has been visiting the £200,000 holiday flat in Bournemouth, Dorset, with her husband for six years.
The management company fitted the motion-sensing lights six months ago in a bid to save energy and money.
The Colemans have offered to pay for an override switch to disable the light sensors during the Sabbath.
But the Embassy Court Management Company - which represents all residents and whose three directors also live in the block - said this would set an 'unacceptable precedent'.
In a letter sent to occupants of all of the other 35 apartments in the block, the Colemans said: 'Faced with a situation where we could never again have full use of our flat, we were left with no alternative but to seek legal advice.'
Full story here....
When your religion imprisons you in your home because you can't trigger a motion detecting light.....it just MIGHT be time to step back and take a long hard look at the beliefs that your parents stuck you with. Just maybe.
This bit of religious WOO is by far the funniest thing I've read all month.
And for once, the poor poor poor Catholics get left out of it.
No worry. I'm sure the powers that be in Rome will do something insipid and make up for it before the month is out....
Religious row as Orthodox Jewish couple sue neighbours for 'imprisoning' them with automatic hallway light
A Jewish couple are suing their neighbours in a block of flats, saying an automatic security light is keeping them prisoner in their home because it forces them to break their Sabbath rules.
Dr Dena Coleman and husband Gordon claim they cannot leave their holiday flat on the Sabbath because when they do they automatically trigger the light in the communal hallway - contravening a religious ban on turning on electrical items from sunset on Friday to sunset on Saturday because it constitutes 'creating fire'.
They say their human rights are being breached and are now suing the flats' management company - their neighbours - for failing to accommodate their religion.
The other 35 owners of the seaside flats are liable to pay court costs if the claim is successful.
Dr Coleman, a 56-year-old headteacher at a Jewish orthodox school in London, has been visiting the £200,000 holiday flat in Bournemouth, Dorset, with her husband for six years.
The management company fitted the motion-sensing lights six months ago in a bid to save energy and money.
The Colemans have offered to pay for an override switch to disable the light sensors during the Sabbath.
But the Embassy Court Management Company - which represents all residents and whose three directors also live in the block - said this would set an 'unacceptable precedent'.
In a letter sent to occupants of all of the other 35 apartments in the block, the Colemans said: 'Faced with a situation where we could never again have full use of our flat, we were left with no alternative but to seek legal advice.'
Full story here....
When your religion imprisons you in your home because you can't trigger a motion detecting light.....it just MIGHT be time to step back and take a long hard look at the beliefs that your parents stuck you with. Just maybe.
![[biblenoah+mcs.jpg]](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjnrXIZNMUZZslXxE3cKhiWdXSAavMhCqNaLPCB2b1FmkmHhsGRuMKv_Lhc0Vw2-fM4oBEeqfQuT6WMuHE2koiEzK20UOZWqTcGUc1Gnt_0efCE2ndcbs4okP85FoXX1ZOVYmrAeQ/s1600/biblenoah+mcs.jpg)
More racist garbage from republicans...
More racist nonsense from bitter, angry, philosophically empty republicans.
Sadly, these kinds of stories aren't even shocking anymore.
Sadly, these kinds of stories aren't even shocking anymore.
June 15, 2009
Joe Bruno
NY: Joe Bruno Now Supports Same-Sex Marriage
Former New York Senate Majority Leader, Republican Joe Bruno now says that he is a supporter of same-sex marriage. Although Bruno retired from the Senate last year, he continues to be an extremely influential party elder. Therefore, this represents a positive development for marriage equality in the Empire State.
"As a relatively conservative Roman Catholic, I instinctively view marriage as the foundation of the family. However, that view really does conflict with the rights that are afforded all of us, This is America and we have inalienable rights … life is short and we should all be afforded the same opportunities and rights to enjoy it." - Joe Bruno
Former New York Senate Majority Leader, Republican Joe Bruno now says that he is a supporter of same-sex marriage. Although Bruno retired from the Senate last year, he continues to be an extremely influential party elder. Therefore, this represents a positive development for marriage equality in the Empire State.
"As a relatively conservative Roman Catholic, I instinctively view marriage as the foundation of the family. However, that view really does conflict with the rights that are afforded all of us, This is America and we have inalienable rights … life is short and we should all be afforded the same opportunities and rights to enjoy it." - Joe Bruno
Anatomy lessons? Really?
