Equality South Dakota is hosting a Legislative Day in Pierre on January 29 to talk up the equality and civil rights for South Dakota's LGBT citizens. The Family Heritage Alliance will come to Capitol the following week on February 5 to knock those notions right back out of legislators' heads with good God-fearing goobledygook straight from an expert reality-TV star!
Yes, the Family Heritage Alliance, defending South Dakota against the Republic-damning and child-damaging godlessness of constitutional same-sex marriage ("every child deserves a mother and a father," a correspondent tells me was the big line at the FHA luncheon yesterday, showing that FHA believes non-matching gonads are more important than love), will rally the troops in Pierre (with free bus rides from Sioux Falls and Rapid City!) to hear from Josh Duggar, whose only claim to fame and authority is being a child from a large family chosen to be on television.
That, and affirming stodgy white folks' belief that homosexuals are out to get them. And exaggerating... which is all "reality" TV is.
The event could be fun: wear your rainbow lapel pins, go hear what our pious FHA friends have to say... and hold hands with a friend while listening.
It would be more fun to drag that dude out and tar and feather him, but that's just me. ;-)
When there was a vote on gay marriage in Maine, someone found some research that said that the average homosexual had sex with eight people the previous year and the average heterosexual had sex with an average of between one and two people in the last year. Of the homosexuals that I have met most are really bisexual. They simply have expanded their boundaries of who and how many mates they are willing to have. Sure, there may be a few who are monogamous but in general they do not have sexual integrity. Integrity is vital to a lasting relationship. If you want your kids to grow up in an environment of no integrity, then just keep promoting gay marriage.
Sure, I do not believe in persecuting those who believe differently than I do, but when this blatant lack of integrity is being promoted is a problem.
Tim, do you really hate straight people that much. The gay community talks about being hated, but you seem to hate as well.
Roger, the ease at which you adopt your belief purely on anecdotal evidence against the volumes of research on homosexuality and homosexual parents goes a long way in proving you are ignorant on this topic or really dislike homosexuality.
Only the ones that seem to feel they have the right to shove their crap on everybody, I have the same problem with bible thumpers and a good bit of the right wing. Roger, hate is a bit of a strong word, I don't hate anybody. Everybody has the right to believe what they want, they don't have the right to force those beliefs on other people.
I have not yet figured out why people give so much power or devotion to the actors of those fake reality shows.
There are actors who have performed on TV shows, and on stage who have accomplished much to advanced being humane to other living beings.
There are a lot of people who should not have had children because they lack integrity in different ways, yet no one seems to be as up in arms about that. Wonder why? Seems like double standards, or at least being inconsistent.
Jeni, just a shiny object for the low info voters and legislators to gather around, nothing more or less.
Hate IS a strong word, Tim. It certainly isn't fitting for people who hold to traditional marriage out of Christian conviction. Imagine if I had said we should tar and feather someone. Your words are even more intense than hate because they cross over into physical violence. You force your views on others in literal ways.
Well, I don't think it's very conservative and christian-like to have an army of kids, and then make money off of them on a reality TV show. It just promotes having bushels of kids you can't afford. This family needs to quit having babies and claiming it is god's way to pop out baby after baby. The same goes for Catholicism. Use some birth control, people.
Plus, it is not healty for a woman to have babies continuously.
Roger Elgersma, there are plenty straight men that have sex with countless women, so let's don't play that game. Are you trying to say that a gay man's libido is higher than a straight man's?
Roger -- 'SOMEONE found SOME research'? That is some deep investigating there! Your comments reak of 1980's HIV/Aids paranoia propaganda. Join us here in the real world and stop spreading false information.
Roger, why are there so many female prostitutes then? Why are girls being trafficked for prostitution at record numbers around the world? Your claims are just ridiculous.
Rep Hickey, preach to your church, not to me. I am entitled to my opinion just like you are, I am not trying to press my opinion on you or anybody else, and I also don't have a plate to pass around. My very first comment was nothing more than snark, and I believe I ended it that way, you and Roger in typical right wing religious manner elected to blow it clear out of context. Why do you people feel the need to do that? Do you think you will bring one or two more over by doing that?
No Tim, your view is that we are not entitled to our opinion. And your view is that we get measured by a very strict standard for speech and conduct and you can take liberties to jest even about violence. Uncalled for smears and stereotypes come from you about me passing offering plates, being a low info voter, etc.. My pay doesn't go up if people give more. What goes up is the money used to help the poor. Anger and hate. That's the vibe you are spewing this morning.
Tim says his first comment was a joke, and everyone knows the wink icon is meaning just a joke only. There is nothing special about the Duggar family aside from having a lot of sex and producing bushels of babies.
Rev Hickey,we tar and feather people out of love. Speaking of hate and fear,whatever happened to the ebola threat wingnuts were screaming about until after the election? How about all those immigrant kids from Central America that were such a threat according to wingnuts? Oh,I get it,they were just part of the hate,fear,smear campaign wingnuts have used for decades to scare voters into voting for the real hate mongers-wingnuts. Wingnuts won the election so even the open border ceased to be of any value to your party.
"being a low info voter," I kind of thought the shiny object comment is what really pissed you off. Nuff said.
As for having a Duggar in Pierre,there went that neighborhood.
Rep. Hickey -- Although they are not your words, that is exactly what Roger has done with his coments, uncalled for smears and stereotypes. 'Of the homosexuals that I have met most are bisexual'. How many have you met Roger? Two? That could not be farther from the truth and it is distortions like this that need to be called out for the lies that they are. You simply cannot take the experiences from your little world and insist that this is true all across the field. Your views are antiquated!
Pastor Hickey, if Tim says he believes you are entitled to your opinion, why would you not take him at his word?
You seem more intent in taking him at his word about tarring and feathering, a notion which he disclaimed in his post with a 'wink' icon, and later as admitting it was just snark.
A note on tarring and feathering, it was used primarily as a way to publicly humiliate, and wasn't necessarily intended to be a violent act. If i recall, it was aimed primarily at tax collectors, and the 'tar' was pine tar, not the hot asphalt tar we think of today.
I'm certainly not condoning the practice, but on the other hand I do notice that there are quite a few among the far right who want to humiliate gay and lesbian people for being who they are and wanting what they want out of life. And while they don't call for the archaic tar and feather treatment, their insults are no less insulting and humiliating, and no less public.
Perhaps what Tim is saying is that he feels those who wish to humiliate others are inviting in-kind reciprocation, and is using 'tarring and feathering' as a metaphor?
Civil unions by the state and marriage sacraments by the churches. Completely separate them. Let churches do what they want with marriage and let the rest of the population get what they want with civil unions. This fight is totally unnecessary showboating for generating useless fear for partisan political purposes. The solution is obvious if one is not interested in exploiting fear.
The GLBT should put a GLBT day at the Capitol Rotunda also, and would the GOP allow it? Come on, South Dakota Dem party, this is a perfect way to network. Have a GLBT day at the Capitol. Learn from MN, the DFL has days like this all the time in St Paul. Now is the perfect time since you're rebuilding.
Food for thought:
Pope Francis said yesterday that while freedom of speech is a right, he cautioned us that making fun of someone's religion is denigration of another's humanity because of the role religion plays in their deepest interior life.
Ridicule or "joking" one is fit to be tarred and feathered may be protected from government censorship but with our right to free speech don't we at least a modicum of obligation to self-censor?
Further, justifying one's own boorish commentary/ridicule because someone else does it probably should stop when we reach the 2nd or 3rd grade. Demanding rights without accepting responsibilities is a form of selfishness.
Troy's GOP code translated: we can dish it out but we can't take it.
Troy: go over to your toilet and tell it to your butt buddy PP, k?
Roger: "Sure, there may be a few [homosexuals] who are monogamous but in general they do not have sexual integrity."
So if the basis for your argument is a lack of 'sexual integrity', then shouldn't you be our preaching against marriage of anyone who you feel is promiscuous? It shouldn't matter whether the pesron is gay or straight if sexual integrity is your concern, therefore why are you suggesting gay marriage should be illegal merely because there may be some homosexuals who have had a few too many sexual partners in your eyes?
A lot of rock stars and straight male athletes have bragged about having hundreds and even thousands of sexual partners... should they be prevented from being married because of it? Should we bust out the scarlet letter and start tagging people after they have slept with a specific number of people so that the world knows they aren't eligible to be married?
I missed the part where you indicated that you are against straight marriage if one or both of the individuals have had too many sexual partners - which only tells me you don't really care about folks having sex... you just care about gay folks having sex because if offends you.
Newsflash Rog - you have the right to be offended. You have the right to be upset and you have the right to your opinion. However, you do not have a right to discriminate based upon your opinion, your religion, your personal views on how many sexual partners is too many, or your definition of the word "slut".
"Let’s declare the long-eared dingbat in the White House an endangered species, prohibiting him and his wide-backed Lake Michigan arugula-loving tortoise housemate from leaving DC beyond a local golf course.
As endangered, we can protect them from harming themselves or others by speaking in public."
http://dakotawarcollege.com/thune-calls-on-fws-to-continue-normal-forest-management-if-long-eared-bat-is-listed-under-esa/#comment-643403
Troy, Tim's mistake, if indeed he made one, was giving the persecutors of the LGBT community the opportunity to feign the role of those being persecuted. Bad marketing strategy.
Bill, political correctness is not a strong suit for me, my biggest problem, I don't really give a shit what people like Hickey, Troy, Roger or the rest like them think.
Bill,
I think your point is one side of the coin why I've never really engaged in talking about this issue.
On one side, too much of argumentation against same-gender marriage is dominated to by a criticism of homosexuality. On the other side, too much of the argumentation for same-gender marriage is a defense of homosexuality. Too few are really interested in dialogue.
The conservative are just obsessed with the sexual parts of the human body. I will fight until my last days for gay rights. Why do you need a vagina and a penis couple to raise children correctly? Two penises raising a child is better than just one vagina, is it not?
My only wish is they would keep what they think to themselves, rather than trying to force everybody else to think like they do. Writing laws to force people to think like they do is wrong, and you know that as soon as Jackley is done wasting taxpayer money in court on marriage equality the republican legislature will be on it.
Shorter Troy: don't queer me pitch.
Or I'll say two penises raising children are better than just one vagina raising children one her own with a penis that is not in the picture. 50% of American children have just the one vagina raising them.
P.S. One argument I "hate" (satire intended) against same-gender marriage is the "sexual integrity" argument. While the ideal voter studies the issues and candidates, we don't take away the right to vote of a person who goes in the booth with a coin to flip. Again, the debate isn't about private behavior.
Bill, what is the argument you most "hate" in support of same-gender marriage?
Marriage equality:
1. Equality and equal acceptance (particularly legal acceptance, but also social acceptance) of same-sex as well as heterosexual marriages.
