Press "Enter" to skip to content

SB 128: South Dakota Secedes: “No Fags! No Feds! No Judicial Autonomy!”

Last updated on 2014.02.05

Good grief. Lest you think the withdrawal of lesbian-Lakota-hatin' SB 67 represented a victory for equality, humanity, and the Constitution in the South Dakota Legislature, read Senate Bill 128. This fresh abomination...

  1. ...reiterates the First Amendment right to say pretty much whatever you want about homosexuality based on your religious beliefs;
  2. ...protects from lawsuit any business owner who hangs a sign on her door saying, "No Fags Allowed—Jesus Says So";
  3. ...allows employers to summarily fire gay employees;
  4. ...exempts South Dakota from federal law; and,
  5. ...tells judges exactly how they will rule in certain lawsuits, regardless of arguments and evidence the litigants may present.

The South Dakota Legislature is telling not just homosexuals but the South Dakota judicial branch and the federal government to go to heck.

Yelling at homosexuals is so important to some South Dakota conservatives that they will jeopardize South Dakota's tattering reputation, risk a boycott of Mount Rushmore, and disregard the state and federal constitutions. South Dakotans, how much longer will you tolerate this behavior from your Legislature while your teachers leave for Wyoming and your potholes go unfilled?


  1. SDBlue 2014.01.30

    Anti-gay legislation. Personhood and intelligent design legislation. A bill that allows legislators to carry concealed weapons in courthouses. Yeah, we're a RED state. What? No abortion bill? Then again, the session is not over, right? I would be interested to know how much of this crap is cookie-cutter ALEC proposals.

  2. Donald Pay 2014.01.30

    The dying gasps of the nutty theocrats won't be pretty. They are on their way to burying themselves, just like the old Confederacy did, but they may take some rational people down with them. These are very dangerous folks, willing to sacrifice America to their hate. Maybe there is still just enough real Jesus left in them that they will repent. If not, get ready for their violence.

  3. vikingobsessed 2014.01.30

    Phil Jensen couldn't legislate his way out of a paper bag. These people have no idea how to actually govern.

  4. owen reitzel 2014.01.30

    We have a Cracker Barrel on Feb 8th here in Alexandria with our legislators from District 19 (this includes Stace Nelson).
    Should be fun and interesting

  5. Steve O'Brien 2014.01.30

    Should this also be extended to the school classroom? Should I be able to give a children failing grades because I believe them to be gay?

    I have a deep concern anytime we write discrimination into law.

  6. Porter Lansing 2014.01.30

    SoDak's desire to become a "hate state" seems undeniable. But, as Northern Beef Packers proved there's nothing really worthwhile to boycott except maybe the citizens (who have the power to craft their own state identity).

  7. Jenny 2014.01.30

    You only have yourselve to blame South Dakota. YOU are the ones who keep voting these bigots in year after year. There is nothing to boycott, Porter? Gay Rights is a hot issues for me, and I know a LOT of GLBT people in MN that will gladly boycott the state of SD as a place to spend their money.

  8. chas jewett 2014.01.30

    How do they know who the gays are, Cory? Do they have suggestions? Will we all have to have patches? Signs on our cars? And what about the bi-sexual folks? When they are dating opposite sex--can they still receive goods and services? And what about the children of these gays--will they be allowed to buy groceries for their families then? These are some interesting questions to ponder for SD's Taliban--I mean really, which gay person would Jesus condemn?

  9. Erika 2014.01.30

    This bill also seems to discriminate against other religious persons and creates a protected class of religious believers. Why should one person or business enjoy the protection of their deeply held religious beliefs about a specific offense but not another?

  10. Bree S. 2014.01.30

    "These are very dangerous folks, willing to sacrifice America to their hate."

    Keep making such ridiculous statements Donald and I will have to give you my tin foil hat to wear, which I have apparently earned merely by being conservative. Don't worry, it will protect you from hypothetical death rays emitted by the universe's singularity.

  11. J. Moore 2014.01.30

    I honestly can't believe that these people are ready to lose tourism dollars. That is supposed to be the main industry in this state, according to some. Number 2 to farming, according to others. Didn't anyone notice how well the gays organize boycotts? The people from Wall Drug and all the other tourists traps should get a hold of the ear of their representative or senator.

  12. Brian 2014.01.30

    SB 128 is pure 21st Century Jim Crow and it is absolutely disgusting. This is a party that preaches "freedom" and "liberty", while promoting tyranny and repression. This is a stark reminder that what happened in Germany in the 1930's can happen again, even in the United States of America. I don't know if South Dakota has recall procedures for elected officials, but I think the clowns pushing this garbage deserve nothing less. Shame, shame, shame on you all!!!!!

  13. Jen Sundem 2014.01.30

    This needs national attention. I'm sending the link to this legislation to every national media contact I can find. I've never been so appalled in my life.

  14. Bree S. 2014.01.30

    Where is my life vest. I should put it on before I drown in fear mongering and hyperbole.

  15. mike from iowa 2014.01.30

    I agree everyone should stop smoking,hence no fags allowed. After that I must remind you what Steve Hickey had to say about progressives and tolerance on 2014.01.22,at 20:17 on SB 67. In short he claimed progressives love Muslims but not Christians.

  16. Jenny 2014.01.30

    Bree, would you accept your child if they happen to love someone of the same sex someday? I've brought my eight-year old daughter to gay weddings and she's seen two gay men get married and kiss at wedding dances. I've explained to her she can love anyone she wants to. It's all about love and happiness.

  17. Jenny 2014.01.30

    I know there are gay cowboys in SD. They're ashamed to come out of the closet, and bills like this will just make them hide even more.

  18. mike from iowa 2014.01.30

    I gotta ask this. For two plus weeks wingnut Texas Congressweasel Steve Stockman went missing. Could it be he was here in Pierre teaching Sodak wingnuts the finer points of tea-bag lunacy? Stockman is the tool that invited Ted Nugent to last year's SOTU address after Nugent declared either he or Obama would be gone if Obama won re-election.

  19. Bree S. 2014.01.30

    Jenny, of course I would love and accept my child if he/she was gay. That doesn't mean I would support redefining the word marriage, which is entirely unnecessary to accomplish civil equality. It is also silly to redefine the word "marriage" because the human language requires descriptive terms for accurate communication. You notice we still call people "black" and "white" - even though that isn't entirely accurate since there are many shades of skin color it is still valuable to have such descriptive terms when communicating and so such terms will remain a part of the language. Likewise "gay marriage" will always be called "gay marriage" and not "marriage" because it is an inherently different relationship and the descriptor "gay" or similar term is required for more accurate communication.

    If it was me and I was gay I wouldn't to copycat the heterosexual equivalent of my relationship, but would prefer to develop my own traditions. Also, I don't comprehend this need for a government sanction of a human relationship, never having been much impressed with bureaucratic paperwork. No one is stopping anyone from putting on a white dress, playing pretty music, and walking down an aisle.

    Have to go, have a rapidly approaching appointment with the midwife.

  20. Steve O'Brien 2014.01.30

    Upon a second reading of this bill, wouldn't it also allow anti-hertero speech and the establishment of gay-only zones where everyone else can be excluded LEGALLY?

    Maybe Cory has been wrong in his analysis, and this is the first step in a new, gay-friendly SD haven created by our legislators for "alternate" lifestyle communities.

    In fact, if bigamy can be defined under this law as "protected" won't that be the very slippery slope attack on "traditional" marriage those on the right rail against.

    Funny, maybe someone didn't look down the road for possible effects of creating laws that can be two-edged swords.

  21. Roger Cornelius 2014.01.30

    Since when has the opposition continued attempts at legislating liberty and freedom become fear mongering and hyperbole?

    Read 128 again, that is what is called fear mongering and hyperbole.

    It does not matter to me that teapublicans are upset about the number of what they consider frivolous lawsuits, Americans and South Dakotans should always retain the right to pursue legal action against ANYONE that violates their civil rights. In fact, the more legal action against the bigotry of this state, the better.

    Welcome to 1950's Jim Crow South Dakota.

    Where is there a petition I can sign.

  22. Jenny 2014.01.30

    Honestly, I've never known a party that was so obsessed with what consenting adults do in their bedrooms.

  23. FireBreathingDragon 2014.01.30

    Put a group of bored powerful people into a room and they will find a way to create legislation that offends everyone and after they sober up will realize the legislation was only trying to wag the dog and not really wanting to accomplish anything at all but to come up with more BS. This state likes BS it's a cowboy thing but not a surprise.

  24. Erika 2014.01.30

    Steve, I was just thinking about that too. The bill talks about protecting the expression of views regarding homosexuality. So I can talk about my pro-gay views without consequences. And if an employer is gay they can fire people for being straight. Cool!

  25. mike from iowa 2014.01.30

    Bree S,sounds like an underhanded attempt to get Gays to accept less than equal treatmment with hetero couples,by suggesting they not settle for "traditional marriage". I guess Gays and Lesbians can decide for themselves what equality means and they are free to pursue their goals just like the rest of Americans. This is not a personal attack,just a different view from someone who isn't ever getting married to a person of either sex.

  26. Jim in DC 2014.01.30

    Fun game: Swap "sexual orientation" with "race". Reads like a Alabama reconstruction era law.

  27. Roger Cornelius 2014.01.30


    The Republican obsession with sex is a part of their freedom and liberty campaign. Or in other words, my rights allow me to legislate what goes on in your bedroom, but you have no right in my bedroom.