He refused to apologize. Sad, but not surprising. Wonder when exactly "the church" found out and how little they did to stop it. Pathetic.
Abusive priest Gannon gave boy an 'anatomy lesson'
A FORMER Melbourne priest who sexually abused young boys over an 18-year period from 1958 refused to apologise for indecently assaulting an 11-year-old for fear of a compensation claim being made against the church, a court has heard.
Retired Catholic priest Desmond Laurence Gannon, 79, told police last year that he was giving the boy an anatomy lesson when he took him from school and assaulted him in 1968. "I thought it was less formal rather than inviting him into the presbytery and that's all," he said.
Gannon, who previously served across Melbourne including in Macleod, Ashburton, Northcote and Kilmore, yesterday pleaded guilty to five counts of unlawful and indecent assault.
Full story here . . .
Abusive priest Gannon gave boy an 'anatomy lesson'
A FORMER Melbourne priest who sexually abused young boys over an 18-year period from 1958 refused to apologise for indecently assaulting an 11-year-old for fear of a compensation claim being made against the church, a court has heard.
Retired Catholic priest Desmond Laurence Gannon, 79, told police last year that he was giving the boy an anatomy lesson when he took him from school and assaulted him in 1968. "I thought it was less formal rather than inviting him into the presbytery and that's all," he said.
Gannon, who previously served across Melbourne including in Macleod, Ashburton, Northcote and Kilmore, yesterday pleaded guilty to five counts of unlawful and indecent assault.
Full story here . . .
June 14, 2009
June 13, 2009
June 11, 2009
Jackass quote of the week
"Them Jews ain't going to let him talk to me. I told my baby daughter that he'll talk to me in five years when he's a lame duck, or in eight years when he's out of office......they will not let him to talk to somebody who calls a spade what it is. ... I said from the beginning: He's a politician; I'm a pastor. He's got to do what politicians do." - Rev. Jeremiah Wright on why he hasn't socialized with president Obama
June 10, 2009
June 09, 2009
Views
This is somewhat (I don't have an actual picture) what the outside of my old place looked like. If nothing else, it certainly captures the spirit of the location....
Ok...so maybe it wasn't THAT ugly.....but I could look out my front window and watch drug deals going down day or night.....and there was a murder two doors up from my front porch a couple years ago. The whole thing was ugly and getting out of hand.
But now...
Here are two actual photos taken from my new front porch....
Ok...so maybe it wasn't THAT ugly.....but I could look out my front window and watch drug deals going down day or night.....and there was a murder two doors up from my front porch a couple years ago. The whole thing was ugly and getting out of hand.
But now...
Here are two actual photos taken from my new front porch....
Cat in Sink
My strange cat 'banjo' getting used to the new place by sitting in the kitchen sink and watching me unpack and sort through belongings....
Book burning desired...
....and no surprise at all to see the folks wanting to torch some books.
Sigh.
I can think of a book that ACTUALLY HAS motivated murder, hatred, and discrimination if they really want to try and rid the world of dangerous texts. Most likely they wouldn't be interested.
Milwaukee Group Seeks Fiery Alternative to Materials Challenge
Beverly Goldberg, American Libraries OnlinePosted on June 3, 2009
Life grows more interesting by the day for officials of the West Bend (Wis.) Community Memorial Library. After four months of grappling with an evolving challenge to young-adult materials deemed sexually explicit by area residents Ginny and Jim Maziarka, library trustees voted 9–0 June 2 to maintain the young-adult collection as is “without removing, relocating, labeling, or otherwise restricting access” to any titles. However, board members were made cognizant that same evening that another material challenge waited in the wings:
Milwaukee-area citizen Robert C. Braun of the Christian Civil Liberties Union (CCLU) distributed at the meeting copies of a claim for damages he and three other plaintiffs filed April 28 with the city; the complainants seek the right to publicly burn or destroy by another means the library’s copy of Baby Be-Bop. The claim also demands $120,000 in compensatory damages ($30,000 per plaintiff) for being exposed to the book in a library display, and the resignation of West Bend Mayor Kristine Deiss for “allow[ing] this book to be viewed by the public.”