2. (LGBT, figuratively) Same-sex marriage, the union of two people of the same sex.
Common core:
http://www.adl.org/assets/pdf/education-outreach/What-Is-Marriage-Equality.pdf
Larry, your equality discriminates against pedophiles, polygamists, and other minorities. The equality line is a lie.
Thanks to Tim for helping demonstrate the equality lie.
"My only wish is they would keep what they think to themselves, rather than trying to force everybody else to think like they do."
Yes, stop with the gay pride parades.
" Why do you need a vagina and a penis couple to raise children correctly?"
Because that was the design from the very start.
Okay, Steve: let's chuck the entire body of US law since Marbury v. Madison and revert to the hope of the Enlightenment that President Jefferson espoused.
Wingnuts always claim victimhood when they lose an argument.
"Ridicule or "joking" one is fit to be tarred and feathered may be protected from government censorship but with our right to free speech don't we at least a modicum of obligation to self-censor?"
Troy, I think the pro-family movement should bring Tim to Pierre and give him a mic instead of Duggar. Letting people know what the true agenda behind the gay movement is would be far more effective. We could even supply him with feathers and a bucket of tar and have Hickey ask him a question.
The hostile ones, Troy. I understand Tim when he says he 'doesn't give a shit' what some people think, and I respect him for his candor, but not his intellectual/metaphysical position.
I think the golden rule applies here. We need to treat one another the way we want to be treated. If one wants respect, the best way to get it is to be respectful.
Otherwise, while there may be compliance under the law and fear of reprisal, there is no genuine mutual goodwill in the society.
Love is the answer. It's always the answer.
Or, as one of my favorite authors puts it, 'Go beyond reason to love. It is safe. It is the only safety.'
Tim wants people who disagree with him to keep it to themselves. We are banished from the dialog on blogs or in the places of policy-making where society is getting changed forever. So much for tolerance and the best ideas battling it out for the win.
True story: when the Court decision came down this week my phone started ringing. Apparently in this moment of time I'm the media's go to person for the other view on this issue. Many media calls came. Something different happened this time. I did every interview pretending my friend Steve Hildebrand was sitting next to me. The concerns I voiced were nothing new but I guess I did leave out the creative and biting rhetoric that easily comes to me. Only one media source dropped a quote from me in their story. Usually when they call me, they quote me. Makes me think there is a hunger out there for us to be beating each other up. I didn't feed it this time and civility apparently isn't as newsworthy.
Rep. Hickey, try as i can to loathe you like i do Troy Jones it just won't stick on you: i'm starting to like you. Please start blogging again.
http://www.voicescarryblog.com/sd-racism-and-kumbaya-in-the-capitol/
If Pastor Hickey, Sibster or Troy, Elgersma or the Duggars had a gay son or daughter would they disown them or would they accept them for who they are? Most families have a gay sister, brother, aunt, cousin or uncle, mom or dad. This is very natural and innate for a certain percentage of the population, and people DON'T choose to be gay. Do you really think they would want all the hate and discrimination directed toward them?
Timothy J. Dailey, PhD, that is where Roger got his information from. Timmy has made it his lifes goal of badmouthing gays. No ifs ands or buts.
Lets look at just a few tidbits from his recent writings.
July 30, 2008: Opposing view: 'The battle has just begun' Heterosexual marriage is society's foundation and must be protected.
October 26, 2008 Those who hold to traditional views about marriage and human sexuality are increasingly being targeted by homosexual activists and their supporters.
June 15, 2004: The Bible, The Church, and Homosexuality Although the leading Christian churches in the United States continue to view homosexual behavior as outside the realm of appropriate Christian .
And like shit through a goose this crap just keepi flowing from Tim and The Family Research Council.
His view of intolerance only goes one way and doesnt admit his own biases. He hates, among other things, any religion that isnt Christianity, and gay people. http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?it=WG_POLICY_PUB&perId=3828973
" Your words are even more intense than hate because they cross over into physical violence. You force your views on others in literal ways." Now thats rich Rev Steve.
For a man that stands in front of a captive audience every sunday preaching about the morality of his own intolerance, and then legislates in the same way to beat women mentality, inhibit sexual freedom, and force his religions views on everyone else.
Im just gonna come right out with it, Rev Hickey, you are a religious bigot.
I have a question for Roger and Steve. I have given this subject a lot of thought in the last couple of days. I've come to realize that the gay bashers all have the same mentality when it comes to rational thought. Here is that question.
Which is worse, being gay, or having cancer?
Be careful how you answer I'm not one of your genital correctness sheep that believes the only form of sex is "tab A in slot B."
The Blindman
Jenny,
You falsely presume we don't have gay people in our lives we love dearly and who love us. Or hold our position in anything but love. Further, at least in my case, my loved one knows the depth of my love.
Jenny. we ourselves are sinners. Promoting salvation is an act of love. The Bible does make a distinction regarding sins that involve sexual immorality (of all varieties) 1 Corinthians 6:18:
18 Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a person commits are outside the body, but whoever sins sexually, sins against their own body.
"Love is the answer."
Lust is not.
the bigger issues are:
1.) poverty, 15% americans as a whole, but 20% for children. the 1% deny and have no empathy or understanding. they believe in welfare queens and other fairy stories.*
2.) denial of climate change science. (topic) moyers.com
3.) denial of evolution science favoring biblical 6 days/6 thousand years creation, intelligent design, warped education goals, arming schools, right wing propaganda, inequality for students*.
j. stiglitz, moyers.com (12.30.14)
however, denial applies to GLBT human rights just as insidiously. seems a common theme for republicans resisting the changing world.
Sin is bunk, Sibby: but after you go back to Troy's church you two could have sex then go into the Confessional, say a few Hail Mary's then go sin again.
Steve, St. Paul preached total abstinence. Is that your position? Is that why there are no little Sibbys? Beyond that, though, Steve, why did you get married? Was love the answer?
I found myself falling in love with a gay man, I couldn't help myself as he was very beautiful inside and out. I ended up going to his wedding and was full of happiness for them. I don't see him very often now, since he and his husband moved away, but we had a connection that I know all straight women know when I say that gays make the best of friends. We had so many nice times over coffee and deep talks. He is one of the nicest, most intelligent people I have ever met and it is gays like him that I will fight for. He is one of the few people I would ever trust.
" Love is the answer." Of course your right Sibby. http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=dsxtImDVMig
The Blindman
A man and a woman are married. They have a couple of children. The couple by choice or force no longer engage in sexual intercourse. Does that mean that they are no longer married, and that they are lousy parents?
Fleming, you have eyes but cannot see.
Jenny is love having three children with three different women, succumbing to a 15 year female who was fueled by Planned Parenthood's sex education agenda, get tossed into prison for statutory rape and come out with a boyfriend? Do you want to try and explain why three sisters are not living together? Is making all of us gay the answer? How long would humanity last if it was?
Jenny,
Michelle Duggars' sister Evelyn Ruark is a lesbian.
Bring on the Rapture!
" Jenny is love having three children with three different women, succumbing to a 15 year female who was fueled by Planned Parenthood's sex education agenda, get tossed into prison for statutory rape and come out with a boyfriend? Do you want to try and explain why three sisters are not living together? Is making all of us gay the answer?"
No Steve, that is a storyline for a really good HBO mini series. Lets call it "Dakota Dunes."
The Blindman
Do you have a link for that research Roger?
Bill, that is an attitude you wish was present. What argument do you dislike?
Sibby,the most virulently anti-Gay people turn out to be "that way" themselves. We're all friends here. Any confessions you wish to make?
There wouldn't ever have been a problem with Gays becoming parents if some SOB hadn't invented turkey basters.
Pastor Hickey;
You know the answer. ‘If it bleeds, it leads.’
The media doesn’t want well-mannered, civil responses. That doesn’t make news. They vile, hate filled, brow beating rants, they want fire and brimstone sermons. Doesn’t do much to further the cause, however it is entertaining Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton aren't known for being civil, they are known for going off (or from) the deep end.
Funny, Blindman: you have eyes but cannot see but Sibby has feet but cannot flee.
Did Phyllis Gadfl....er Schafly ever reconcile with her Gay son?
Sibby-15 year old girls,fueled or not by PP,are incapable of consensual sex. Don't blame the underage victim for an adult's crime.
Troy, LOL, you remind me of a nun I had in Medieval Philosophy class at Mt. Marty.
She wouldn't accept my answer to her question until I gave her the one I knew she had in mind from Thomas Aquainas.
(I never did. I told her to answer her own question, shince she was obviously the only one who knew it, to which she replied, "William, that was a very uncharitable remark. Good old Mt. Marty. ;-)
Anyway, along those lines, let's look at these arguments and answer your question by saying that of all those listed, I am least fond of the first one (being on the wrong side of history.)
http://www.catholicvote.org/five-arguments-for-gay-marriage/
"Don't blame the underage victim for an adult's crime."
You are right, Planned Parenthood should be defunded.
Okay, let me try to be a bit more polite...
Ahem... Troy, if there is an argument in defense of SSM that you are hoping I will "hate" the most and/or a specific one that you would like to discuss with me here, please feel free to prompt me.
It is entirely possible that I've not heard all the arguments on this issue, pro and con, and so may not have an array of "bad" ones in memory at my immediate cognitive disposal.
Mr. Dithmer, that is not a story, but real life scenarios for far too many now that we have entered the postmodern era. The gay pride movement is part of that destruction.
"the most virulently anti-Gay people turn out to be "that way" themselves"
Is that scientifically proven to happen 100% of the time, or is that another myth that is being promoted along with evolution?
" 18 Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a person commits are outside the body, but whoever sins sexually, sins against their own body."
Another quote from the book of immorality. Incest to procreate from Adam and Eve on. Some did their sisters, some did their daughters, some did their sisters-in-laws, and yet there are people still using this book, picking and choosing parts to fit their fever at the time.
Im not concerned about the world running out of people, and neither is any religious believer, and it doesnt natter what that religion is. What your really worried about are the children that you wont get the chance to indoctrinate.
There is one big difference between fundamental religion and the views shared by people like me. While we stand for complete inclusion for people of every sexual persuasion, while we fight for equality for everyone, without question, while we practise the Golden Rule, or the Silver, you continue to preach and legislate to deny those things based on, pick your book of faith.
As I've said many times before, the religious rights worst nightmare is a black lesbian president with an attatude.
The Blindman
Pastor Hickey hasn't answered my question yet about having a child that was gay. Silence speaks louder than words.
So has God told the Duggar family to avoid the gay sister Michelle has? They probably think being gay is contagious or something.
Christianity and Islam are both anti-gay. Congratulations anti-gay Christians - you and your Islamic anti-gay friends are united in this mission.
Oops, let me clarify - many Christian extremist churches such as Catholicism, Baptists and other man-made churches and extreme Islam groups share the same anti-gay rights sentiments. That speaks loudly why younger populations have dropped out of the game of religion.