  28. Jim 2014.01.30

    The Bigot Protection Act. This thing is deplorable and should be DOA. If only those sponsors would pray a little harder...

  29. Roger Cornelius 2014.01.30

    Holy crapola, the press release blogger Pat Powers is opposed to SB128.

    I think hell just froze over.

  30. Bill Dithmer 2014.01.30

    Hey you little sons-da-bitches, do I need to stop this car and come back there?

    Like glue in an hour glass, so is our South Dakota legislature.

    If I do stop this car someone's gonna walk.

    The Blindman

  31. Jana 2014.01.30

    Approved and endorsed by Westboro Baptist Church! New South Dakota members include:

    Senators Jensen, Begalka, and Holien and Representatives Campbell, Kopp, May, Nelson, Olson (Betty), Qualm, Russell, Steele, and Wick.

    Way to go guys and gals! You have found your base. Please move to Kansas!

    Let's try this headline on for size. "Two Army Ranger Heroes Denied Rights in South Dakota!"

  32. Bree S. 2014.01.30

    Mike from Iowa: it isn't physically possible for gay couples to engage in "traditional marriage" which has for millenia involved heterosexual couples breeding and raising children. I also have no comprehension of why gay couples feel they have to trample on JudeoChrisian culture and illogically try to redefine words in order to feel equal to straight couples. My grandmother married and divorced two men before she started dating women and as far as I know never felt the urge to "marry" one of her female partners. Maybe she logically comprehended that her homosexual relationships were inherently different from her previous marriages that involved heterosexual breeding. Its a pile of unicorn crap fermented in PC rainbow stew this illogical idea that homosexual partnerships must also be called "marriage" and involve all cultural traditions associated with traditional marriage in order for gay couples to feel "as good as" straight couples. Its this type of insane liberal PC nonsense that gives us cultural accomplishments like the horrendous remake of Roger & Hammersteins Cinderella where the King is white, the Queen is black, and their biological son is Chinese. How racially sensitive of the morons who produced that insane crap.

    But never mind all that. The government shouldn't be involved in the social institution of marriage in the first place. Who the heck needs the government to say they can get married. Go get married, no one is stopping you. Do you need the Feds to hold your hand? Give me a break.

  33. interested party 2014.01.30

    Rai and Jiri at Lungha. Rai of Lowani. Lowani under two moons. Jiri of Ubaya. Ubaya of crossroads, at Lungha. Lungha, her sky gray.

  34. Bree S. 2014.01.30

    What does that mean Larry.

  35. Winston 2014.01.30

    I have only one question to ask. Did the sponsor and co-sponsors of this bill ever take 9th grade civics class or the 12th grade government refresher course? Because their constitutional logic is void of any understanding of the 14th Amendment and it application in the defining, legislating, and enforcing of alleged 1st Amendment rights.

    Based on the sponsors' logic, if a given religion does not like people of color and promotes racial discrimination then the parishioners of this given religion could ignore the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and deny service to individuals based on their race. What planet are these sponsors living on?

    Plus, this law is poorly written, because it is rhetorical in nature rather than letter of the law in nature in terms of its wording. When I first started to read it, I double-checked to make sure this was not a resolution instead of a law, because it reads more a like a philosophically bent resolution then a bona-fide law, which it is not in more ways then one….

  36. Bree S. 2014.01.30

    Oh Star Trek stuff I get it.

  37. interested party 2014.01.30

    It means that your legislature is engaged in an elaborate diversion from the reality of one of the richest counties in the US living across a river from one of the poorest, Bree.

  38. Jana 2014.01.30

    Thank you Bree for informing us that traditional marriage is completely defined by physical sex and the merger of a sperm cell and egg to form a blastocyst between opposite sexes. That would explain the heterosexual divorce rate.

  39. Bree S. 2014.01.30

    Yes Jana. The definition of traditional marriage includes that, but there is more. It also involves a duty to the universe and the continuance of human life, to raise children who comprehend the meaning of both motherhood and fatherhood, so that the cycle of life may continue, each child experiencing the love of the mother and the love of the father. And the child grows up to understand the joy and responsibility of family life, desiring to continue in the universe cycle and duty of demonstrating the meaning of parenthood to the next the generation. Any child can choose of their own free will to opt out of that cycle, but the cycle of life and breeding that my culture calls "marriage" and the "nuclear family" continues regardless. The heterosexual divorce rate is more closely associated with the breakdown in the societal comprehension of the purpose and meaning of marriage, when people come to believe that the purpose of marriage is a pleasant companionship that makes them feel warm and fuzzy on the inside.

  40. grudznick 2014.01.30

    I don't understand all the brouhaha on this issue. Mrs. S. and I both chose to not be homosexual, and that is our right. Can't we just leave it at that? Leave the gay cowboys alone, and everybody else. Our legislatures get insaner every year. I blame Stace for a lot of it. And that Aker fellow.

  41. grudznick 2014.01.30

    Mr. Napoli is not without blame either.

  42. Bree S. 2014.01.30

    I'm actually trapped in the Black Hills at the moment, Larry, as I will give birth here.

  43. interested party 2014.01.30

    Imagine a state where Hutterites threatened with a genetic roadblock uses influence on a packing plant to bring diversity to an inbred population: should the feds intervene?

  44. grudznick 2014.01.30

    Larry, I know you took advantage of some of those $50 visits to the Colony back in your day just like some of your pals.

  45. Stan Gibilisco 2014.01.30

    Wow. I read the bill. I guess Libertarianism can cut two ways. Would JFK still say "better red than dead"?

  46. Bree S. 2014.01.30

    Well, Larry, I must have very little Neanderthal DNA since I'm fit as a fiddle. If I develop the sudden urge to cave paint aurochs I will let you know.

  47. Sid 2014.01.30

    This bill is already serving its intended purpose. The sole reason that legislation such as this (which is facially unconstitutional and would be declared such in every Federal Court and most state courts) is introduced is to divert everyone's attention. Just like the magician using sleight of hand, this is meant to hold everyone's attention while the real and truly meaningful events are taking place.
    This serves to focus attention while the legislature gets busy doing things which will negatively affect the pocketbook of every person in South Dakota. The governor (yes, I deliberately used the lower case) says he has arranged for outside auditors to examine the books of GOED. However, no audit is performed. (See the reports of the accounting firms released today) The attorney general (yes, you only use upper case when referring to someone who deserves respect) is busy lying to the citizens about his "investigations" while keeping everyone's attention on abortion and the death penalty.
    Here is the reality: South Dakota has a closed government system in which nobody who holds any office can be held accountable for misconduct. This is true whether it is the republicans or democratic party in power at a given moment. (Example: How do party officials claim the right to give a party "endorsement" for one candidate in the primary over another?) In the meantime, everyone will focus on this nonsense while the tracks are covered, the alibis are honed, and the wrongdoers are given complete cover by the ones whose task it is to prosecute. And, if anyone pays attention and asks why this is being done, the response will be (to paraphrase Marty Jackley): "It's not MY job!"

  48. interested party 2014.01.30

    Mirab, with sails unfurled.

  49. Roger Cornelius 2014.01.30

    Winston is right, this bill reads like a resolution or proclamation, Stace has been pretty good at writing those lately.
    How many women here would like to go back in history to the 16th, 17th, or even the 20th century and live by the standards of traditional marriage? Cultures and traditions change and hopefully evolve for the better.
    It was once traditional to own slaves, it was once traditional to disallow the woman vote, it was traditional for Jim Crow laws. And that is the point, laws and traditions that are based on prejudice, discrimination, sexual orientation need to be changed, America is an evolving nation that isn't beholden to biblical interpretation.
    Who is hurt or wounded if the gay and lesbian communities wish to call their unions marriage? After all, homosexuality has been around just as long as traditional marriage, if not longer.
    Their are a host of social problems related to traditional marriage, the number of children being raised grandparents or another 3rd party is astounding. We probably all know of that situation. The children of divorced parents usually have a multitude of emotional and social problems. Spousal homicides, spousal abuse are on the rise in this country and are a result of traditional marriage.

  50. Sid 2014.01.30

    Of course, maybe Molly Ivins said it best: "The Legislature is back in session and many a village is missing their Idiot"

  51. Jerry 2014.01.30

    Correct Sid, we all seem to be enthralled by the sight of something shiny and like always, it is either the gays or abortion that fills the need. Oh, and also, Native voting. A trifecta bet of perfection for us rubes and it works brilliantly as long as it is presented in large headlines by the propaganda ministers for their bosses. In the meantime, the uranium mine by Edgemont gets the early nod as something that now seems workable.

    Good news then, the gays will now get to eat cake and we all we get to breathe and drink yellow cake, is the world full of bliss or what?

  52. Roger Cornelius 2014.01.30

    That was fantastic and so very true. I miss Molly, she is legend.
    Your distraction is proving itself everyday the legislature is in session. Does anyone recall Daugaard's main points of his State of State Address.
    In part it was about jobs and economic development, you know the plan, recruit Minnesotans to come work in South Dakota for below average wages. Don't know if he found another buddy to pay a million dollars to do that this time around.
    And of course as Cory reported, is still open to pumping state dollars in the bankrupt Northern Beef Packers in his continued promotion of his "socialized" capitalism agenda.
    The state has become notorious for their poor rankings in education, everything from the lowest paid teachers in the nation to having the poorest schools in country, and everything in between.
    What are our legislators doing? Fighting over whether Common Core is a liberal conspiracy to send children to concentration camps. They did throw education a bone with a slight increase in education funding.
    Where are our noble men and women when they talk about government transparency? Notice they don't talk about the formation of an ethics committee or a standard of ethics for themselves.
    Oh well, South Dakotans will once again be duped in fighting about dog, abortion, gay marriage, etc. and the suds will wash over us.