The unanimous vote rejecting the Maziarkas’ challenge came after trustees heard several dozen comments for and against restricting the materials, as well as being presented with opposing petitions: 700 signatures on the petition circulated by West Bend Citizens for Safe Libraries, a group formed by the Maziarkas, and more than 1,000 on an anti-restriction petition from the newly formed West Bend Parents for Free Speech. Ironically, four of the trustees were denied reappointment in April as a rebuke from city council members for adhering to the library’s reconsideration process instead of complying immediately with the Maziarkas’ changing reconsideration requests. The trustees are serving until their successors are appointed.
Full story here...
Sigh.
I can think of a book that ACTUALLY HAS motivated murder, hatred, and discrimination if they really want to try and rid the world of dangerous texts. Most likely they wouldn't be interested.
Milwaukee Group Seeks Fiery Alternative to Materials Challenge
Beverly Goldberg, American Libraries OnlinePosted on June 3, 2009
Life grows more interesting by the day for officials of the West Bend (Wis.) Community Memorial Library. After four months of grappling with an evolving challenge to young-adult materials deemed sexually explicit by area residents Ginny and Jim Maziarka, library trustees voted 9–0 June 2 to maintain the young-adult collection as is “without removing, relocating, labeling, or otherwise restricting access” to any titles. However, board members were made cognizant that same evening that another material challenge waited in the wings:
Milwaukee-area citizen Robert C. Braun of the Christian Civil Liberties Union (CCLU) distributed at the meeting copies of a claim for damages he and three other plaintiffs filed April 28 with the city; the complainants seek the right to publicly burn or destroy by another means the library’s copy of Baby Be-Bop. The claim also demands $120,000 in compensatory damages ($30,000 per plaintiff) for being exposed to the book in a library display, and the resignation of West Bend Mayor Kristine Deiss for “allow[ing] this book to be viewed by the public.”
The unanimous vote rejecting the Maziarkas’ challenge came after trustees heard several dozen comments for and against restricting the materials, as well as being presented with opposing petitions: 700 signatures on the petition circulated by West Bend Citizens for Safe Libraries, a group formed by the Maziarkas, and more than 1,000 on an anti-restriction petition from the newly formed West Bend Parents for Free Speech. Ironically, four of the trustees were denied reappointment in April as a rebuke from city council members for adhering to the library’s reconsideration process instead of complying immediately with the Maziarkas’ changing reconsideration requests. The trustees are serving until their successors are appointed.
Full story here...
Christian love and compassion
Not only does this jackass support the murder of doctors, he comes right out at the beginning of the interview and support praying for Obama's death as well.
This is Christian compassion and love. This is also the core reason that the Republican party is gasping for air. As long as the part coddles and supports crazed religious lunatics like this gentlemen, they are doomed.
This is Christian compassion and love. This is also the core reason that the Republican party is gasping for air. As long as the part coddles and supports crazed religious lunatics like this gentlemen, they are doomed.
June 08, 2009
West 'by god' Virginia on the side of right....
State Supreme Court sides with gay couple in custody case
by The Associated Press
CHARLESTON, W.Va. (AP) - The West Virginia Supreme Court ruled Friday that a gay couple should have custody of an 18-month old foster child, overturning a judge's order that the girl should be placed with a heterosexual couple who might adopt her.
In an unsigned opinion issued Friday, the court barred enforcing Fayette County Circuit Judge Paul Blake Jr.'s order that the girl should be taken away from Kathryn Kutil and Cheryl Hess. The girl has remained in the couple's custody throughout the court proceedings.
The court noted there was no reason to believe the girl wasn't thriving with Hess and Kutil, and said there was no legal reason to take her away from the couple.
"As a matter of fact, the court was never presented with any actual evaluation of the home or evidence of the quality of the relationship" the girl had with Kutil and Hess, the justices said. "All indications thus far are that (the girl) has formed a close emotional bond and nurturing relationship with her foster parents, which can not be trivialized or ignored."
The justices said Blake only ruled in favor of removing the child to promote placing her with a heterosexual couple.
"The conclusion itself represents a blurring of legal principles applicable to abuse and neglect and adoption," the decision said. "Even if our current statutes, rules and regulations could somehow be read to support the adoption preference proposed by (Blake) such a newfound principle would need to be harmonized with established law."