Personal responsibility,Sibster. Practice what you preach. Don't blame PP for illegal acts committed by people old enough to know better. PP is neither illegal or immoral,regardless.
To hear Sib confess his interest in getting hitched to a dog,one would think he has enough "sin" of his own and needn't be worried about other people he is powerless to change. But,some people refuse to follow their own advice.
Hypocritheocracy sells and the Sibsonists rake it in.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2911722/Lesbian-couple-protest-Duggar-s-anti-gay-stance-posing-kissing-photo-19-Kids-Counting-family-s-Arkansas-home.html
Nothing my kids do could stop me from loving them. I busy in Pierre, don't read me being off line for the day as silence speaking volumes.
" while we fight for equality for everyone, without question"
The left's big lie. Don't see you pushing pedophilia, and removing the religion of Planned Parenthood from the public schools Bill.
Jenny, if Islam and Christianity the same thing, then why does Islam say otherwise? It would be more accurate to say both Democratic and Republican Establishment believe government is the solution, so the two political parties are the same...socialistic totalitarians. Right?
I urge anybody that sugar coats Catholicism's past to go to the California missions where native americans were rounded up for slavery. To look up Vatican documents about keeping the priest sexual abuse cases in deep secrecy. These were specfic orders from the Vatican. Also to read Mother Theresa's diaries about questioning whether there was a god or not and losing her faith.
Also the Spanish Inqusition and the Crusades where I am certain that millions were killed for not converting to Catholicism.
Also Pastor Hickey, would you wed your son or daughter to their significant gay other? Just curious.
And to the Ireland poor houses where pregnant Catholic teenage girls were forced into slavery and had to give up their babies.
And in MN where there is a secret AIDS house where infected priests can retire. I know b/c I work in the medical field.
Sin didn't exist until the Abrahamic sects created it then the Calvinists began selling it to the masses. Sibby's horrible relationship with his dad made him fear warmth with anyone especially men: that is clearly manifested by his fear of love.
No doubt Steve Hickey prays for all of us whether we want him to or not while Steve Sibson damns our heathen cur for loving our litter mates.
Larry, the highest level of love is a relationship I have with a man...the Son of God, Jesus Christ.
Sib, did you have a bad relationship with your Dad?
Ooooo: a tryst, Sib? Bet your wife loves it when you use Jesus as a sex toy.
How did you miss being drafted for Vietnam, Sib?
For all of you who say it is wrong to equate live with sex need to start arguing with Larry. And Jenny, it was Larry, who often just makes stuff up, who said that. Perhaps the pro-family movement should set up a panel discussion with Tim, Jenny, and Larry. It would then become clear that the same-sex agenda is not about love, but is actually about hate.
Sibby, your offensive speech(es) should just be ignored here but whining after successfully reeling us into your swamp is just childish: you're a either so emotionally constipated that you can feel it in the colon you wear as a hat or you're just a bored pathetic narcissist blowing smoke up our collectives asses for fun.
I didn't realize that Larry makes stuff up sometimes, Sib. Sorry, although family problems are nothing to be ashamed of. I don't really talk to anyone in my family either very much.
The right-wing seems to think that same-sex families is a new invention, well guess what guys, it isn't. It has existed for centuries and will continue for many more.
I know a lesbian couple that raised three children in the 1950's and were quite successful. No one in town or the neighborhood ever talked about them, they were simply accepted. No harm was ever done to the children, one is still single and the other two have traditional female/male marriages.
There really isn't much new with gays in our culture with the exception of intensity of hate toward them and their "agenda" to have the same rights that everyone else enjoys.
And the quote of the day comes from mike from iowa, "There wouldn't ever have been a problem with Gays becoming parents if some SOB hadn't invented the turkey baster".
That is priceless, thanks mike from iowa
"The right-wing seems to think that same-sex families is a new invention"
Can you provide a link that supports your argument. Thanks. So back in the day, before scientists and medical folks decided to play god, did those same-sex families have kids?
Bill Fleming (vs. Bill Dithmer but I'd love an answer from BD as I have respect for him as well and he is funnier than BF),
You answered my question the first time and weren't impolite. But you were timid. I know you have seen some arguments on this thread or the other major thread on this subject that are flat-out stupid and irrelevant but are hesitant to say so.
Why is that? I think this reluctance is common in politics today (on both sides and it infects me as well). What is this reluctance? We are so hesitant to offend our allies (believe the same as us) we forget that the lowest common denominator on our side becomes the perception of our side by EVERYONE on the other side.
What is the consequence of this? We don't want to dialogue with this lowest common denominator and thus just talk past each other. Both of us have become sycophants to our position instead of maximizing common ground and then each trying to convince on that what still separates us.
So, Bill Fleming before I ask again, in a statement of good will, I'll tell you another argument from my side that I don't like: The assertion that the primary motive proponents (in particular same-gender couples) of forming a same-gender household is about "lust" and not they love each other and desire a more formal relationship beyond just the sex.
Bill, so again, what is the argument you most "hate" in support of same-gender marriage?
http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/polisci/faculty/chwe/austen/evanscampbell.pdf
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tim-giago/native-americans-and-homosexuality_b_2267967.html
http://outhistory.org/oldwiki/Native_Americans/Gay_Americans_1528-1976
At the end of the day, those who do not think that individuals who are the same gender should not be allowed to enter into a legal contract will continue to think so.
Those who do think that individuals who are the same gender should be allowed to enter into a legal contract will continue to think so.
The FHA is willing to pay Josh Duggar to come to SD, that is their right, but it will not change the ruling that the Supreme Court has ruled that not allowing people of the same gender to enter into a legal contract is unconstitutional.
Every child should be able to have a stable home, but some do not even if their parents are opposite genders, but no one seems to care much about them.
Sibster @ 13:07-thanks for making my argument that virulently anti-Gays are "that way" themselves.
Okay, Troy. I guess we can go with these "Pro/Con" arguments and start there, unless you have a better source.
http://gaymarriage.procon.org/#pro_con
But FIRST, of the pro-SSM arguments being made on this thread, the one I dislike the most is the one that says people who disagree with the idea SSM should just shut up and not say anything.
There is a change going on in our culture and of course we have to talk about it. even argue about it.
The reason there is a problem is because nobody has ever wanted to acknowledge and deal with an issue that has been around for a long time and never dealt with.
The argument is what change looks like.
So I don't like it when people try to discourage dialogue.
I also don't think it's productive to jump into all the negative things people can say about their opponents that don't have to do with the topic at hand.
I don't think anybody ever gets to be "right" just because they can review how "wrong" their opponent has been on other issues, especially when there are better arguments to be made.
Now, to the pro/con link above on the "pro" side. There are 15 arguments there. Of those, #3, #8, #13, and #14 all raise an eyebrow for me.
#3 The argument that SSM is somehow common in world history seems false on its face to me. If it were common, there wouldn't be a worldwide issue over it. In some countries, homosexuality itself is a crime, and they're not all "religious" countries, so I just don't buy it.
#8 It will be good for the economy. Baloney. There are lots of things that would be good for the economy. But I don't expect that argument is going to change any minds one way or the other, and if it does, they changed their mind for the wrong reason.
#13 Lower divorce rates? The data given there seems like more of a coincidence than anything else. There may indeed be higher divorce rates in States that ban SSM but I doubt if there's a cause and effect relationship there. I don't know anyone who has ever been divorced who would say they did it because gay and lesbian people couldn't marry each other in their state.
#14. Legal marriage is a secular institution. Not really. If a church refuses to recognize a marriage, that's the Church's option. I don't think they could or should be forced into it.
Best I can do, Troy. Sorry if they're not especially funny.
Let's see if Dithmer can come on here and spice them up a little. ;-)
Thanks Bill. I know you think there are stupider ones but I did ask for which one you "hate" the most. Thanks for playing, friend.
Regarding you being funny, you are more clever than BD but he can be flat out hilarious. Even though I think his "Dakota Dunes" was primarily intended for Steve but it included me, I busted a gut. If I had his email, I'd respond with my own response that would make him (and you) laugh but I fear the political correct police response.
we don't have that kind of police here. we are open minded, unresistant to change in light of competent evidence. :)
Yeah, Troy. Being stupid myself, I hesitate to call other people on it... It almost always backfires on me.
http://trib.com/news/state-and-regional/govt-and-politics/bill-would-allow-wyoming-county-clerks-others-deny-marriage-licenses/article_cffbcf9a-b77f-5c1d-b11a-c76b01a0cf9d.html
ever notice how ADDH republicans as an institution are? we do not accept change.
abortion legal-SCOTUS. church/state separation-constitution(i think). obstruct black man-republicans, NYC police union(irony!). voter fraud rampant-no evidence!
sorry to insult ADDH patients denied ACA by daugaard. but, this could turn into another list!! haha
ADHD
BD does have a Madville Oscar, but bill f. does not.
oh, bf, am i digging a hole, do u think?
http://www.randomhistory.com/history-of-gay-marriage.html
BD should have a dozen Madville Oscars!
"Sibster @ 13:07-thanks for making my argument that virulently anti-Gays are "that way" themselves."
Troy, it is the gay left that makes the argument that this is about physical lust and not spiritual love. Don't attribute that argument to the pro-family right. Both Larry and now Mike have made the allegation.
sib-"sad that" i bit but "15 year old fueled by Planned Parenthood"? Defund Planned ParentHood, ACA, government, and EPA, right???? hmmmmmm, got a PPH citation from a reputable source?
also pls see (evolution myth is *"in your opinion, in your opinion"- see my 9:55 above, 1, 2 or 3) hehehe
Jenny-@ 12:54...an interesting bit of catholic history from your earlier post above, fwiw. Gen. Harney hung 30 Irish Catholic deserters in the Mexican War. 800 were generally "welcomed at Ellis Island", jobless, conscripted in the military and sent directly to mexico to fight the catholic mexican army.
harney personally directed 29 deserters be publically killed, at the moment the american flag was raised in full view from Mexico City ramparts, of his elevated mass hanging.
the 30th man, a double amputee, was hauled from the field hospital on harney's orders despite the attending doctor's remonstrances, and was hung too. "Orders are orders,...by god!" apparently the general may not have been a catholic. 20 more were also hung.
a few years later Harney killed and wounded 150 Brule' and Oglalas in a village/camp on the Blue Water, Neb. Terr. september 1855, completely destroyed all of their property, imprisoned the living, and established Ft. Pierre and Ft. Randall (the granite peak in the Black Hills was named after him).
earlier harney subdued the Seminoles, among others (hangings and all, to make a statement) in florida, and Lake Harney is there named for him too. Same in California, i think.
* see Whatever Works, starring larry david written by woody allen ;)
Troy, have you read this article on "microaggressions"? Does it reflect some of your desire to pull fewer punches?