  53. Jenny 2014.01.30

    That's why your local sperm bank is nice for same sex couples if they wish to celebrate their love by having children in their life. Aren't these modern times beautiful? Then there's the adoption route for same sex couples also, which I would hope that pro-life advocates don't frown upon.

  54. Bill Dithmer 2014.01.30

    Today I'm probably going to piss some people off. The problem is that I'm at the point in my life where I just don't give a damn about those things anymore. As everyone here knows by now I pretty much say what I think.

    It started a week or so ago when I went to bed early because I didn't feel good. Sometimes when that happens I find myself escaping the sterile environment of every day life to that of "anything can happen" dream world.

    As the Joe Banamassa song says, I "Woke up dreaming."

    Just like in real life I woke up, got out of bed, went into the office, took my pills, started on my first cup of coffee that Belinda brought me and finished KELOs early morning show. Up to this point everything was completely normal.

    Then it was on to The CBS Morning show and it was at that time that things started to change. I was only half paying attention when Charlie Rose started "your world in ninety seconds." There was something about the Olympics not being safe. Then there was something about Iran's nuclear threat. Then there was something about a big freeze in the northeast part of the country.

    Then as if it was an after thought, Charlie said this. "This morning Texas, Mississippi, Alabama, and Louisiana, are morning the loss of their good friend South Dakota. The state has been in failing health for over thirty years and died last night due to complications from bigotry, religious persecutions, and it's time held belief that women are property and should be controlled. A state funeral will not be held."

    Then it was more restless sleep with thoughts ranging from my love for South Dakota to my anger at what should have been. Broken images and deep thoughts from music long ago written and brought to the surface by a sickness much worse then the fever that I had.

    Love is a storm
    Love is a storm
    Love is a storm

    Love is a storm
    Love is a storm
    Love is a storm

    I have heard you rumble watched as you light up the sky
    When I'm in a storm I get a little high
    And I have seen the fog roll on the badlands late at night.
    With a full moon rising well it just feels right.

    But there aint no use to think what might have been
    I still think about you now and then
    I love the sun but the rain it treats me fine
    Love is a storm baby and a storm's just a state of mind

    Love is a storm
    Love is a storm
    Love is a storm

    Love is a storm
    Love is a storm
    Love is a storm

    Your eyes they flash with lightning
    And your hair blows with the wind
    Like a ghost you are here and then your gone again
    The air is full of thunder, and the clouds sure make it dark
    You blew in through my soul and devastated my heart

    But there aint no use to think what might have been
    I still think about you now and then
    I love the sun but the rain it treats me fine
    Love is a storm baby and a storm's just a state of mind
    Love is a storm
    Love is a storm
    Love is a storm

    Love is a storm
    Love is a storm
    Love is a storm

    Ya crazy believe me I know it. And then this.

    When the fog rolls on the badlands, with a full moon on the rise.
    Don't you know its the soft light, that can slowly hypnotize.
    Smell the smoke form the campfire, feel the dampness in the wind,
    These sweet sensations keep me coming back again and again.

    It's mother nature on the line
    She's taking her sweet time
    Trying to let you know
    To leave it like you found it when you go

    It's mother nature on the line.

    Now I've been trying to figure out if the nightmare was caused by my sickness, or if there was something resting even deeper in my soul that I should be worried about.

    I have spent a lifetime here. I love the people that are my neighbors and the land that lies inside the invisable lines that define the borders of our state more then life itself.

    Having said that, I confess that I do harbor some ill feelings towards some that live here. I resent the fact that there are those that want to reap the bennifits of the twentyfirst century while at the same time wishing life could stay the same as it was in the 1950s.

    Like so many others, we would like to start a business here but it's getting harder to explain why our state is the way it is. Like it or not the world is watching. I've already taken up to much of your time with this dribble but here's a thought.

    If The Blindman was the preacher at South Dakota's funeral these would be two of the songs that would be played.

    And this

    Statehood for the tribes, hey I'm already there.

    .08+1 The Blindman

  55. Jenny 2014.01.30

    My sperm bank comment was in response to Bree's comment that traditional marriage continues the human race.
    Madville Timers always enjoy your writing, Bill!

  56. Deb Geelsdottir/ 2014.01.31

    Thanks for your wisdom Blindman.

    Heterosexual couples must prove their fertility before being issued a marriage license. Since reproduction is the purpose of marriage, they have to bear children. The federal government needs to write a law that forbids childlessness. In addition to a hefty fine, the couple must be forced to volunteer full time in an orphanage for 18 years, the length of time parents are legally responsible for their child. Unless they die first.

  57. Becca Pivonka 2014.01.31

    Bree S - I just LOVE the argument that "traditional marriage" is about procreating, so we shouldn't allow gays to get married since they cannot procreate. Because for heterosexual people who physically cannot have kids, that argument basically states that they should not be allowed to get married either. Crud - I know a lot of people who shouldn't be married now; I guess they should contact their divorce lawyers.

    "And the child grows up to understand the joy and responsibility of family life, desiring to continue in the universe cycle and duty of demonstrating the meaning of parenthood to the next the generation." (< in regards to straight couples)
    - couples can't raise kids? And cannot teach them the to understand the meaning of family life? Or the meaning of parenthood?
    Crud again - my gay friends who adopted a baby, take her to her sporting events, encourage her, love her, help her with school work (straight-A grades too) and are generally raising her to be a well-rounded individual who loves her family - they should probably disown her and turn her over to Family Services, right? Since you imply that a gay couple couldn't raise a kid to appreciate family and parenthood? Kind of also implies this child couldn't possibly be raised to want to be parent.

    Bree, I would like to thank you though. It is you and people that think like you that remind me every day of one of the many reasons that I will continue to fight and champion for equal rights for gays.

  58. mike from iowa 2014.01.31

    Bree S-your giving birth in the Black Hills might just violate some Native American religious traditions. Ever think of that? Native Americans didn't need your god to bless their marriage. They did quite nicely for themselves,until,you know,Whitey came along and upset the apple cart. I sincerely believe you have marriage and religion mixed up.

  59. Steve Huff 2014.01.31

    Please check out my FB page. I have posted the contact information for each and every stupid sponsor of SB 128. Consider this a bounty on dumb. You do not even have to have a dog in the same sex fight (I am ardently pro same sex rights) to know you cannot bypass constitutions and judges. If we have any legislator dumb enough not to know that, then they need to go... period. No excuses, no second chances. All of their profiles and contact information are posted on my FB page for ease of use. You would be interested in their pages...

  60. Mark Remily 2014.01.31

    Bill, It may have been long, but it was beautiful Dribble.

  61. Bree S. 2014.01.31

    Becca - I just LOVE the argument that not having the government legally redefine the word marriage somehow stops gay couples from getting married if they want because apparently some people are so emotionally dependent on the state that they need the government to tell them what they can and can't do.

    Oh, your welcome Becca. Please continue in your ridiculous belief that you are morally superior and a victim of conservatives like myself and a champion of the downtrodden because you can't handle the logical fact that homosexual and heterosexual relationships are inherently different. Please continue to dance among the daisies of your hippie utopia believing that "color blind" means the human eye stops noticing differences in skin color and that relationship "equality" before the government for human partnerships requires that they be legally mandated to be exactly the same - which nonsense will somehow change reality and bring your insane unicorn world to life.

  62. Bree S. 2014.01.31

    Mike from Iowa - I highly doubt you know anything about any Native American traditions and maybe European Americans should stop pretending to be culturally sensitive experts on everything that involves Native Americans. I find it amusing how some people pretend to be morally superior because they will buy and display Native American art or pretend to be some kind of converted expert on Native spirituality so they can show off for their libbie friends and berate other European Americans for what the White Man has done to the American Indian meanwhile they sit around on their fat asses and do nothing because they are hypocrites who are all talk, waving their hands in the air crying about injustice, so that they can feel good about themselves. Meanwhile nothing has changed.

  63. Becca Pivonka 2014.01.31

    Bree - if a state was to legally define marriage as between one man and one woman, then yes, it does stop gay couples from getting married in that state. There are benefits to being legally married. And I feel, as do many, that by telling a gay couple you can be "married", just not legally, it is equivalent to saying they are not equal people. That they are somehow lesser than a straight couple. I know many, many gay couples who feel this way.
    The only thing that is inherently different between straight and gay couples is what combination of reproductive organs are involved in the relationship. And before you say that there is also the difference of being able to procreate, do not forget that there are many straight couples who cannot procreate, yet they are allowed to get married.

    Of course the human eye notices differences in skin color - that does not mean we should judge people of a varying colors differently than others. Relationship equality before the government for human partnerships (i.e. marriage) does not require it be legally mandated that they be the same - just that we do not legally mandate that these partnerships are different and ban a particular type of relationship.
    If a state just left it alone, and did not pass laws saying that gay people cannot get married to each other, then a gay couple should be able to be like anyone else, walk into a court house, get their marriage license, and have a judge perform a non-religious ceremony to make them legal spouses.