Full story here.....
by The Associated Press
CHARLESTON, W.Va. (AP) - The West Virginia Supreme Court ruled Friday that a gay couple should have custody of an 18-month old foster child, overturning a judge's order that the girl should be placed with a heterosexual couple who might adopt her.
In an unsigned opinion issued Friday, the court barred enforcing Fayette County Circuit Judge Paul Blake Jr.'s order that the girl should be taken away from Kathryn Kutil and Cheryl Hess. The girl has remained in the couple's custody throughout the court proceedings.
The court noted there was no reason to believe the girl wasn't thriving with Hess and Kutil, and said there was no legal reason to take her away from the couple.
"As a matter of fact, the court was never presented with any actual evaluation of the home or evidence of the quality of the relationship" the girl had with Kutil and Hess, the justices said. "All indications thus far are that (the girl) has formed a close emotional bond and nurturing relationship with her foster parents, which can not be trivialized or ignored."
The justices said Blake only ruled in favor of removing the child to promote placing her with a heterosexual couple.
"The conclusion itself represents a blurring of legal principles applicable to abuse and neglect and adoption," the decision said. "Even if our current statutes, rules and regulations could somehow be read to support the adoption preference proposed by (Blake) such a newfound principle would need to be harmonized with established law."
Full story here.....
Huckabee is a LOON
This little tidbit is floating around today from a piece in The Virginian-Pilot by Bill Bartel....
Apparantly Mike Huckabee was giving a speech along with Newt Gingrich. Newt went off on a tangent about how America is surrounded by Pagans (really?), but not to be out-insaned, Mr. Huckabee turned up the 'crazy' a notch or two with this one.....
"The notion that we are just one of many among equals is nonsense," Huckabee said. The United States is a "blessed" nation, he said, calling American revolutionaries' defeat of the British empire "a miracle from God's hand."
Huh?
So God, Jesus, and all the fairy angels hated the British! Nice. Wasn't aware of that.
Wonder why god was so caught up in the Revolutionary war.....but sat out WWII. And let's not even mention Vietnam.
The entire idea of attributing the outcome of ANYTHING to an imaginary god is intellectually bankrupt and reveals the massive bleeding ego of the person throwing such ideas around.
Apparantly Mike Huckabee was giving a speech along with Newt Gingrich. Newt went off on a tangent about how America is surrounded by Pagans (really?), but not to be out-insaned, Mr. Huckabee turned up the 'crazy' a notch or two with this one.....
"The notion that we are just one of many among equals is nonsense," Huckabee said. The United States is a "blessed" nation, he said, calling American revolutionaries' defeat of the British empire "a miracle from God's hand."
Huh?
So God, Jesus, and all the fairy angels hated the British! Nice. Wasn't aware of that.
Wonder why god was so caught up in the Revolutionary war.....but sat out WWII. And let's not even mention Vietnam.
The entire idea of attributing the outcome of ANYTHING to an imaginary god is intellectually bankrupt and reveals the massive bleeding ego of the person throwing such ideas around.
June 07, 2009
Connected!
After two days, three visits, and many frustrating hours.....I have the Internet. Making that great technological leap into the late 1990's. Whew.
June 06, 2009
June 05, 2009
Jordan Staal - Short Handed Goal 6-4-2009
The goal that changed the game.....and maybe the series....
Tomorrow!
I am scheduled (according to the goons at Comcast) to get the INTERNET tomorrow morning sometime. The new place is very nice and I am completely settled in....but not having the internet at home has been annoying to say the least. Tomorrow I am back online! Hoo!
June 03, 2009
A definition....
So tired of the argument about "changing the definition" of marriage.
This excellent piece by Austin Cline puts that whole argument out of it's sad miserey. The fact is....we have ALWAYS been changing the definition of marriage. The idea that it has always had one single purpose and definition is a flat out lie.
Excellent, well reasoned, and THOUGHTFUL piece here....with, you know, FACTS backing it up.
What is Marriage? Gay Marriage Cant Be a Real Marriage
The Definition of Marriage Cant be Changed for Gay Couples
By Austin Cline, About.com
Some argue that marriage is defined narrowly as only being between a man and a woman, so gays can’t possibly marry.