Steve Sibson, did you really refer to an adult male "succumbing to a 15 year old female"? Stop right there. That's why we have statutory rape laws. By moral and legal definition, no man succumbs to a 15-year-old girl. A man makes a choice—in the case you posit, a stupid, immoral choice. I don't care if she's really a sex robot programmed to impersonate a 15-year-old female and project optimal sexual attractiveness (which is about as absurd as your posting some irresistible Planned Parenthood Amazon). The man made a choice. He's guilty.
(I can't believe I have to say things like this. To everyone else in the thread, I extend my deepest apologies. Heel, Sibby, heel!)
When I said that someone found research that said(about sexuality) I am fully aware that to many people may not tell the truth about what they all do to trust any of it totally. But in my small sample size of people I have met, it fit. To say that prostitutes may not be average is totally obvious. Averages and pointing out a few outliers is simply obviously not going to match the average.
Do I say some have more libido than others, obviously not all are the same but I am not talking about libidos, I am talking about the differences in self control and differences in commitment to one person. Faithful people have a commitment to their spouse and others have a commitment to their own desires. That is not a difference in libido.
These LBTG post comments get more entertaining every time. Thanks to all Madizens! (Except sibsin)
Carry on!
I see I didnt miss much. Troy, I have never shied away from meaningful dialogue. There are some subjects that I cant seem to find humor in.
I agree that there are things that are writen from the pro gay prospective that might be a little pass center when it comes to a fair argument. I also believe there are those so radical on that same side they do more harm then good for their own cause. But then I could say the same about 10 different causes.
I have seen friends that are openly gay meet people that judged them and found them guilty of nothing more then what they themselves do everyday, love another person. Homosexuality, has become through religious conviction, and sometimes just plain bigotry, a crime of nature.
There has always been a fixation on the sex of homosexuality, but just like in a straight relationship, sex is just one part. People need to start examining there own sex lives before they put their noses under the sheets of another couple.
I dont personally care if gay people want to call their unions a marriage, or civil union. Those are just words to me. But at least give them the equivalent.
What in the world are the antis scared of? Would that be a lesbian stealing your wifes eggs, or a gay man hoarding sperm? What have these people done directly to you to that would cause such disdain?
I'm sorry I cant seem to find much thats funny about treating gay people bad. There are some discussions that I feel comfortable making light of. I might even go out of my way to have some fun. But this isnt one of them.
I dont do screenplays, but if I did, I wouldnt have time to be on here now because I would be putting the final touches to "TAKE THE MONEY AND RUN" the Annette Bosworth story
The Blindman Ps I'm currently in a love hate relationship with my Samsung tab. I love what I can do, but hate what I cant.
Why would a lesbian steal anybody's eggs?
Why do the legislatures try and make laws that tell people what to feel?
I really don't give a damn about any other person's sex life.
Well, Mr. Nemec. I don't really want to tell you what to do but if there's a Mrs. Nemec you may want to rethink that. I'm just sayin...
Aside from my friend Mr. kurtz's trolling, how is it that some young fellow nobody ever heard of cause so much commotion between Mr. Sibby and my good friend Bill and others? I really don't know who this person is or why he matters, but golly he sure gets your collectively large panties in a bunch and pulled up your collectively sweaty and pocked buttocks, doesn't he?
Nick's comment brings this whole debate down to the basics.
An excerpt from The Blindman's comment above, "People need to start examining their own sex lives before they put their noses under the sheets of another couple", is also relevant.
Can we ask ourselves why we are passionate and/or hateful one way or the other on the issue of gay marriage?
How does gay marriage affect us personally? Why do we expend so much time and energy on gay marriage when it is obvious on its way to nation wide approval by both law and public opinion.
We are all in charge of our sexual proclivity, is that choice really a threat to anyone else? If so, why?
Who is the young man nobody has ever heard of, grudz?
Mr. C, you are wise, as usual.
and a tube steak boogie to you, too, grud.
Why, the young fellow in the pictures blogged by Mr. H, that Dugger gentleman. According to the blogging he is some sort of TV star. On a show on real media. It says TV, but I don't know if maybe that means like Mr. Howie's "TV", where Mr. Randazzo and I are both international authors or some sort of real TV like they show in the bars.
How does a marriage differ from a corporation, a contract or even a personhood except that it takes place when consenting adults sign on the bottom line? That a binding legal agreement can be defined by any religious sect seems completely ridiculous.
Got it grudz, Josh Duggar. His father is the one that can't keep his pants zipped up.
Lar, will you be joining Mr. Sibby for the Week of Prayer for Christian Unity that begins this weekend?
That a religious edict can create a chilling effect on the rights of two or more more adults to enter a contract is outrageous.
Or, in Mr. Nemec's case, even the rights of one.
Officiants are acting as agents of the state: their refusal to sign that contract should disqualify them from that privilege.
Larry said, "That a binding legal agreement can be defined by any religious sect seems completely ridiculous."
I think that's the essence of what the marriage equality court decisions are about. Roger E is welcome to his personal opinions. Hickey and his church can read the bible in whatever manner they like. Larry and Grudz can throw bombs until their keyboards melt.
You just don't get to use national, state or local laws to discriminate. It's not complicated.
Deb, Roger, everybody, we can thank Cory for our shaking hands last summer at Rickstock and for hosting Madville Times by hitting his tip jar.
When I get down to that new Mexican city, Ms. Geelsdottir, Lar will cook me a full gravy breakfast after I show him that his younger thin arms can't match me in arm wrestling.
That postcard is lame.
Some of us don't hate gays, and we don't care if they get married, or anything else as long as we don't have to put up with their prissy nonsense about getting their hands dirty. After 30 years working with gay male nurses, shrieking and fainting over things too icky-poo for them to deal with, the only question I have about gay men raising children is who is going to clean up the puke and poop?
Ms. Beal, do you know Arch Beal? I don't think most male nurses are gay. I don't think most nurses shriek or faint. I don't think any parent argues about cleaning up puke or poop.
What is wrong with you?
What? Seriously, Anne? Are you stating that all gay men are prissy and don't like getting their hands dirty?
I can think of plenty of heterosexual macho men who get all queasy about changing diapers.
side note that Ms. Beal was never a member of Conservatives with Common Sense
Now that is just plain stupid Anne, really. What the hell difference does it make to you whether anyone's poop and puke gets cleaned up. Will that somehow make your life more meaningful to know?
Its after 9:00 here, who wants to tell the first prissy gay story?
The Blindman
According to Anne's logic, every father from a traditional marriage that has ever had to change a diaper filled with yellow gold and gags, has got to be a closet homosexual.
Hahahaha! Ms. Beal, I think you gave everyone here a good laugh with your silly comment. Thanks.
Anne reeks of cream sherry and bonbons: just go sleep it off, dear.
Not all gay couples want to have children.
Not all straight couples want to have children.
The gay and straight couples who want and do have children learn to adapt, because they know that it is their responsibility to do so.
But let's get down to it. Most of us do not get a thrill out of cleaning up crap, vomit, blood, dirt, or anything else, even when it is our own crap, vomit, blood and etc, but we rise up and do it.
CH,
You didn't attach an article on micro aggressions so I googled it. Let me answer your question with a question: Is your question a form of a micro-aggressive ad hominem attack?
We know who each of us are. You are a atheist, liberal Democrat. I'm a struggling practical Catholic, conflicted Libertarian Conservative. If you think that difference precludes dialogue and finding common ground, you having an ad hominem position regarding me is rational. If you think we can have a dialogue and find common ground, your question is either irrelevant or you have to put the question in greater context and justify its relevance.
Jenny,
When I read bigoted and blatantly uninformed characterizations of the Catholic Church by far-left liberals here or by far-right conservatives at the Dakota War College or contemplate my prayerful hope that in my lifetime my Church might canonize as Saints Dorothy Day and Bishop Fulton Sheen, it is confirming and affirming that the Catholic Church is not of this world but a light toward the Eternal Kingdom and as promised, the Gates of Hell will not prevail against Her.
I apologize, Troy: I've been very forgetful this week:
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/396439/if-i-only-commit-microaggression-ive-underachieved-david-french
"So, Christians and conservatives, be free. Speak your beliefs and live your values with grace — because that’s right — but also with conviction and fearlessness. After all, one man’s 'microaggression' could well be tonic to another man’s wounded soul."
I read that article and immediately thought of comments you've made here and on an earlier thread (arrgh! now I can't find that earlier comment, but it was long those lines of being tired of not boldly defending your position). It seemed you and the author of the National Review were expressing the same thought.
I do not think that differences in political and religious orientation preclude rational dialogue. Ask the aspiring pastor with whom I sleep every night; we dialogue regularly.
Troy, what have I lied about with the Catholic church in regards to its past and ongoing turmoil? I am only speaking the truth. I do not lie; I do have anger and it needs to be dealt with but I am telling the truth about Catholicism.
Cory and I had a similar discussion in the context of jihad, Islam, terrorism and murder. I don't think we pulled any 'punches' and I don't think we ended up agreeing with each other but, like this one, it was certainly a conversation worth having. Indeed, one we must have.
The key, I submit, is building an atmosphere of goodwill, because 'trust' might oftentimes be out of reach, especially if the 'microagression' theory is valid. (i.e. Sooner or later, I will almost certainly say something insulting to one or the other of you young whipper snappers unconsciously, and hence, accidentally. I'm just counting on you guys to blow it off as either inconsequential or bust my chops and wake me the f@#k up. That kind of goodwill.)
One of the reasons it's so hard to dialog with Sibby and Bob Ellis, is that they take offense at pretty much everything, which is the equivalent of 'crying wolf.'
Not only does it make building trust impossible, it degrades the goodwill of the conversation to such a profound degree that it's no longer worth having.
Unfortunate.
They need to learn to mix it up a little. Like Kurtz does. Just when you think he's a lost cause, he says or posts something insightful to let you know his lights are on (as opposed to his wanting to punch your lights out. ;-)
Sibby-you're a nut. Bill D should be getting a Grammy for the spoken word category and humor and a lifetime achievement award for life experience/wisdom etc. and Cory gets charged for aiding and abetting the Blindman.
Sibby @ 16:17 called me and Kurtz alle-gators. Speaking personally,I'm taking that as a compliment.
Looking at Bill's comment, it hits me that we need to learn to take disagreement as an expression of caring. We need to learn to view insult as error, not an irrevocable violation of trust. We need to take funny doodles or pissy sculptures of our prophets as something less than a serious threat to the omnipotent beings and holy scriptures of our choice.
And, Josh Duggar, we need to take same-sex marriage as two people finding love in their own way, not as an assault on the stability of our own marriages and families.
Shorter Troy: "I'm a wimp so don't pick on me."
Anne, I have seen health care providers at all levels wear gloves, does that mean that they do not want to get their hands dirty?