    A question I pose to people who are against gay marriage...How does it hurt you if a gay couple becomes legally married in the eyes of the government? Will that change what your marriage is about?
    I have yet to hear any answer that does not involve religion. Perhaps you have one?

  64. Bree S. 2014.01.31

    Becca - for all I care the government can legally define all human partnerships to be civil unions and get out of the marriage business. Marriage is none of the government's business. And if it stops this pointless cultural war with idiots on both sides, on one side the religious fascists who think the mere existence of homosexuality is going to destroy the world while on the other side gays and atheists who think this a great way to attack monotheistic religion in general, then good.

    Yes, I think redefining the word "marriage" is illogical and a waste of time because doing so will have no effect on its use in the language. "Gay marriage" will continue to be "gay marriage" and will never be "marriage" because in reality the relationships are not the same and the truth will not be changed with government proclamations.

  65. Becca Pivonka 2014.01.31

    Bree - it seems you are challenging the terminology rather than the legalities. If we say "(traditional) marriage" and "gay marriage" are all legal and allowed by the government, are we good then? Because this is about homosexuals being able to be legally married, not what we call it.

    I'm completely on board with everything being civil unions from here on out, for straight and gay couples, as long as everyone enjoys the same legal benefits from these unions. If someone wants a "religious marriage" then they can take that up with their church.

    We've kind of fallen away from what this bill is about, however. This bill is about businesses having the right to refuse service to anyone based on sexual orientation, to hire/fire someone based on sexual orientation, and for there to be zero legal recourse for someone to challenge against discrimination based upon sexual orientation. Pair that with the legislative branch telling the judicial branch what they have to do, and the state telling the federal government to go to hell and that the state doesn't have to listen to any laws the federal government has to say in this matter - it is just embarrassing to know that this type of behavior is happening still in this day.

    Bottom line on this bill, even if it somehow managed to pass and get signed in to law, it would be immediately challenged and would be overturned as soon as (if not before) it reached a federal court. It is a huge waste of time and potential huge waste of money.

  66. mike from iowa 2014.01.31

    Bree S-who are you,the cultural police? Show me where I claimed to know anything about NA culture. I said you "might" violate. That doesn't claim to be authoritative. Don' get your knickers in a twist. You aren't the victim and you don't get to claim victimhood because people don't necessarily agree with you. Lighten up on the hairspray. Those propellants are bad for the ozone and your child's health.

  67. Dave 2014.01.31

    I know that our governor likely is very busy right now, but he could do us South Dakotans a big favor by announcing at his weekly press conferences that he won't put up with this continued bullsh**, even if it's coming from his own party, and that such legislation, will, without a doubt, be vetoed. There are so many crazies in the Legislature right now, and this may not be enough to stop the madness, but, who knows? It may help.

  68. mike from iowa 2014.01.31

    And lest I forget,this is America not Burger King. You don't get to have everything your way.

  69. Rick 2014.01.31

    Simmer down mike from iowa. bree is an authority on everything and knows everything about everything. we should all be thankful and appreciative of her knowledge.

  70. mike from iowa 2014.01.31

    Sorry Rick,that's just my know it all,murderer,child molesting,pedophile,iowa blood getting worked up.

  71. Douglas Wiken 2014.01.31

    Stace just forgot the part about requiring gays to have a big red "G" branded on their foreheads.

  72. Les 2014.01.31

    Winston recently wrote a formidable piece over on WC as did Rick over here. Rick then falls into the "if ya can't beat em join em personal attacks of the ignorant or just plain to lazy to learn" along with Ioway Mike who seldom provides anything better than his salacious comment above..
    Bree can be crass but seldom comes with personal attack and though she has opinions on most everything, at least has some foundation for opinions obviously based upon some research or education.
    Many times I've been given the opportunity to hurt those with opposing views here and have refrained, not wishing to become that which I don't approve. From the security of a telephone or computer, the weak attack. It could be better.

  73. Bree S. 2014.01.31

    Mike from Iowa - in case you have forgotten it was one of your own who called you a stupid red neck pedophile because she assumed that since you were from the Midwest that you were a conservative like me.

  74. mike from iowa 2014.01.31

    Les-who are you,the cultural police? Oh,I used that salacious comment before. I don't make personal attacks on whiny,sappy wingnuts and I'v e noticed the way you refrain from trying to hurt those with opposing views. I told you before I have thick skin. Bring it on,fella.

  75. Bree S. 2014.01.31

    Wiken - wanting to protect religious freedom and private business from the culturally intolerant does not make a person a homophobe - and where do you find the nerve to comment when you have repeatedly called Native Americans lazy and demeaned their culture.

  76. Bree S. 2014.01.31

    Les, I didn't know you were a whiny sappy wing nut. My how things can change in a few days.

  77. interested party 2014.01.31


  78. mike from iowa 2014.01.31

    Sorry Bree,she was an avowed pitbull loving,loony tune and I can assure you I am not.

  79. Les 2014.01.31

    If you need anything while you're in the Hills, get in touch Bree. Cory's got my contact. We're taking it easy, me blogging, keeping three guitars warmed up and she quilting. We have time for an outing if needed or desired and I could enjoy a cigar when that precious life joins this outside world.

  80. Les 2014.01.31

    Lar, you bring a smile, in soo many ways. Smiles I need, as culture cop here! Whiny winger? He's just generalizing as he has no reading comprehension to understand who I am Bree.

  81. Bree S. 2014.01.31

    Mike from Iowa - I do not use hair spray and perhaps you should stop with your uneducated intolerant assumptions about conservatives, that is how you got called a red neck pedophile in the first place as you were subjected to some of the liberal intolerance I put up with on a daily basis. I have a feeling I have more "environmentally conscience" brands around my house than you do. Just because I don't support the insane hippie belief that the American economy must be destroyed in order to make any progress on environmental stewardship doesn't mean I am an evil capitalist who eats coal for breakfast.

  82. Bree S. 2014.01.31

    I admit to being crass, sarcastic smart ass oozing from nearly every pore especially when I am fired up. Baby's coming next week Les.

  83. Les 2014.01.31

    Cool. Don't let all this sideline the importance of the event. Blessings on that newborn and his family.

  84. mike from iowa 2014.01.31

    Bree-did you just say something-anything? Where did all these hippies come from? Did one pop from behind a rock and scare you as a child? Do you accuse everyone of being uneducated when you can't follow the conversation? I made a simple comment and you go all god-squad,wingnut Rambo on my intelligence. God loves you,I don't know why.

  85. Bree S. 2014.01.31

    Thanks Les. And you are right, it is a boy. Jim always has cigars on him - but I thought you quit for the insurance. Of course those actuaries should be charging more for anyone who has a wood burning fireplace if they're going to target smokers, since wood smoke contains 12 times the carcinogens of an equivalent amount of cigarette smoke.

  86. Les 2014.01.31

    LOL. You don't miss much Bree. I did quit having them around and getting in on all customer cigar ops. I tell myself no, on more things in life than I ever imagined I would, but I would tip a beer with Jim and on a special occasion enjoy a cigar and conversation.

  87. Les 2014.01.31

    Snocross starting in Deadwood, burning daylight here.

  88. Bree S. 2014.01.31

    Mike from Iowa - you told me not to get my knickers in a wad - which is a sexist comment typical of the Bashir crowd of male liberals. Just so you know I do not walk around in pioneer woman wear and I also do not churn butter. And yes I shouldn't overgeneralize on "hippies" or perhaps should be more specific as to "socialist-leaning hippies with impractical beliefs that do not work in the real world" but it does take a rather long time to type that.

    Clearly you have paid absolutely no attention to our conversation and are arguing with a figment of your imagination. When did I go "God Squad wing nut Rambo" on your intelligence? Was it when I was advocating for civil unions? Do you want me to quote scripture at you and tell you that you are going to hell so that you can feel properly victimized by Christianity in general?

  89. mike from iowa 2014.01.31

    Bree S-this stuff is just going right over your head,isn't it? You need to get out more.

  90. Bree S. 2014.01.31

    Don't make me psychoanalyze you, Mike.

  91. Roger Cornelius 2014.01.31

    There is truth train coming, South Dakota will fight to their last breath to stop it, but they won't be able to.

    I probably won't live long enough to see it, but the truth and reality is that one day 'gay marriage" will be an acceptable legal term.

    The next truth, is that one day "gay marriage" will simply be referred to as "marriage".

    This is a train that can't be stopped, thanks to the young people that are more accepting and tolerant than most of us old dudes.

  92. Bree S. 2014.01.31

    And one day people will stop using terms like "white" and "black," "fat" and "skinny," "tall" and "short," "up" and "down," and "left" and "right" because brilliant liberal geniuses have declared that everything is the same.

  93. interested party 2014.01.31

    Kira at Bashi. Temba at rest.

  94. Roger Cornelius 2014.01.31


    No they won't!

    Acceptance and tolerance of the LGBT community has nothing to do with an "brilliant liberal geniuses" declaration and everything to do with humanity.

  95. Bree S. 2014.01.31

    Um.. acceptance and tolerance of the LGBT community has nothing to do with redefining language descriptors necessary for communication. Couples will still be called "straight" or "gay" and "gay marriage" will not be called "marriage" because people will naturally want to communicate without unnecessary confusion. The human language is not going to evolve in an illogical direction because of government declarations. The government might as well proclaim that rocks will from now on roll up hill against the pull of gravity and that anyone who disputes that is prejudiced against boulders.