The fact is, though, that the nature of marriage has changed in definition and make-up many times over the centuries. Marriage today isn’t at all like what it was two millennia or even two centuries ago. The changes in marriage have been broad and fundamental, so what are traditionalists really trying to defend? What is “traditional” about modern marriage?
Most of these changes have moved power in marriage away from the families and to the couples, as well as making women more equal. Let’s look at just a few of the most significant changes in marriage in the West over the past centuries:
Legalization of divorce
Criminalization of marital rape (and recognition that the concept even exists)
Legalization of contraception
Legalization of interracial marriage
Recognition of women’s right to own property in a marriage
Elimination of dowries
Elimination of parents’ right to choose or reject their children’s mates
Elimination of childhood marriages and betrothals
Elimination of polygamy
Existence of large numbers of unmarried people
Women not taking the last names of their husbands
Changing emphasis from money and property to love and personal fulfillment
It is worth noting just how many of these reforms directly benefited women. For a long time, marriage was not in any way a real “partnership” between men and women. Men were in control and women were often little more than property. It’s only very, very recently that people in the West began to treat marriage as a partnership between equals where both men and women had the same status in the relationship — and there continue to be many in America who object to even this idea.
Why was it acceptable in the past to make so many reforms in the nature of marriage that ultimately benefitted heterosexuals and women, but not acceptable now to make one reform that benefits gays? Is there any reason to think that all of these other reforms were somehow more “minor” or “superficial” than legalizing gay marriage? No — making women equal in marriage rather than property, eliminating polygamy, and allowing people to marry for love are all at least as significant as allowing gay couples to marry, especially since gay marriage is not unheard-of in human history.
The last change in the list above is the most important: throughout of Western history, marriage has been primarily about unions which made good economic sense. Rich people married other rich people in order to solidify political alliances and economic futures. Poor people married other poor people with whom they thought they could create a livable future — someone who was a hard worker, reliable, strong, etc. Love existed, but it was a minor consideration next to simply surviving.
Today, the relative positions of the two have switched. Economic issues aren’t totally irrelevant and few people rush to marry someone who appears unreliable and with no economic future. At the same time, though, romantic love has been made the most important basis for marriage. When was the last time you saw someone praised for marrying for economic considerations? People marry for love and personal fulfillment — and that’s what’s driving divorce, because when love disappears and/or one no longer feels personally fulfilled, they see little reason to continue the marriage. In the past, such changes would have been irrelevant given the importance of economic survival and familial pressures.
In 1886, a Judge Valentine ruled that two free-love activists, Lillian Harman and Edwin Walker, did not have a valid marriage even under common-law rules because their union did not fulfill the traditional characteristics. The “essentials” of marriage which Valentine listed included: life-long commitment, a wife’s obedience to the husband, the husband’s absolute control over all property, the wife taking the husband’s last name, the right of the husband to force sexual intercourse on an unwilling wife (that would be rape, by the way), and the right of the husband to control and have custody of any children.
Valentine's decision mirrors the arguments made by opponents of gay marriage today. His sincerity and conviction were no less than the sincerity and conviction of those who claim that a valid marriage, by definition, cannot exist for same-sex couples. The things which Valentine regarded as absolutely essential and indispensable to marriage are today unnecessary for most who marry. Thus it's not enough for opponents of gay marriage to simply assert that it would be contrary to the definition of marriage. Instead, they must explain why it is essential to the definition of marriage that a couple must consist of different sexes, and moreover why a change to include gay couples would be any less valid (or any more of a danger) than the changes we've experienced since Valentine's day.
Click here to check out Austin's fantastic blog...
This excellent piece by Austin Cline puts that whole argument out of it's sad miserey. The fact is....we have ALWAYS been changing the definition of marriage. The idea that it has always had one single purpose and definition is a flat out lie.
Excellent, well reasoned, and THOUGHTFUL piece here....with, you know, FACTS backing it up.
What is Marriage? Gay Marriage Cant Be a Real Marriage
The Definition of Marriage Cant be Changed for Gay Couples
By Austin Cline, About.com
Some argue that marriage is defined narrowly as only being between a man and a woman, so gays can’t possibly marry.