"Ask the aspiring pastor with whom I sleep every night"
Cory, beware of false teachers.
Steve, beware of the voices in your head.
"He's guilty."
No arguments from me Cory. So why is Planned Parenthood in the business of creating willing victims? Do you agree they should be defunded? And how many of their abortions got rid of the evidence that prevented justice?
CH,
Your question has a wholly different light from what I read in my google. Thanks for putting it in context and relevance.
Yes. For over 30 years, I formed a view on this issue which made me uncomfortable with the general debate from both sides. So, I mostly stayed away from dialogue and only on occasion would state my position with little explanation.
Naively, I had hoped that what I see as the foolishness of both sides would cause people to step back and start to dialogue. Instead, it just pushed both sides into their camps. And, by silence, I became part of the problem because I never said to my allies (people who held the same position as I) that their argument was actually hurtful to their fundamental objective (retention and acknowledgement that marriage between and a man and woman is a valuable institution of the betterment of our society). Granted, some held the position that the goal was to use the power of the State to eradicate or decrease homosexuality and any and all accommodation was an endorsement. But, I believe most believed that "compromise" was the first step to eradication of the institution of marriage, which has served society very well for several millennium.
At the same time, liberals concerned with the treatment of homosexuals both legally (what liberals believe are privileges and benefits for same-gender households) and societally are hurting their cause by their arguments. Granted, some desire a full repudiation of any view short of full endorsement of homosexuality (both monogamous and promiscuous situations). But, I've found that even the most "pro" on the surface very quickly moderate in private conversation where all the expect is basic respect and fair treatment (not necessarily even equal).
Liberals telling me that a same gender lifetime committed household is the same to a opposite gender lifetime committed household is analogous to demanding that I believe that an Labrador and a Poodle is the same. Yes, there is commonality but they are not the same.
Liberals who then say if I insist on recognition of a distinction between the two that I'm a homophobe are not going to be effective in opening my eyes with regard to recognizing the commonality between the two. The charge is untrue and my rationale is independent of my views on homosexuality as a lifestyle or act.
The status quo in our body politic is untenable. As a nation we have three choices:
1) Do what we are doing where either the courts might usurp our collective legislative and executive prerogatives and force down by fiat a permanent divide which I believe will permanently impress on the psychic of a large portion of our nation a view of homosexuals that will in practice deny them certain day-to-day interpersonal fundamental dignities they deserve because of their humanity.
2) Do what we are doing where the courts allow a continuation of the "all-or-nothing" fight where gains and losses will be tenuous and again a source of separation that ultimately will most impact homosexuals certain day-to-day interpersonal fundamental dignities they deserve because of their humanity.
I'm going to adopt a thought Bill Fleming often invokes directly and indirectly. In the big scheme of things, what is said on blogs anonymously or even bad law is less damaging individually or collectively than what we do to people every day face-to-face. Getting along day-to-day with our neighbors requires scores of compromise. Its fundamental to the social contract. No compromise breaks apart the social contract. Which leads me to #3.
3) Or, the vast majority of Americans who have similar goals can sit down and find common ground for today while committing to work on differences as we go.
I have a friend and person I've done multiple transactions with over the last 20 years, we occasionally talk personally but usually as a consequence to business conversation. The only exclusively personal thing we do together is an occasional round of golf when I'm in the city where he lives. A few years ago, he made a lifetime commitment to another man.
Most of the following discussion unfolded during a heart-felt conversation when I told him I couldn't and wouldn't attend his wedding. I wished him well but I would not be there. And I told him why out of respect for our friendship.
I agreed there are privileges and benefits institutionally denied him because of moral opposition to homosexuality as a lifestyle and act. And, as an American, I agree that institutional discrimination exclusively for moral reasons is insufficient for denial of societal privileges and benefits. There has to be a compelling state interest for distinction.
He gets that I'm never going to accept that a same-gender household is the same as an opposite his relationship is equal to mine or that I'm going to accept that homosexual acts are good for his soul. And, demanding such an acceptance is as un-American as denial of privileges and benefits for only my moral opposition to his freely made choices.
So, here is what we have agreed on:
1) Many of the privileges and benefits of opposite-gender lifetime commitment couples should be extended to same-gender lifetime commitment couples. We both believe that cohabitation/non-lifetime couples don't deserve most privileges lifetime couples (e.g. visitation/asset distribution in the event of separation). Either there is a "merger" or not. No gray. Stability of household is a positive for society, even if there are no children involved, and extending of certain privileges and benefits is justified to encourage this stability.
2) Reluctantly, he agrees there an adoption difference is currently justified (we still have a difference between us on the specificity) until same-gender couples prove they have a statistical comparability with regard to staying together and properly caring for any children post-separation (shortness of time of study, small samples, and disparate studies justify greater study and time). While he is displeased there are same-gender couples who would be good parents that would be adversely affected, he conceded there is greater tolerance of promiscuity and lower level of expectation of lifetime commitment in the homosexual community than heterosexual community. And, he agrees this lower standard stability is not good for kids. I've been honest with him and said even if time "proves" a similar term of commitment and handling kids post separation, I may not change my view on adoption in particular because I believe in the complementarity of male and female for raising kids. But, we agreed a stronger case could be made to society as a whole with the passage of time. In short, I think at minimum he agreed to be patient into an undefined future.
3) Surprisingly to me, he gets my view that marriage remain between a man and woman. I'm pretty sure he doesn't agree but he is willing to give on the matter with little conversation. My guess is he didn't need me to rehash my position, he sees the difference as mostly semantics (marriage vs. civil union) while I see it fundamental so he isn't willing to sacrifice all of our common ground for something of lower importance to him.
As I type this and reflect on it, I think it goes back to when I inadvertently found out he was gay one of the first times we had worked together a long time ago. He wasn't out of the closet. At the time, I guess he appreciated I said nothing, didn't treat him any different, and maybe assumed I was "gay friendly" to some degree and whatever that means. But a few weeks, maybe months later we were intensely working together over several days. I stressed that I wanted us to finish Thursday so I could be home Friday.
On Thursday afternoon when it was obvious we had to work on Friday, I told him I would work all night Thursday but at 11 a.m. I was walking out of his office and going to Good Friday service @ the St. Paul Cathedral and then heading for home. I do no work during the Tridium, ever. At the time, I noticed a reaction but attributed it to him being surprised I was religious because I'm sure I'd never mentioned it and sometimes my language gives another opinion. Today, I think his reaction was over-layed with trying to reconcile my lack of reaction to him being gay.
My point here is the combination of him knowing I was a practical Catholic and unwilling to come to his wedding for that reason, he recognized trying to get me to compromise on the definition of marriage wasn't going to happen.
I guess the reason this has become a long ramble is I'm ashamed of a lot of the indignities homosexuals have suffered in the past and the role my silence has played in its continuation. Similarly, I think many of those on the other side should be ashamed of the current assault on those who have different views.
Without condition because it is right, I'm wholly prepared to settle on common ground (mostly the economic and legal protection issues and matters like visitation etc.).
With only the condition that there be an attitude of desire to recognize and compromise with some very important matters on my side, I'm most sincerely open to have my envelope pushed on specifics in frank respectful conversation.
In short, I think this experience between two people is a microcosm of what our nation needs to go through. If he had been disrespectful or disparaging of my faith or deeply held views including my disagreement with his choices, our relationship would have ruptured. If I had been disrespectful of his partner (only met twice with only one being for more than a handshake) or his life choices, our relationship would have ruptured.
Between us, today, we have much common ground that is valued and our differences are respected. I think our blow-up/discussion over his wedding (like this current "discussion" in society) has lead to greater understanding, the fount of mutual respect. Isn't that the American way?
Cory, I know this thread is probably dead and won't be read by many. I think you for allowing me to write this. It's been cathartic and I'm glad to get it on the record. My silence may not have been atoned but I feel I've made a good first step.
Bravo, Mr. Jones. And thank you. What an excellent read.
Jenny,
Your offense and dishonesty is in your the global inference about the Catholic Church and its members as if its infractions are the sum and substance of Catholicism.
Using your standard, let's pretend I know all of the bad things you've done in your life (I don't know what they are but you do).
I'm going to list them (some grossly out of context or partially accurate) and then say that is the sum and substance of who you are.
And, then I go further and assert, not only is that the sum and substance of you but I'm going to add to the list ever theft, rape, and every other bad thing by every one of the people in your family tree and say that is the sum and substance of who you are. Seem fair? Its the standard you are applying to the Catholic Church and its members.
I could counter easily your comments as either described with hyperbole, blatantly false, out of context, or like the Irish girls know nothing of what you speak. That said, to the extent they are true (if there is even truth in them), they are the consequence of our fallen nature. Imperfect people and institutions do bad things. Remember you are also talking about the institution that educates more people, cares for more sick, has more feet on the ground eradicating human trafficking, visits more prisoners, provides more shelter to the homeless, clothes more people than any other institution in the world. The Catholic Church is the loudest voice in the world for the poor and for peace among nations. The Catholic Church, its universities, and its Priests are the source of many of the foundational scientific principles that have advanced the condition of mankind beginning in the 12th Century through today.
Where is that in your calculation?
But, I won't counter them because one is so easy to refute and it only belies your dishonest desire to disparage. Your reference to Mother Theresa and her book is so inaccurate as to be laughable. I've read the book "Mother Theresa, Come be My Light." This paraphrase of the book is shallow I know.
Her experience is similar to that of St. John of the Cross. But, she didn't doubt her faith. While she lamented the darkness where God put her soul and her inability to see and feel the warmth of the Sacred Heart of Jesus. In fact, in faith, she accepted it because she believed it was the source of her abililty to serve the poorest of the poor and treat them each as though they were Christ incarnate.
"Pope Francis announced Thursday that he will canonize Father Junipero Serra, the founder of California’s missions and a controversial figure for his role in a process that began the decimation of the Native American population here. For Alta California’s Indians the missions and their Franciscan administrators were part and parcel of an enormously destructive colonization process. The Spanish, largely through disease, were responsible for a population decline from about 300,000 Indians in 1769 to about 200,000 by 1821."
http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2015/01/15/pope-francis-announces-sainthood-for-junipero-serra-founder-of-california-missions
How does a marriage differ from a corporation, a contract or even a personhood except that it takes place when consenting adults sign on the bottom line? That a binding legal agreement can be defined by any religious sect seems completely ridiculous.
That a religious edict can create a chilling effect on the rights of two or more more adults to enter a contract is outrageous. Officiants are acting as agents of the state: their refusal to sign that contract should disqualify them from that privilege.
Addition: Mother Theresa' cross in faith allowed God to produce the fruit o her ministry. Disparage or misrepresent me, I don't care much. Do so to one of the greatest persons who has ever lived, I care deeply.