  96. interested party 2014.01.31

    Roger: no doubt you are learning the folly of responding to the ridiculous. Please make a note of it.

  97. Bree S. 2014.01.31

    Feel free to dispute my logic, Sherlock.

  98. interested party 2014.01.31

    The thread on this topic at the RCJ has devolved into another cascade of red state inbreds hating on life.

  99. Bree S. 2014.01.31

    And what does that have to do with anything. Gay activists suing little old ladies who won't bake them a cake. Religious busy bodies trying to tell other people what to do with their private parts. What else is new, its been going on for years.

  100. interested party 2014.01.31

    Nearly 21% of bridges in your stupid state are structurally deficient, propane has doubled if you can get it, Pierre is sewer of biblical prostitution proportions and legislators are diverting attention to denying due process to a class of people.

    My home state would arrest me for bringing my recreational drug of choice if they wanted to selectively enforce that law, too.

    Go do some kegels, Bree.

  101. interested party 2014.01.31

    These laws only apply in state courts and would be thrown out of federal court. They're statements of spaghetti tossed at wall to see what sticks.

  102. interested party 2014.01.31

    Btw: i can't be there to do your epesiotomy,

  103. Bree S. 2014.01.31

    You spend all your time worrying about the Koch brothers and yet they spend a significant portion of their money supporting marijuana legalization and gay marriage. And yet somehow they get blamed for the actions of the religious right. Does your infatuation with the "Kochtupus" really have any foundation in reality?

  104. Bree S. 2014.01.31

    Episiotomy. Please. I'm not one of your liberal feminists suffering from a fear of natural child birth, scheduling induced births and letting men in white coats strap them down to tables.

  105. Roger Cornelius 2014.01.31


    I will not engage in name calling and your trite political rhetoric. Read what I said.

    There will come a day when in the future the self-serving labels won't be necessary. One of the worst things we do in America is to find it necessary everyone and everything to label one another. It is not about language, political correctness or government language or their intrusion.
    People and cultures do change and evolve, like I noted, I'm not likely to live to see total acceptance and tolerance of the LGBT community.
    As more and more of our family members, relatives, co-workers, church members, military or any other segment of society proudly proclaim that they are gay or lesbian, how can things not change?
    If the child you are carrying grows up gay and wants a gay marriage, would you allow or accept it.
    What we as a society and as a government are underestimating is that the gay and lesbian populations are growing faster than could be imagined. Wouldn't a political party like to have them show up to vote on election day, or does a political party want to disenfranchise them piece meal legislation?
    The meaning of words to do change Bree. For example, when I was growing up the word "gay" meant to be happy.

  106. interested party 2014.01.31

    Oh, you mean like IHS does on the rez? Pitocin drips so docs can deliver and run?

    Your indignation here is pure entitlement brought to you by the savaging of Sully County.

  107. interested party 2014.01.31

    Bree: your foetus has been exposed to some of the deadliest compounds manufactured by industry. Your umbilical cord blood is toxic: why would you not be angry if you could not sue?

  108. Douglas Wiken 2014.01.31

    Bree, what are you protecting the religious from? What rights are infringed?

    The idea that property rights trump civil rights was pretty well shot to pieces by civil rights laws. I can see the need for balance, but when businesses are licensed and churches get tax exemption, regulation of them also seems appropriate with regard to rights.

    As for marriage, totally separate civil law from religious rites. Convert all statues relating to "marriage" to "civil unions". Churches can retain their perceived control of marriage rites.

    A lot of verbiage and nonsense is wasted on an issue that can be ended simply suggests those on both sides of this issue prefer theater to reality and common sense compromise.

  109. Roger Cornelius 2014.01.31

    Koch Brothers supporting gay marriage and pot legalization?

    Really? More information please. I can see Koch support marajuana legalization since there is a substanial profit in it, but gay marriage?

  110. Bree S. 2014.01.31

    Roger - You have clearly not read the thread as I have already answered your question of whether or not I would accept my child if he/she was gay and wanted a "gay marriage" previously.

    The reason the word "gay" could evolve to mean "homosexual" rather than "happy" is because there were plenty of synomyms in regular use for "happy" and so the word "gay" wasn't necessary in its original definition. It was also used less commonly than its synonyms. The same is not true for the word marriage. The closest synonym, matrimony, is much less commonly used probably because it has twice as many syllables and takes considerably more effort to say in casual conversation and doesn't have an easy verb option. The only word for marriage is marriage, and so it is more static in meaning in the English language. Also you are trying to appropriate the word marriage for a too closely related meaning (gay marriage) where use can easily become confusing without the descriptor "gay" and only when connotation is obvious (the marriage of Bob and Harry) could it be used without the descriptor gay. Also "gay marriage" is only three syllables. For all of these reasons and probably many others attempting to change the use of the word marriage is futile and it would make more sense to have stuck with "partner, partnered, partnership" or something similar to describe a homosexual union because it is much easier to tell which meaning of "partnership" is being used in conversation than "marriage."

  111. Bree S. 2014.01.31

    As I have stated already Wiken I wouldn't have a problem with all human partnerships being defined as civil unions because I don't think the government should be regulating marriage at all, but due to child support and visitation laws we have to have something.

  112. interested party 2014.01.31

    Bree, a morbidly obese person goes into a buffet: should the proprietor enjoy the protection of a state law that prevents a patron from suing?

  113. mike from iowa 2014.01.31

    Hitched works as a substitute for marriage and probably defines the union as well as anything else. Two people,two horses,two of anything harnessed together working for the same goals. But there is no gender qualifier in hitched or marriage. You want a romantic,spiritual hitching,find an ordained cowboy minister of either/both sexes to do the honors. I suspect one could find Gay cowboy/cowgirl ministers if one looks,depending on how your stick floats.

  114. interested party 2014.01.31

    for being denied entrance to the restaurant?

  115. Bree S. 2014.01.31

    You missed my statement in another thread where I said I don't support the outlawing of lawsuits, Larry.

  116. mike from iowa 2014.01.31
    according to this article,marriage has never been traditionally defined as one man/one woman. Every society has had some form of marriage. Someone has some 'splaining to do.

  117. interested party 2014.01.31

    That's the point of Cory's post, Bree: imagine Pizza Ranch having a scale at the till that adds a surcharge for people with BMIs over 25 and your credit card stub has a clause that reads "you can't sue me for making you fat" or "you can't sue me because this is the only buffet in town."

  118. interested party 2014.01.31

    I'll put up a post about this when I have all the facts but a friend just took her life with a .357 Magnum even though New Mexico law embraces marriage equality: the story is evolving.

  119. Roger Cornelius 2014.01.31

    Bob and Henry got married last weekend.

    Given that wording what assumptions would have to be made? One is actually a woman named Bob or Henry, or that they are both males?

  120. Bree S. 2014.01.31

    It becomes a bigger problem with more unisex names like Dana and Courtney. Or how about my daughter, Billie.

  121. Roger Cornelius 2014.01.31

    I happen to have two male friends with the unique names of Leslie and Connie. They don't know each other.
    If Connie and Leslie were to get married, what conclusion or assumption would you make?

  122. Bree S. 2014.01.31

    Probably that they were a lesbian couple getting married, although Leslie is a man's name often enough that a person might assume a heterosexual union. Regardless, it introduces confusion into the language, and the human mind desires to describe its environment, to accurately identify its reality. Therefore methods would be found in everyday conversation to differentiate between heterosexual and homosexual unions regardless of pointless illogical attempts to mandate sameness under the mantra of "tolerance."

  123. Becca 2014.01.31

    If you say you are married, do you really care that much if someone knows you are married to a man or a woman? If they know you, they probably already know. If they don't know you, who cares?
    How does homosexuals getting legally married interfere with your life and/or marriage?
    Bree, you are focusing so much on the terminology to be used, between "marriage" and "gay marriage". Why do you care if a "gay marriage" is referred to as that or as a "marriage"? I said earlier, I'm also fine with doing away with "marriage", everyone can have a civil union (if you want a religious marriage, contact your church/priest/warlock/supreme or whatever), everyone who enters into a civil union gets the same benefits...gays, straights, everyone. I guarantee you there will still be bigoted people who will fight against that...mainly because there are already states that won't let homosexuals even enter into a civil union. It is a matter of one group/type of people wanting to discriminate against another, for whatever reason.

  124. interested party 2014.01.31

    Coming up on 1.7 million hits at Madville.

  125. Bree S. 2014.01.31

    Becca, I am focusing on the reality of how the human mind works and how it processes and describes reality. Regardless of silly liberal outrage if a person for example hears that a man's name is Lamar and that person hasn't actually seen Lamar that person will likely assume that Lamar is black. This isn't due to a lack of tolerance or racist belief but rather the mind's natural ability to calculate probabilities based on previous experience. That is how the mind works and such assumptions are made on a daily basis in everyone's mind whether they admit it or not. You will not change how the human mind works or how human language develops by mandating "tolerance" by declaring relationships that are clearly different to be the same. Such attempts are illogical, and also a completely unnecessary expenditure of wasted energy if the goal is civil equality for heterosexual and homosexual couples (or whatever other type of human relationship you can think up).

  126. Roger Cornelius 2014.01.31

    At one time the name Connie was an acceptable masculine name.
    Oddly when I saw the name Lamar, I first thought of Lamar Signs, and then I thought of Republican Lamar Alexander. Note that I did not think of race or sexuality. Bree, why would you think that Lamar is a black name?