The fact is, though, that the nature of marriage has changed in definition and make-up many times over the centuries. Marriage today isn’t at all like what it was two millennia or even two centuries ago. The changes in marriage have been broad and fundamental, so what are traditionalists really trying to defend? What is “traditional” about modern marriage?
Most of these changes have moved power in marriage away from the families and to the couples, as well as making women more equal. Let’s look at just a few of the most significant changes in marriage in the West over the past centuries:
Legalization of divorce
Criminalization of marital rape (and recognition that the concept even exists)
Legalization of contraception
Legalization of interracial marriage
Recognition of women’s right to own property in a marriage
Elimination of dowries
Elimination of parents’ right to choose or reject their children’s mates
Elimination of childhood marriages and betrothals
Elimination of polygamy
Existence of large numbers of unmarried people
Women not taking the last names of their husbands
Changing emphasis from money and property to love and personal fulfillment
It is worth noting just how many of these reforms directly benefited women. For a long time, marriage was not in any way a real “partnership” between men and women. Men were in control and women were often little more than property. It’s only very, very recently that people in the West began to treat marriage as a partnership between equals where both men and women had the same status in the relationship — and there continue to be many in America who object to even this idea.
Why was it acceptable in the past to make so many reforms in the nature of marriage that ultimately benefitted heterosexuals and women, but not acceptable now to make one reform that benefits gays? Is there any reason to think that all of these other reforms were somehow more “minor” or “superficial” than legalizing gay marriage? No — making women equal in marriage rather than property, eliminating polygamy, and allowing people to marry for love are all at least as significant as allowing gay couples to marry, especially since gay marriage is not unheard-of in human history.
The last change in the list above is the most important: throughout of Western history, marriage has been primarily about unions which made good economic sense. Rich people married other rich people in order to solidify political alliances and economic futures. Poor people married other poor people with whom they thought they could create a livable future — someone who was a hard worker, reliable, strong, etc. Love existed, but it was a minor consideration next to simply surviving.
Today, the relative positions of the two have switched. Economic issues aren’t totally irrelevant and few people rush to marry someone who appears unreliable and with no economic future. At the same time, though, romantic love has been made the most important basis for marriage. When was the last time you saw someone praised for marrying for economic considerations? People marry for love and personal fulfillment — and that’s what’s driving divorce, because when love disappears and/or one no longer feels personally fulfilled, they see little reason to continue the marriage. In the past, such changes would have been irrelevant given the importance of economic survival and familial pressures.
In 1886, a Judge Valentine ruled that two free-love activists, Lillian Harman and Edwin Walker, did not have a valid marriage even under common-law rules because their union did not fulfill the traditional characteristics. The “essentials” of marriage which Valentine listed included: life-long commitment, a wife’s obedience to the husband, the husband’s absolute control over all property, the wife taking the husband’s last name, the right of the husband to force sexual intercourse on an unwilling wife (that would be rape, by the way), and the right of the husband to control and have custody of any children.
Valentine's decision mirrors the arguments made by opponents of gay marriage today. His sincerity and conviction were no less than the sincerity and conviction of those who claim that a valid marriage, by definition, cannot exist for same-sex couples. The things which Valentine regarded as absolutely essential and indispensable to marriage are today unnecessary for most who marry. Thus it's not enough for opponents of gay marriage to simply assert that it would be contrary to the definition of marriage. Instead, they must explain why it is essential to the definition of marriage that a couple must consist of different sexes, and moreover why a change to include gay couples would be any less valid (or any more of a danger) than the changes we've experienced since Valentine's day.
Click here to check out Austin's fantastic blog...
Jackass quote of the week....
“By the way, Hispanic polls, Hispanic surveys, indicate that Hispanics think just like everyone else. We’re not like African Americans. We think just like everybody else.” - Head of the conservative movement to block the nomination of Sonia Sotomayor.
June 02, 2009
June 01, 2009
Moving....done?
Well the move is more or less completed.
Everything is at the new place.
Being unpacked, sorted, and placed.
A nevereding process it seems.
NO INTERNET at the new place.......YET.
Posts will be spotty at best until I get wired up and running
later this weekend.
Everything is at the new place.
Being unpacked, sorted, and placed.
A nevereding process it seems.
NO INTERNET at the new place.......YET.
Posts will be spotty at best until I get wired up and running
later this weekend.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)