NPR is reporting that the Minneapolis diocese has filed for bankruptcy protection for litigation of clergy crimes following the Helena, Montana sect and others.
http://www.mprnews.org/story/2015/01/16/explaining-archdiocese-bankruptcy
"I'm going to adopt a thought Bill Fleming often invokes directly and indirectly."
Big mistake Troy. But thanks for demonstrating the problem we have in politics today. No principles, all pragmatism. That is why we have the fights we have. In the end, more government is always the compromise. In the end, government forcing us to accept gay marriage in the name of equality is a big lie. The principle of equality is what is being destroyed. It is for the sake of pragmatism that politicians and judges are changing society. The result will be more confusion, more coming forward demanding "equality", and society in total chaos. Of course that is the plan, as that fosters more control from the top. Few understand we are giving up freedom for the cause of freedom. Sin is a lifestyle of slavery.
Larry,
I think both marriage and civil union are different than both a corporation and simple transactional contracts.
Difference from a corporation: A corporation is a legal combination of disparate interests for a specific purpose. But, each of the shareholders don't themselves combine. You and I might both own IBM stock but that is the extent that Larry and Troy have combined interests. Marriage is two distinct persons uniting all of the interests into one household.
Said another way, something happens bad to my wife, it happens to me too. Something happens bad to me, it neither affects you or IBM. Make sense?
Difference from a Contract: You and I enter into a contract. I agree to mow your yard and you agree to provide the lawnmower and pay me. Its a transaction. I can mow other yards. You can hire Bill to fix your eaves. I give you nothing of myself and you give me nothing of yourself. Just a transaction that will end when I quit mowing your yard or you quit paying me.
If either of those two are what those advocating for same-gender Americans, I frankly don't want to have anything to do with it. Get some lawyers together to draft some sample agreements and then the parties can customize the agreement to form a "corporation" or enter into a transactional contract as agreed, and go about your business. Nothing is needed with regard to a change of law. In fact, there are some side benefits in that there is no requirement to fit in the box with regard to State expectations.
I find in some degree the clamor for same-gender marriage a bit crazy. Marriage has been made a mess of by heterosexuals. If I was riding in a bus down the highway and all I saw on the road was broken down Dodge trucks, it would be crazy to get out of the bus and say "I want a Dodge Truck."
That said, marriage is an institution that has served society very well for millennium. In fact, it is in our households were we learn all the principles for living in greater society. I believe strongly as an institution it must be restored such that more of the Dodge Trucks get to their destination and that the journey is more joyful and fruitful. Its our problem, we made the mess and we have to fix it.
And, at risk of being politically incorrect, painting a GMC truck and saying it is a Dodge won't do a damn thing to make our Dodge Trucks run any better. All it will do is create confusion of the true condition of Dodge Trucks. Pretending a Dodge and a GMC is the same doesn't make it true.
Drive a GMC Truck and be proud your a GMC. Give me motivation to fix my Dodge Truck by running down the road better than me. Maybe I'll see I need the tires you have and I'll get them.
But, my Dodge has been in my family for generations. It is part of who I am. I don't want a GMC. I'm made to drive a Dodge, you a GMC. Right now, I just need to focus on fixing my Dodge. And, if I can get it to run better, I'll give you the same SD salute I give to those in a Dodge when we pass on the road. But right now, I'm broken down on the side of the road and looking for a Dodge mechanic. I know you'd love to help and I thank you. But, GMC wrenches don't work on my Dodge.
Troy: your soliloquies are nothing but GOP boiler plate recitations designed to mask the failures of your party to evolve. Modern marriage is an anachronism destined for history's dustbin.
Larry, if marriage is so destined, then leave us alone and let destiny be fulfilled.
Why do you support others getting on the Titanic?
Wow Troy, the last three paragraphs are pretty good.
What part of equal protection under the law escapes you people?
Larry, are you having trouble taking Troy's "yes" for an answer? Tell us, what kind of dove craps on their opponent's olive branch?
Troy, you do go long. I'm glad of that. I'm going to be on the road for a bit today, so I'll get to a thorough response later. You guys play nicely while I'm out!
So you are against abortion Larry?
I don't take prisoners, Bill.
Under US law a foetus has no civil protections under the third trimester, Sib.
Abortion is not the topic at hand, but since you brought it up, what have you been doing to encourage men and women to use methods to prevent conceptions?
By preventing conceptions there are fewer abortions.
Have you gone to any of the schools, churches, or other gathering places to discuss the need for men and women to be responsible enough to use methods to prevent conceptions?
Revision: Under US law a foetus has no civil protections until the third trimester.
Bill,
I recognize there are those who desire nothing but my wholesale capitulation or destruction. They don't want to dialogue for finding common ground or even understanding but only to use as a weapon for my destruction. I am having a hard time seeing any distinction between them and those who desire to shoot nuns who won't renounce their faith and convert to Islam except they haven't en masse decided to take up anything but a keyboard and internet connection.
Troy: I still don't quite "get" some of your argument. In your automotive analogy, the underlying point seems to be that heterosexual couples have screwed up marriage pretty badly, and homosexual marriage will either a) screw it up more simply because moving away from one man one woman is simply bad on its own terms; or b) homosexual couples will further damage the marriage brand because they do all the bad stuff heterosexual do at higher rates. If it is A, there really isn't a debate to be had, because your point of view exists independently of evidence, and is therefore not really a factual one.
As to B: the data is all over the place here. Some studies show higher separation rates for non-married gay couples, but divorce rates that are comparable or lower for gay couples. Some show the divorce rates to be higher. Some show self-reporting of happiness in the marriage to be higher in gay couples, ostensibly because of a lack of traditionally defined gender roles that leads to a greater egalitarian feel to the relationship, some show more discord. There is not a simple majority that shows one way or another here, so I concede that long term studies may bear out the theory that gay marriages are less stable. There is no consensus on it right now.
As to children: the majority of the body of evidence suggests children of gay parents are just as well adjusted as their counterparts from heterosexual relationships.
Knowing all of this, I guess I think your analogy is inapposite and off base here. Assuming I understood it correctly, of course.
I'll repeat Larry's argument, what part of equal protection under the law don't you understand?
Larry, sounds like you should start an equality movement for the preborn then.
I'll repeat Larry's argument, what part of equal protection under the law don't you understand?
Steve S., it sounds like you need to start an equality movement for all the preborn.
It has to start from someone, might as well start with you.
How could Pope Francis canonize a man that supported slavery - Junipero Serra. Own to Catholicism's deep hypocrisy and disturbing past, Troy. Any decent man would have abhorred slavery and everything that comes with it -beatings, rapes, murders. Shame on you, Catholic Church! Where is the outcry!
Own up to Catholicism's deep dark past, Troy Jones. What a big, pitiful shame, this is not funny. It is very cruel to canonizing slavery.
Own up to Catholicism's deep dark past, Troy Jones. What a big, pitiful shame, this is not funny. It is very cruel to be canonizing slavery.
Sorry, you can delete one of those, Cory.
SCOTUS will hear the case:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/supreme-court-takes-gay-marriage-case
So these Irish girls just wanted to go live in the Poor Houses to work like slaves all day and night? They wanted their babies taken away from them and never to be seen again? They are just making this all up? Troy thinks these are all lies I'm making up, and calls me dishonest. You really need to read up on Irish Catholic history. You just sound totally misogynistic, as most Catholic republicans are.
As a recovering Catholic, I will not be shamed into keeping hidden Catholicism deep dark history of atrocious acts it did to millions of poor innocent human beings. I will always search for the truth.
I'm sure people like Troy probably think that the Catholic sex scandal next door is all made up by liberals like me. All of the grown men are just making it up that they were abused by nasty priests.
the Catholic scandal next door in MN that is.
"You sound totally misogynistic, as most catholic republicans are"
Hey, that brush you are painting with missed a couple corners of the planet; could you find a wider one please?
Dicta,
I'm not able to respond in detail except to say, your interpretation of what I was saying isn't what I meant. Don't know if I said it bad or you read it bad. :) Neither A or B. Read the Labrador/Poodle analogy. Might give clarity where I didn't have it before. Or maybe not. Gotta keep working.
Jenny, I don't have time for bigots. Live in your world as small and spiteful as it is.
Perhaps I, as a necessarily misogynistic, catholic republican can figure it out when I read it again. But maybe not because apparently I hate women and women have been known to write from time to time.
Actually, you're being the bigot right now, Troy. You don't believe anything I've written in regards to the Roman Catholic Church. You're in denial. Females are weak and have had no voice and so what these Irish girls have written about in documentaries and books could not possibly be true, which is why I slipped the misogynistic thinking on your part in there. I don't know you, you may certainly not be a misogynist, but you sure sounded like it to me.
It's official, SCOTUS will hear the same-sex state challenge case in April and will issue its ruling in June 2015.
Well, why else are women not allowed to become priests? Why else don't Catholic men (such as the ones in my big crazy Catholic family) stand up and demand change in the Catholic church to allow women to become priests? Yes, I've heard it all before, a woman's place in the church is in a habit.
Cant anyone tell a story anymore? This is fast becoming a sterol environment, all black and white and no color. Thats enough of that, here's my story.
I have a friend who lives in Winner. I'm not going to tell you his name because, well because then you would know his name.
He's been a trucker for at least thirty years. Twenty some years ago he came home and found us at the Pheasant Bar. He walked in wearing big old dark sunglasses, a bandana around his neck, and a baseball cap. He ordered a round and came over to the table.
It was then that we saw his jaw was swollen, as were all his knuckles. His nose was slightly askew, and his right ear looked like he been in the ring with Iron Mike. One of the women reached up and took his sunglasses off. Black and blue from ear to ear. Then she took off the cap he never wore ever, we were treated to a very bumpy, black and blue head.
When all the owing and poking finally stopped I asked him what happened.
"Well" he said "four days ago I'd just got rid of my load of swinging meat in Florida. I had ten hrs before I had to be at Tysons to load chicken to bring back here.
Where I had to park the truck only gave me two places to go have a beer. One looked ok, but all the action came from across the street. I dont need momma to tell me to go where the fun is so I walked on over.
A lot of guys and just a couple of girls were standing out front. There was a bouncer at the door and when he saw me he yelled above the music, "Are you here to dance or drink?"
I yelled back drink.
He motioned me over and let me in the door. I asked him why he let me in and not others. "Cause they want to dance and there isnt any more room for dancers, but theres plenty at the bar."
When i found a place at the bar and ordered a beer, I turned around and was shocked to see, boys dancing with boys. About that time I saw a really cute girl walking toward me. She was about 5'2, she had dark brown hair, and she wasn't fat. I thought things were looking up.
It wasnt until she got twenty feet away that I started getting a bad feeling. It was smoky in the bar and kinda hard to see, but the closer she got, the less she looked like a girl! She had a five oclock shadow, an adams apple, and a bolge in her mini skirt.