    I have not been suggesting mandating "tolerance", it can't be done or if anyone thinks it can be are only dreaming.

    This Republican legislature is hell bent on mandating "intolerance" as exemplified by one hate piece of legislation after another.

  127. Becca 2014.01.31

    You essentially argue that because of previous experience, we should not try to change our ways. So extrapolate that to African Americans cant vote, own property (hell can extrapolate to they should be property), women cant vote, interracial couple can't marry...
    Bree, perhaps YOUR brain cannot process and change, but other people's can.
    You like to distract from the real argument here...this bill is not even about marriage between two homosexuals.
    At this point, it has become obvious that your brain can't (or won't) change. And arguing with you about what is morally right and wrong is a waste of my time. At this point, we'll have to agree to disagree. And now I'll have to excuse myself from this discussion to focus on spending the weekend with my wonderful family.

  128. Rick 2014.01.31

    "Winston recently wrote a formidable piece over on WC as did Rick over here. Rick then falls into the "if ya can't beat em join em personal attacks of the ignorant or just plain to lazy to learn" along with Ioway Mike who seldom provides anything better than his salacious comment above.."

    Oh, I get it. I'm supposed to feel shamed by your analytical commentary. Yawn.

  129. Roger Cornelius 2014.01.31


    Which of Rick's articles are you referring to and where can I find Winston's piece on WC?

  130. Rick 2014.01.31

    Roger, I quoted a sentence from a comment Les made around 13:06. He thinks he's shaming me for 'attacking' Ms. S.

    I do remember reading Winston's comment over at the Water Closet under a post about one of the pro-discrimination bills but I am unable to find it now.

  131. Les 2014.01.31

    Nah Rick, there is obviously no shame in Maddville and I would not hold you to that level anyway. I only wish to hold you accountable to the exceptional level of intelligence you occasionally display. It is your choice of how you present and my choice as to how I respond.

  132. Bree S. 2014.01.31

    Roger - I was aware of where you were going with your topic of "Connie" and "Leslie" and "assumptions" about people. I presented the hypothetical topic of a person assuming "Lamar" was black partly to see what you would do with it. With typical liberal superiority you followed it right back to attempting to prove conservatives are intolerant and "hate" various groups of Americans. You of course would never assume a person named Lamar was black because your mind is built in a framework of rainbows and butterflies.

    It is completely irrelevant to you that I support civil unions, because I am a conservative Republican I must therefore hate gays and blacks. According to you I must hate my own grandmother and my great-uncle. It never ceases to amaze me that the people who claim superior tolerance and open-mindedness (liberals) are the people who are most densely and blindly intolerant.

  133. Bree S. 2014.01.31

    Becca - we seem to have a communication problem as we are talking in circles. You don't seem to understand the points I am making. If you believe that people's minds can change and in the future no one will notice any difference between heterosexual and homosexual relationships and both will be called "marriage" without qualifying descriptor in the future that's great. If that happens without attempts at tyrannical forced government mandate then fine. I don't have a problem with what individual people choose to do of their own free will. I have a problem with do-gooder busy bodies trying to force people to do things through government mandate.

  134. Bree S. 2014.01.31

    Rick, feel free to call me Mrs. S. ;)

  135. Bree S. 2014.02.01

    Great post by Winston. Some accounting lingo in there that is beyond me (having to do with indirect job creation?) and I like that he says he's been taking screenshots of his deleted comments LOL

  136. mike from iowa 2014.02.01

    Dear Les,I know WHO you are. I just haven't decided WHAT you are. That is my latest salacious comment. I can assure you,however,when I figure out what you are,there will be a wingnut attached to it.

  137. mike from iowa 2014.02.01

    Roger C-when I think of Lamar Alexander,I automatically think of the pedophile aid of his who recently commited suicide. Then I think of the time he ran for president and attacked Hillary Clinton about her investments that seemed to be a windfall while he dismissed the fact that his wife made a bunch of money on insider trading knowledge,which apparently is legal for politicians to use. For some reason,when I think wingnut pols,all thoughts are negative. Maybe Bree can psycho-analyze my thoughts.

  138. Bree S. 2014.02.01

    Mike from Iowa - clearly due to your logical, open-minded, and tolerant thought patterns you have been able to discover that Republicans are inherently evil wing nut Rambo God Squad wearers of oversized granny panties and chemical laden personal hygiene products.. where as Democrats are honest kind-hearted champions of *Victim Group Here* spreading love, peace, and harmony through out the world one yoga session at a time.

  139. Rick 2014.02.01

    "I only wish to hold you accountable to the exceptional level of intelligence you occasionally display."

    Focus on yourself first, Les. Then when you've got it down, try to hold the rest of us accountable. :)

  140. Les 2014.02.01

    Good luck if you think there is hope for me at 61, Rick.

  141. Douglas Wiken 2014.02.01

    Bree, if nothing else, your richly textured invectives are sometimes on the edge of funny.

  142. Roger Cornelius 2014.02.01

    From what I understand of you from your comments throughout Madville and not knowing you personally, I have not detected any racism, in fact you are to be commended for your times vigorous support of Native Americans and women's rights.
    The fact of the matter is, you don't know how my mind works or processes information, that is broad assumption on your part based strictly on political positions I represent.
    Another fact is that some factions of your party do engage in aggressive racist and prejudice beliefs and activities as evidenced by SB67 and SB128. There is no denying that.
    Liberal intolerance has become an increasingly loud battle cry of Republicans and the tea party since President Obama was elected and when race issues are discussed.

    Certainly you have your definition of liberal intolerance and I would like to hear it.

    My definition of liberal intolerance is to call out people and organizations that speak or practice racism and prejudice against individuals or specific groups. My liberal intolerance also includes any and all forms social activism and using our legal system to change laws and to hold those law breakers accountable.
    There is no such thing as a frivolous law suit when it comes to civil and human rights, they are profoundly important to the person that has been wronged and just as importantly to hold culprits accountable.

    Again you have made assumptions regarding the Lamar comment, if you notice you will see I made absolutely no reference to conservatives or any other group, I asked you why the name Lamar would make you think black. I hardly believe you meant that hypothetical situation as a bate for me to attack conservatives.

  143. Les 2014.02.01

    Bree does have some richly textured comments here and invective, describes many of the commenters at Maddville. I can only wonder the stage of gestation the other commenters are in with their invectives, and how painful that labor will be at term.

  144. Robert W Soderstrom 2014.02.01

    Fist let me say that after reading this bill I'm appalled that anybody would think for a second that legalizing bigotry is a step forward for our state or our country.

    Bree S.: I gotta tell ya, I've been reading your posts and I've got to applaud you on the amount of time and effort you must have mustered in order to convince yourself that you aren't full of crap. You keep speaking on the definition of marriage as if you were some kind of authority and that we should except blindly in your expertise. I beg your pardon ma'am but I'm a natural skeptic, so I looked up the word marriage from a couple of sources I do trust. Here is what I found:

    Merriam-Webster Defines Marriage as:
    1. a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage
    b : the mutual relation of married persons : wedlock
    c : the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage
    2: an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities
    3: an intimate or close union

    Merriam-Webster Defines Gay Marriage as:
    The word you've entered isn't in the dictionary.

    The Oxford English Dictionary defines Marriage as:
    1 the formal union of a man and a woman, typically recognized by law, by which they become husband and wife:
    1.1 (in some jurisdictions) a formal union between partners of the same sex.

    1.2 the state of being married:

    The Oxford English dictionary defines Gay Marriage as:
    another term for same-sex marriage.

    The Oxford English dictionary defines Same-Sex Marriage as:
    (in some jurisdictions) the legally recognized union between partners of the same sex.

    They may as well have printed "see marriage"

    So as you can see, (well probably not you but the rest of us can clearly see that) people who are leaps and bounds more knowledgeable than you on the definition and history of terms make no clear distinction between marriage and gay marriage. In fact none of the baby making crap you vomited is mentioned at all. You sound no better and no more intelligent than the bigots of the 60's who claimed that the water fountain marked "niggers" was just as good as the water fountain marked "whites only." You are no more than a bigot Bree. I grant you that you are a well practiced bigot but you are a bigot none the less. You should start a dialogue with the Westboro Baptist church folks. Now those guys are experts on rationalizing hate, and they could learn ya a thing or two.

  145. mike from iowa 2014.02.01

    Bree-maybe your headband is too tight. I never once mentioned personal hygiene products. Children wear knickers. Maybe you need your eyes checked. Tunnel vision is fixable,I believe. Or is it narrow-mindedness? I see,read and hear,on a daily basis how very un-christ like the party of christian family values reveals itself to be. What rethugs in SoDak do is the same as in Texas is the same as in Wisconsin or Georgia or Miss. or Alaska or Tenn. or North and South Carolina or Florida or Michigan and every other state run by rethugs. Feed the rich-starve the poor,neglect children after you force them to be born,don't educate them just make sure they know your party holds them responsible for the plight they are in. Where the hell is the christian compassion for the least among us? Isn't that what your lord and saviour stood for? Do people that profess not to believe in your god have to remind you what your god stands for?

  146. Rick 2014.02.01

    Sometimes an old dog can learn on its own, Les.

  147. Les 2014.02.01

    One could only hope, Rick. Robert describes himself very well above. Something that irritates him to that degree must really be festering inside. Small difference from the Klan, don't like it stamp it out.

  148. Bree S. 2014.02.01

    Roger - reread the following statements from me:

    "Regardless of silly liberal outrage.."

    "This isn't due to a lack of tolerance or racist belief.."

    ..such assumptions are made on a daily basis in everyone's mind whether they admit it or not."

    Essentially I was giving you my opinion on the topic you were prepping to introduce regarding my supposed intolerant assumptions about people before you made your statement. You failed to notice the hint I gave you and barreled ahead with your implication that I was intolerant anyway, which is hardly the first time you have done so.

  149. Bree S. 2014.02.01

    Robert - calling the percentage of the population that supports civil unions and not gay marriage "bigots" is so amusingly counterproductive that I wonder how liberals such as yourself can possibly claim with a straight face any form of higher intelligence. There are wild hyenas with a better understanding of strategy. The subset of the population you must absolutely keep on your side are the younger generation of Christian Republicans and Independents with a more relaxed tolerance of other cultures, often influenced by the libertarian counterculture. It is this segment of the population whose support for civil equality for homosexuals is more tenuous, and whose parents and grandparents won't bake you cakes. The support from them is based on belief in a "live and let live" philosophy and equal treatment of American citizens. It has nothing to do with the rabid hatred of Christian culture demonstrated by radical gay activists. You are currently attacking with litigation the older generation of Christians, whose children you must keep on your side in order to keep a majority on this issue. You are not likely to convert many more to support for gay marriage at this point, the market for that is close to saturation and the demographics are still aging. You appear to have the momentum in the court system currently but much further down this path of nasty hatefulness aimed at people who don't agree with you and the pendulum can easily tip the other direction as you turn off young Christians and the percentage of older Americans continues to grow.

    But never mind what I have to say, I am merely an unintelligent bigot who is full of crap.

  150. Bree S. 2014.02.01

    Mike from Iowa - Hair spray is a personal hygiene product. At this point your statements are barely coherent and all I got from that was "Poor Me The Man Is Keeping Me Down All My Problems Are Someone Else's Fault." Take some responsibility for your life, Mike. No one is stopping you from succeeding and the resentment of the world you are displaying suggests you suffer from imagined victimhood and enjoy wallowing in vicarious misery.

  151. Roger Cornelius 2014.02.01

    Pull out the dictionaries, Republican Senator Phil Jensen, co-sponsor of SB128, gave us a new word today. Ant-straight.

    When Kevin Weildan's daughter Jose confronted Jensen over his bigoted legislation at a cracker barrel in Rapid City, he went into rant you would not believe. (See Kevin's Facebook page for a video).

    As he hid behind his church and his god, he determined that the opposition was anti-straight.

    I can imagine that because of the hatred some in the gay community have encountered, they may hate straight people at times. However they probably realize that important people that are straight also occupy their lives.

    So, that leaves us straight people that fully support gay rights. What do we call ourselves using Jensen's logic?
    Straight anti-straight? Straight pro-gay? Or is a label even necessary?

    Support for gay rights and gay marriage are on an increase as evidenced by the number of states supporting both. Political opponents not recognizing this fact will continue to see their political might diminish at the polls. Stubbornness and self-righteousness won't get you elected.

    As an older dude that happens to be Christian, it actually surprises me the number in my age group that are tolerant and accepting of gay rights and marriage.

    Young people, even after years of religious indoctrination are becoming a strong hold for the gay community. Numbers and ages matter in the political world.

    Having been labeled the moronic "liberal intolerant" caused me to ponder those two words. If you know the definition of both words, you will find that used together they are a true oxymoron.

    Words can be parsed into oblivion, the fact remains that discrimination is against the law.

    South Dakota is the epitome of intolerance, they have proven it over and over. It is not entirely their fault, those with hatred in their heart are victims of themselves and the "bigoted institution" in which they created and now must live.

    Racism, prejudice, discrimination and even white privilege are learned behaviors. What is learned can easily be unlearned if one has the courage.

  152. Douglas Wiken 2014.02.01

    Yup, that white privilege is the privilege of paying taxes to support all those unwilling to do anything but eat and procreate.

  153. Roger Cornelius 2014.02.01


    Please identify those that eat and procreate your tax dollars.

  154. Lynn G. 2014.02.01

    Roger can you provide a link for the video to Senator Phil Jensen's anti-straight tirade? Sorry I don't do facebook and am unable to access it. I'm curious to watch it though.

  155. Roger Cornelius 2014.02.01


    I'll check it out and let you know as soon as possible.

    Hopefully Cory has seen it and post it.

  156. Bill Dithmer 2014.02.01

    "Reality is the state of things as they actually exist, rather than as they may appear or might be imagined."

    Bree you said, "Becca, I am focusing on the reality of how the human mind works and how it processes and describes reality."

    You were surprisingly close even if you didn't know it at the time. But the reason that you are thinking the conversation is going around in circles is because of the example that you gave to support your argument. That example clearly describes a preconceived notion of what reality might be and has nothing to do with actual reality itself.

    The way it was
    The way it is
    The way it will be

    We know from phycology 101 that people do have preconceived notions of what they think might happen. That has nothing to do with what is real only that the environment they live in and the people that they have spent so much time with have influenced them to think the way they do.

    We also know that perception is the basis of how people see reality. Here is my example.

    Ten people witness a crime first hand. When the police get to the scene they talk to the witnesses one at a time away from each other. All the witnesses give statements that are close to the same but differ in several ways. Perception is the main thing here, without it everyone would process what they just saw, "reality," in the same way.

    Just to make myself clear here. If you think a name like Lamar means the man is black, that is a preconceived notion, and has nothing to do with reality, or for that matter your perception of what reality is.

    I know I'll get the same thing as always from you Bree. Blaa blaa, blaa blaa blaa.

    Have a healthy baby, I'll be thinking about ya.

    The Blindman

  157. Bree S. 2014.02.01

    Both of the words "liberal" and "feminist" describe creatures who are today far removed from the original meaning of the words and the people those words have described in the past. Liberals spend all of their time trying to tell other people what to do and feminists are busy trying to police the behavior of women in general.

    Hilarious to hear "liberal" outrage expressed over the term "anti-straight" from the group that gives us twisted meaning labels such as "anti-choice" and "anti-gay." Apparently "liberals" don't appreciate the humor of having their labeling tactics thrown back in their face.

  158. Roger Cornelius 2014.02.01

    Actually, liberals don't "spend all their time trying to tell other people what to do", they do however spend a lot of their time fighting bigoted legislation.

    Well, the term anti-straight didn't spur any outrage in my comments, it did bring a chuckle when I first heard it, particularly the way Jensen used it.

    Is it an absolute fact that liberals coined the phrases "anti-choice" and "anti-gay"? They are both terms I have heard conservatives and liberals use. What was the origination of those phrases? No making things up, please.

  159. Roger Cornelius 2014.02.01


    That is a powerful link, it would be great for the "anti-gay" crowd to read it and absorb it.

  160. Bree S. 2014.02.01

    Pro-life came first in the 1970's, followed by the label pro-choice as a reaction by abortion activists who like to use the label "anti-choice" to describe pro-lifers. Here's an amusing article about feminist complaints about the "reactive" label pro-choice that no longer indicates the "grayness" that abortion activists originally intended.

  161. Roger Cornelius 2014.02.01

    Read the link.

    Planned Parenthood or planned parenthood?

  162. Bree S. 2014.02.01

    Planned Parenthood - more cutesy unreal labeling.

  163. Roger Cornelius 2014.02.01

    Planned Parenthood, labeling? And I thought it was the name of an organization.

  164. Bree S. 2014.02.02

    "[We should] apply a stern and rigid policy of sterilization and segregation to that grade of population whose progeny is tainted, or whose inheritance is such that objectionable traits may be transmitted to offspring." - Margaret Sanger, 'Woman and the New Race'

  165. Bree S. 2014.02.02

    Since a better name for "Planned Parenthood" would be "Racist Eugenics Council of Human Extermination" - yeah its a cutesy label.

  166. Bree S. 2014.02.02

    "We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don’t want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members." - Margaret Sanger, 'Woman, Morality, and Birth Control'

  167. Bree S. 2014.02.02

    Think what a wonderful utopia America would be if we didn't have all these racist conservatives running around trying to protect the unborn from "planning."

  168. mike from iowa 2014.02.02

    Bree-hang a wreath on your nose,your brain? has passed away entirely. You are just flat-out pulling non-sense out of your backside. Perhaps you should learn to read and comprehend. Maybe the children can help you with that.

  169. mike from iowa 2014.02.02

    BTW Bree-hairspray is defined as a personal GROOMING product. I checked.

  170. Bree S. 2014.02.02

    You took the time to check the classification of hair spray? How amusing. You must feel quite vindicated now.

  171. mike from iowa 2014.02.02

    Yup and you fibbed to me. Not that I was expecting any thing different.

  172. mike from iowa 2014.02.02

    and,as far as protecting the unborn from planning,who made some else's decisions any of your business? Curious minds want to know.

  173. caheidelberger Post author | 2014.02.02

    I would appreciate the humor, Bree, of conservatives' deliberately ironic use of terms like "anti-straight", if it weren't cloaking bullying and discrimination.