She walked up to me and started talking but the music was so loud all I caught was hi cowboy and dance. I tried to tell he-she the bouncer let me in because I told him I wasn't going to dance. Like I said the damn music was loud, and she must have thought I was putting her down because she started yelling as the fade from one song to another started. Every person in the bar heard her acream, "your not gay you son of a bitch, I'll teach you to turn me down."
It was about a foot smaller then I was but she just went right ahead and gave me a shove, then as she walked away she yelled again over the loud music, "I'll see you later sweetheart."
About this time in the story one of our friends said, "do you mean to tell us that a little old sissy boy did that to you?"
"No, shut up and get me another drink so I can finish my story." When he got his refill he got going again.
"I finished my beer and walked out the front door headed for the truck. I got about fifty feet down the sidewalk when a big hand grabbed my shoulder. The hand swung me around and the deep voice it belonged to said. "You must be the cowboy that wouldn't dance with Emma, I'm gonna beat your ass for that."
I wont go into detail about the beating like my friend did but he seemed to remember every blow. He even said it was like slow motion.
Being very stupid I said that with knuckles like he had he must a got in a couple good shots for all the cuts and black and blue marks there were.
"Nope, I got those while I was trying to push myself off the ground. I had my hands out in fromt of me and from what I could see, there was a size 14 Adida stomping on my hands."
Then a bunch of em picked me up and threw me in a cab, told the driver that I fell dancing and needed to go to the emergency room. The last thing I saw when we were driving away was Emma wearing my $100 Stetson."
The cabby helped me in the ER and then took my billfold out of my pocket and got out his own fare then slipped the billfold back in my hip pocket again.
They fixed me up as best they could and asked me if I wanted to talk to a cop. I told em no I just wanted to get back to my truck. They got me a prescription of pain pills, and one of the doctors gave me a ride to my truck.
I managed to get my load of chickens the next morning, but my hands would only let me drive a couple of hours at a time. It took me four days to get home.
While we were trying to digest his story someone asked, "what did you learn from all this?"
" I learned that there might be a bunch of those fagots that are sissy boys, but their boyfriends could be linebackers for the Dolphins, and meaner then hell. And you had damn sure better dance with their boyfriends when they ask you to."
This story was sanitized for use as a church indoctrination aid.
The Blindman
Jenny, I think Troy has "owned up" as well as we could expect anyone too.
Of himself in general he says:
"I'm a struggling practical Catholic, conflicted Libertarian Conservative."
Of the failings of his (and my) Church he notes:
"That said, to the extent they are true (if there is even truth in them), they are the consequence of our fallen nature. Imperfect people and institutions do bad things."
Of his true position on SSM he confesses:
"I guess the reason this has become a long ramble is I'm ashamed of a lot of the indignities homosexuals have suffered in the past and the role my silence has played in its continuation."
What more do you want from the guy?
He is who he is. Just like all the rest of us.
On the "slavery and American Indian" topic, we all know, (or should know) where our own founding fathers stood on those things, right up and through Abraham Lincoln and into the 1960-70's, and we have pretty much forgiven them for it, haven't we.
They, like Father Junipero Serra, were men of their times, just as we are all people of our times. How long, and how mercilessly are we all to be held accountable for the sins of our fathers and forefathers?
To me, it comes down to what we as a society want next.
Is it vengeance? Or reconciliation?
We can't gain true human dignity for some by taking it away from someone else. That's my position anyway.
No one else would have believed me anyway when my sister and I walked into a Catholic teenage couple having sex in the back of the church during lunch hour, either.
Good story as usual Dithmer. I've heard the "not cleaned up" version, and yours is actually funnier. Thanks for it!
Dithmer should have been discovered somewhere - Hollywood, NYC, Nashville. A lot of talent!
Roger, et al, does the fact that SCOTUS is going to hear the case preclude (or make moot) Jackley's appeal of SD's case to the 8th District Court? Does anybody know?
Belinda just gave me my testosterone shot. My mind has once again been cleared of the cobwebs it had to share with the grey mater.
The Blindman
Dithmer, ain't it just crazy how hormones run our lives? And yet somehow we seem to persist in the self-delusion that our minds are really the ones in charge. :-)
Bill,
I think Jackley stated the other day that he will continue to fight for the marriage ban. Whether he will join with Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio and Tennessee is unclear.
Also wasn't clear is whether there will be any arguments Jackley to fight to keep the stay in place.
The attorney for Jennie and Nancy indicated that he would ask to he lower court to lift the stay, thereby making same-sex marriage legal in South Dakota.
Two other relevant questions will be answered by the court in their June ruling:
1. Does the Constitution require states to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples?
2. Do states have to recognize same-sex marriages performed elsewhere?
Fleming: Thanks.
Dithmer: Thanks too.
Dicta, will be as long or short until phone rings again. Whether it be my dog or truck analogy, I feel strongly there is a difference between same and opposite gender households. A difference at its root that male and female are different. In honesty, I can't and will not pretend they are the same. I'll recognize their similarities and respect differences. But, to say they are the same is to lie.
Its similar to my view on open communion table between Christian Churches. I celebrate our commonalities and embrace them. But, we do each have deeply held differences that should be respected. But, honesty shouldn't allow us to pretend they don't exist.
BF, six years ago I laughed at those adds. I was a functioning zombie. Dr Weber did a test and said I wasn't low, I was empty.
I know that my IQ points dont go up or down, but the way I process thoughts does change depending on how much T I have left in me. For me, it was about my big head, not my little one.
The Blindman
LOL. Well said, Blindman. The little dictator, indeed. :-)
That's a good story, Ms. Jenny. How did you know they were Catholic?
It was the private Cath school I went to . My twin sister and I just ran away after we saw it and never told a soul.
Mama always told me not to look into the eyes of the sun.....but Mama-that's where the fun is.
BF-
What were wingnuts after when they impeached Clinton as payback for Nixon's demise?
This country will never reconcile because one party will not allow reconcilliation. They demand capitulation. They aren't human.
I'd like the name of a single wingnut pol who isn't afraid to caucus with Dems to get stuff done in this country. His/her party would eat them alive.
Mike there are some. I suspect there will be more now that they hold the majority in both houses. We'll have to see. I'm optimistic (obviously :-)
Jenny, Catholic school in Rapid City?
I suspect the students having sex in the back of the church during lunch hour were doing so without permission. To blame their activity on the Church is a leap of faith that's going to take more explaining to connect the dots before I'm willing to go along.
Yes, Nick.
Do we blame it on their Catholic parents?
Jenny, I'm going with hormones. :-)
Exactly, Bill. I wasn't blaming it on the Catholic church either. I was just trying to point out earlier that people are prejudiced and partisan with what they are willing to believe.
Yup, we are. No argument. Myself included.
OK, makes more sense than the GMC vs. Dodge analogy earlier in this thread. That one left me scratching my head. I never have been wedded to a certain make of auto.
Brand X vs. Brand Y auto wars reminds me of something that happened to my wife and I on our honeymoon. As we were going to visit her 90 something grandfather she asked what make car we were driving. I told her it was a Ford, she was visibly relieved and told me me the story of taking her first husband to visit Grandpa. He was waiting on the stoop and the first words out of his mouth after introductions were "What kind of car are you driving?" On learning it was a Honda he went off on the "damn Japs" and refused to invite the young couple in the house. You see my wife's uncle and Grandpa's only son had been a Navy B-24 pilot during the War, the plane was shot down over the Pacific and all hands were lost without a trace. When we got to Grandpa's house he was on the stoop and as soon as introductions were done he asked me what make car I drove. Having been given the heads up I proudly slapped my hand on the hood and proclaimed "this is a Ford". Grandpa replied "Let's go in the house and visit." We had a nice visit and he especially liked the fact I was a Marine since the Marines spent nearly 4 years fighting and killing Japanese in the Pacific during the WWII. Before we left he gave me, "as a wedding gift", the USN trigger finger mittens his son didn't wear on his last flight, and Grandpa had kept in a box in the closet for 40 years. I must have made an impression.
I've said before that the Roman Catholic Church has a checkered history. It's caused a lot of pain and it's brought a lot of good. The RCC has owned up to centuries of misogyny. Though the limits on participation by women remains artificially restricted, admitting there is a problem is the first step. Like Jenny, I think there is much more to be done, but a first step is a good sign.
I remain very skeptical of any top heavy, unaccountable corporation, and that includes the RCC. Pope Francis is a very good start, but the work of genuine reform needs to continue.
Last, I feel it is fundamental to recognize that the good the RCC has done and continues to do does not erase the harm the RCC has done and continues to do. Both things are true and real.
The ongoing work for RCC is to make amends for and bring an end to the harm, as much as possible, while continuing and expanding the good. The slings and arrows aimed at the RCC are almost entirely due to its attempts to cover up, deceive, lie and obfuscate.
Those kids could have grown up to be heathens, perfectly healthy heathens. We may never know.
Troy, your truck analogy strikes me as odd. It at least indicts us as much as it indicts any same-sexers. Divorce is not new in 2015. You knew divorced folks when you got married; I knew divorced folks when I got married. We could see heterosexuals all around us driving their Dodges into the ditch. yet we still got behind the wheel with our honeys and said, "Let's give it a go." We're keeping it between the ditches just fine, statistics and grim sights along the road and others' doubts be darned.
Dodge vs. GMC—I think you're drawing a trivial distinction. We can adopt our amusing brand-name poses, but when we're stuck in a ditch, we don't look at the logo on the grille; we look at the folks driving and their willingness to pull us out. The brand doesn't matter; the truck and the driver do.
The gonads don't matter... at least they don't matter as much as the commitment, the promise. And might the distinction you see between a same-sex marriage and a mixed-sex marriage be no greater along one dimension than the difference others might see along other dimensions between your same-religion marriage and my mixed-philosophy marriage, or the difference between my pretty happy marriage and any number of unhealthy, codependent relationships?
Can't ya just feel the love tonight? I've got to do this every six months because it makes me feel good.https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=jW1PZb0l9wo
The Blindman
Cory,
Your point "Dodge vs. GMC-I think you are drawing a trivial distinction."
I will remember that the next time I hear the argument we need more women someplace for diversity and a broader perspective.
I have opened a really big door from a conservative and the only real distinction I make is Dodge vs. GMC which is deemed trivial.
Questions: do you want to find common ground and accept it? Or do you want it to be all or nothing? What do you think that does to the day-to-day interaction and treatment between homos and heterosexual where the real rubber hits the road regardless of the law (remember who will always be the minority).
Oops. Just to be clear, spellcheck let me use homos but not heteros. I meant to use shorthand for both.
Spellcheck took homos but not heteros? I'll bet there's a message there.
Troy, you can always prick my conscience by saying you're offering common ground and I'm rejecting it. Keep working that angle!