  174. Bree S. 2014.02.02

    Mike, here you are triumphantly proclaiming me a liar because I have misclassified hair spray, LOL. Meanwhile you could care less that "Planned Parenthood" was founded by a negative eugenicist whose motto was "more children from the fit and less from the unfit," and who spoke at Ku Klux Klan rallies and associated with Adolf Hitler. Despite the historical facts that the Ku Klux Klan was founded by Democrats and the Jim Crow laws were written by Democrats.. that the Republican Party was founded by abolitionists, that Abraham Lincoln and Frederick Douglass were Republicans.. I am not on this blog calling Democrats bigots. Yet I find myself examining the shadowed hinterland of liberal irreality, where support for homosexual civil equality is called "bigotry," where the desire to protect your own culture and livelihood from malicious attack is called "bullying," where the extermination of the unborn is called a "freedom" and "choice," and where any particular group of victims that don't get exactly what they want will claim "discrimination."

  175. interested party 2014.02.02

    Rich women have full reproductive freedom: South Dakota’s repeated attempts to restrict access to medical care is not only mean-spirited, it’s discriminatory anti-choice extremism.

  176. Bree S. 2014.02.02

    We can discuss the percentage of children aborted among the "White Privileged" compared the percentage of children aborted among minority groups in another thread, Larry.

  177. interested party 2014.02.02

    Bree: i've been married to more nurses than you know. Trading horror stories with you serves little purpose.

  178. Bree S. 2014.02.02

    I see someone suffers from Reverse Nurse Syndrome.

  179. interested party 2014.02.02

    santa claus

  180. Roger Cornelius 2014.02.02

    Do you know how to tell when a Republican loses a debate, particularly on social issues?

    They start bringing up Hiltler, Nazi's, the Civil War, and reminding us that Lincoln was a Republican. I'll refrain from going on tirade about Goodwin's Law.

    By now we all should know the back story and history of Hitler's Germany and the Civil to War to Civil Rights.

    Indeed, Lincoln stood strongly against slavery for a multitude of reasons and the Republican Party has a history of fighting for civil rights just as some factions of the Democratic Party fought Jim Crow.

    But, don't take your eyes off the prize. That today the Republican Party has declared an open war on the civil rights of individuals because of their hatred for a lifestyle of their choosing.

    That is a fact. SB 66, 67 and now SB128 represent that hate. Nationwide look at the red states, including South Dakota, that work diligently to suppress the voting rights of minorities.

    Somewhere between the Emancipation Proclamation and Jim Crow, Republicans have reversed course. Religious tyranny has taken over the Republican Party and have given Christianity a black eye.

    Christianity was once a proud label, now with the Republican Party using God to justify its' continued attempts to openly violate the civil rights of American citizens, it has come to mean something entirely different.

    What the hell happened to that great Republican Party that once heralded civil rights? Where'd they go? What would Lincoln think?

  181. Bree S. 2014.02.02

    What's your opinion on Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, and the purpose of "birth control?"

    And when Democrats throw around the words "bigotry" and "hate" like free meals, what does that say about the argument?

  182. interested party 2014.02.02

    What's your opinion of Cecelia Fire Thunder, Bree and babies being delivered in placenta that smells like vodka?

  183. interested party 2014.02.02

    day after day, year after year....

  184. interested party 2014.02.02

    Who pays for the neonates the size of my hand living in intensive care for six weeks?

  185. Roger Cornelius 2014.02.02

    If I were a woman and faced with the issue of birth control, I might offer an opinion on Margaret Sanger.

    With that said, birth control in any form is the province of the woman that makes those decision.

    If I ever decide to have an abortion, I'll you know what I think Bree.

    What does throwing around terms like "bigotry" and "hate do for an argument? It is calling this piece of legislation and its supporters what it is.

  186. Bree S. 2014.02.02

    Clarification: I am judgmental and intolerant regarding liberal feminists.

  187. caheidelberger Post author | 2014.02.02

    Even if Planned Parenthood practiced eugenics, SB 128 would still be intolerable.

  188. owen reitzel 2014.02.02

    how about we don't drift into abortion and stay on topic Bree. Ok if you don't want to talk about the word bigotry again then how about discrimination?

  189. Roger Cornelius 2014.02.02

    You are judgmental and intolerant about a lot of things, Bree, not just liberal feminist.

  190. Bree S. 2014.02.02

    Lol. Previous post appears disjointed due to post deletions.

    I don't support this bill because I don't think outlawing lawsuits is the right answer. Maybe tort reform would help. I hold this viewpoint on this bill despite being thoroughly pissed about hardworking Christians being bullied (yes the word BULLIED used appropriately in a sentence) with lawsuits with the sole purpose of destroying their livelihood and their ability to feed their children.

    Yes, I support civil unions. But don't expect me to march over it or send money to support the cause. Don't expect me to give a crap if you fail and never achieve the tax benefits you desire. And if you are turning me off and losing my support, as has occurred over the past decade, when my grandmother is a lesbian and my mother is bisexual and various cousins gay - don't be surprised when the polls start to turn against you for your hateful attacks on my culture, which deserves just as much protection and respect as every other culture in these United States.

  191. Bree S. 2014.02.02

    Roger, how many times have I implicated that you are a racist or bigoted or jumped unfairly to conclusions about you just because you are a Democrat - or have you forgotten the time you thought I was a racist regarding Filipinos on absolutely no evidence other than a conversation I was having with Larry regarding sex trafficking.

  192. mike from iowa 2014.02.02

    Aw geez Bree,overdramatize much? I said you were a fibber not a liar. Your entire last post is filled with more fibs. I have never given a dime to PP. They do alot of good works for women. Abortions are only about 3% of their yearly budget,none of those services are paid for with tax payer dollars,which is a lie constantly bandied about by wingnut critics of PP. I have never even suggested you are a bigot,since the late 60s decent Republicans have given rise to the klan infested Southern strategy Rethugs,that I despise. As for abortion being a choice-it is-and it belongs to a pregnant woman and her doctor to make that choice. I don't have to worry about making that decision. OTOH, I would certainly never deny you that right to make that choice even if I think your offspring will grow up and parrot your views.

  193. Bree S. 2014.02.02

    List whatever "fibs" you are referring to, "Mike from Iowa."

  194. Bree S. 2014.02.02

    I would be happy to provide direct quotes from original sources to back up the historical facts I have stated - so be careful when you accuse me of lying. If you want to call me a liar, provide evidence, "Mike."

  195. mike from iowa 2014.02.02

    Lie number one-you have twice now accused me of calling you a liar. That actually counts as two lies against you. Then you insinuate that I challenged any of your "historical" facts and that resulted in my calling you a liar. You really need to get over yourself. I have never,ever called you a liar,a bigot,nor have I ever called you a bully. Like the old commercial said,"Sure you have a headache,just don't take it out on me."

  196. Roger Cornelius 2014.02.02

    So, what happened to the Republican Party and their support of Civil Rights to their current anti-Civil Rights legislation?

    I suppose we can put Phil Jensen, Stace Nelson and Bruce Rampleberg and other sponsors of SB128 in the same category as Abraham Lincoln. Maybe there's room for them on Mount Rushmore.

  197. grudznick 2014.02.02

    Every single individual who put their names on this bill should be voted out of office with extreme prejudice.

  198. Bree S. 2014.02.02

    Mike from Iowa - direct quotes from you:

    "Yup and you fibbed to me. Not that I was expecting any thing different."

    That statement was in regards to me calling hair spray a "personal hygiene product" and not a "personal grooming product.

    "Your entire last post is filled with more fibs."

    I don't know which "fibs" you refer to there, but since the definition of fib is an "unimportant lie" I may currently be involved in the silliest debate with a troll in the history of blog debates. You are providing such ridiculous arguments I must assume you are a social conservative strawman.

  199. mike from iowa 2014.02.02

    Bree S-
    Gotcha on this one-you who seems to have trouble with English language-troll-ette. You are never gonna win this game of your's on one-upsmanship. We can augur endlessly over the meaning of fib vs lie. When I decide you have outright lied about me I will call you on it,have no doubt.

  200. Jenny 2014.02.07

    What's the latest on SB 128? I didn't see anything on the legislative calendar on it.

  201. caheidelberger Post author | 2014.02.07

    Jenny, as of this morning, SB 128 remains unscheduled. It awaits hearing before Senate Judiciary.

    Becca: Wow. That Kansas law says a public employee could turn his back on a gay citizen requesting some sort of service at the courthouse or the welfare office. Disgusting.

  202. Becca Pivonka 2014.02.07

    It's horribly disgusting on a whole new level. The article I found it in did not leave out the possibility that a police officer responding to a domestic violence call, upon learning it is a gay couple, could refuse to intervene and call for back-up instead. Or a counselor could disregard her ethical duties and refuse to counsel a gay person.
    "Nussbaum said the Kansas legislation would protect small businesses in similar situations, but would also go much further, providing legal cover to people like Julea Ward, an Eastern Michigan University student who was expelled from her counseling program because she would not treat a gay person for religious reasons.

    'She had done everything right, had three courses left to get her degree, and [EMU] expelled her from the program simply because she felt a conflict in her conscience from doing what her professional code of ethics required,' said Nussbaum to msnbc. 'There are other circumstances in which I would hope the bill would give people the right to decline to provide services if that’s what their conscience instructs. That’s part of what a diverse America is about.' "

    I wonder if it could go to the extent of an ER doctor/nurse/tech refusing to provide service to a gay patient.

  203. Jenny 2014.02.07

    Thanks for the update, Cory.

Comments are closed.