I see the door you are opening to common ground. I can certainly see the difference at a personal level: my life would be very different if I had married a man, just as my life would be very different if I had chosen to be a manager at Burger King. In both cases, I would be doing something to which I am ill-suited by nature and in which I would find far less joy than the things I am doing now.
Choosing whom to marry, like choosing where to work, is a huge life decision. One needs to choose well. The Constitution and the law need to stay the heck out of the way. To the Constitution, the choice itself is profoundly important, a fundamental right, but which one we choose is trivial.
Or perhaps I have chosen words poorly. The difference between marrying a man or marrying a woman, like the difference between teaching or burger-flipping, is not trivial but outside the jurisdiction of the Constitution and state law.
There is nothing in existing law in the US that prevents me, you or a gay person from forming a household with whoever I choose or who is in in it.
Or having a Dodge or GMC. But, they aren't the same as similar as their use or appearance. Unless of course, you think the whole diversity, woman perspective arguments are bogus.
Pick a side and quit moving the bases.
mfi-agree@17:20 that republicans won't reconcile. why?
nick-cool story USN mittens. wow
deb-19:49 seems a very bright summation
troy-i don't get you. you seem really unqualified to speak on LGTB issues as you are hetero and religiously wedded to a position. it is just an opinion. its like me having an opinion about craving but not being an addict. how can a judge order, under threat of imprisonment, an addict not to use? all three are impossibilties. morality has nothing to do with it. these are not choices. maybe that is your argument.
LOL, if all we're arguing about is our choice of metaphors, we're not arguing anymore, are we? Great conversation all, even Sibby, who, with his canine thing, helps us all get clear on what it's definitely NOT about.
Why anyone would argue with a misanthropic earth hater like Troy Jones remains a mystery.
I'm still curious as to how aggressively Mr. Jackley will pursue his appeal, given that the SCOTUS will now be taking up the Ohio case.
Not sure if it makes a diff whether the Supremes are reviewing two appellate court decisions or just one but surely the others that they have decided not to review will now come under review, won't they?
Something like 70% of the US population now has legal access to SSM as well as traditional and hundreds (or is it thousands) of couples now have what are considered legal marriages.
Is it even possible for the SCOTUS to un-ring that particular liberty bell without violating the 14th Amendment? Can legally recognized marriages somehow become no longer recognized by some kind of Supreme Court 'Oops, sorry, just kidding, never mind.' proclamation?
What's the lawyer's opinion here? What are the Supreme's real options?
Larry, life is a mystery, death is a mystery, so is everything in between. Get over it. None of us have figured anything out. At least not anything important. Why you think you have remains a mystery. :-)
You're mistaken, Mr. Fleming: some of us have figured many things out. Keep trying, Bill: you can do it, too.
Troy,what is with the obsession for a lifestyle that does nothing for or to you? Obsessing about Gays does not make you "that way" nor will it prevent you from being "that way."
Mike,
I have no idea where you got this impression. I've never said anything about lifestyle, nor do I obsess over gays, and nor do I think it contagious.
I couldn't give a rat's patootie over who people have sex with, how they do it, or any other aspect of a lifestyle with regard to any governmental policy.
If this is just about a lifestyle, having sex, and concepts of freedom of cohabitation, whether hetero or homo, this isn't a public policy discussion and neither should there be any government approval, disapproval, benefits or privilege. I thought this was about something more like forming a lifetime commitment and household.
Sorry I misunderstood and I didn't recognize your obsession with sex and sexual acts.
Troy is tortured with his thinking, and trying to make himself believe in his long-winded statement that belief is still right. His gay friend, meanwhile, is probably hurt and thought Troy better than that. The gentleman that his gay friend is, plays the game that he is okay with that.
Oh people! Gays have lived in pain a lot of us only dream of. The daily rejections, bullying, hatred, deep depressions are some of these sufferings. Catholics want to end suffering, as they claim, but they are just digging themselves deeper in their turmoil pile with being anti-gay. Remember the Catholic mantra of dignity and decency, and being treated the way you would want to be treated. Remember Matthew Shephard, always remember Matthew Shepherd. He could have been Troy's son, anyone's son, grandson, brother, cousin, friend. Peace, man.
To all the anti-gay rights people, let's cut the 'it's not about the sexuality with gay marriage'. Of course, it is. What else would it be? It is two penises instead of the traditional vagina and penis, and that turns some straight people totally off, although they claim, as Troy above does, that he could care less about people's sexual preferences.
At least Hickey, in his anti-gay hollering last year what being totally honest with his garbage alley verbiage.
Children just want a parent, they could care less if they have two daddies or two mommies. They just want someone to love and be there for them. Get over it traditionalists.
Jackley, Jones and Powers are all earth hating members of a religious cult that has murdered millions so equal protection under the law is meaningless compared to their church's mandates.
Nick Nemec, Pat Duffy and Kevin Woster are Catholic Democrats who support equal protection under the law.
Jenny,
If you think it is just about the sexuality, me thinks you are projecting.
Jenny: it's all about the money Jones and his church are struggling to collect to avoid the bankruptcy of the Sioux Falls and Rapid City dioceses.
Okay, I'll bite. Name one important thing that you yourself have figured out, Mr. Kurtz. Be prepared to demonstrate both the thing's importance and your exclusive claim to the discovery of it. Thanks in advance.
By the way Troy, are you related to a Cody Jones from Pierre? I knew a Cody Jones from Dakota State who was a republican and from Pierre. I'm sure he must be some sort of relation?
One important thing is how antimicrobials in cattle manure have all but killed saprophytic fungi in the Black Hills National Forest, Bill.
Yes, I'm listening Larry. Is that your discovery? And if so, what's your proof, and why is it really important?
http://interested-party.blogspot.com/2014/07/western-watersheds-public-lands.html
Jenny,
Nope. My Jones side is very small. In SD, only my two brothers, sister, one daughter, one nephew, and two nieces go by Jones. On my mom's sides, it wouldn't take me long to get to a list of 100 relatives but they go by a plethora of last last names. I can go for short walk (roughly a mile total walking) from my house and visit with two cousins, my mom, and a daughter. Long walk add another cousin.
Interesting, Larry. So have you figured out why that is so? And why it's important? Before we go on and on, you do realize that any three year old can turn what you think you know into a mystery with about four iterations of 'why' questions, don't you? Just sayin'. I get really put off by your smart assed jabs in the middle of conversations sometimes, and wish you would cool your jets. What are the chances of that?
I don't take prisoners, remember? Why do you choose to target Sibby? Because of your own insecurities about the things you believe you know, Bill?
Troy,you forgot that I want to capitulate and/or destruct you while you are not obsessing about Gays.
Why do you want to know that, Kurtz. Is it important? Does thinking you know the answer somehow improve the quality of your life? Of this conversation? If not, why do you ask. Why, why, why? How long do you want to do this? And why?
Attending Patti and Judy's wedding last year at their house in Eldorado made me weep because MJ and Nancy can't get married in Montana even after all the words were posted at ip. That Troy and the religious fanatics like him are being taken seriously here is crazy-making.
I'm going to turn off the computer now, go put the blade on the tractor and go plow the road. Talk in a couple hours, kids?
Bill, the cert grant by the SCOTUS does not moot the South Dakota appeal of Judge Schrier's ruling. Instead, the parties will abide by an 8th Circuit briefing schedule that will take a few months if there are extension requests. After the briefs are filed the 8th normally schedules an oral argument a couple of months down the road. If the oral argument actually takes place, a decision by the 8th would typically follow oral argument in anywhere from 3 to 12 months or so.
If the SCOTUS issues a ruling in June on the cases it has accepted, chances are the SD appeal will not yet be decided or proceedings completed. Once the SCOTUS issues it's June decision, the 8th will be bound to apply that ruling to the SD case and decide it accordingly.
BCB, makes sense. So Jackley would keep his appeal on the docket and perhaps get his case filed, but most likely the SCOTUS decision would come down before the 8th's decision is made.
If SCOTUS decides against Ohio and says marriage bans are unconstitutional, that would make South Dakota's case moot, correct?
Otherwise, SD would still have an appeal pending and the 8th will still have to decide Marty's case on its merits? Do I have it right?
Bill, no it wouldn't make Marty's case moot, but it would provide binding authority requiring the 8th to reject Marty's position, assuming the issues are the same. A case becomes moot when there is no longer a controversy between the parties. For example, if SD amended our Constitution to make gay marriage lawful before the 8th issued a ruling, then Marty's case would become moot. Since that is unlikely, the 8th will still have to rule in Marty's case regardless of the SCOTUS's decision in the cases they accepted for cert.
So the 8th's ruling will be forthcoming regardless of the Supreme's decision, even if one possible ruling effectively mandates what the ruling has to be? They still have to dot those i's and cross the t's? Interesting. So BCB, what does that mean in terms of timing as to when those affected by the judgement can start having weddings (assuming SCOTUS decides in their favor)? Would they have to wait until the 8th makes it's ruling?
Not necessarily Bill. If the SCOTUS ruled against Ohio, the plaintiffs in Marty's case could ask Judge Schreier or the 8th to lift the stay, which in turn would put Schreier's order into effect before any final decision by the 8th.
Or... seeing the inevitable ruling in his opponents' favor, could Jackley just drop the appeal? If so, why would he not?
Too blind or too stoopid to see the writing on the wall. Fight on Jackley. Embellish your wingnut creds for wasting tax payer dollars fighting lost causes.
Yes, Marty could move to dismiss the appeal, and it is likely the 8th would grant such a motion after a SCOTUS ruling that seemed to control the outcome. The Plaintiffs still should be able to seek attorneys fees from the State, even after a voluntary dismissal.
Follow the money: marriage equality is just one wedge issue both the GOP and religious sects use to raise cash. No doubt we could list most since Cory does it, too.
Bear and Bill,
As I understand it, the attorney for the same-sex couples in this case has or is asking Judge Schreier to lift the stay she issued which would allow same-sex marriages immediately, providing a county will issue them.
If the motion to lift the stay is granted, how does that affect Marty's case?
Bill, thanks for the well thought out questions. I too am interested in how the court would treat the same-sex marriages in states that have issued marriage licenses in the event they uphold the state bans.
Marty is merely showing that he is more politician than AG. He has his eye on bigger offices and get's political mileage out of this wedge issue.
Forget justice, forget people, forget reality...Marty has a different agenda.
I hadn't thought about attorney's fees for the plaintiffs. That's another reason for Jackley to put the whole thing on hold until after SCOTUS rules in June. If the ruling goes against equal marriage wouldn't he be able to continue his quest to get the SD decision overturned at that time? Wouldn't being a good custodian of SD tax dollars require not needlessly running up the plaintiffs attorney bills until you knew you had a chance to win based on the SCOTUS decision? And if SCOTUS rules for marriage just drop the whole thing so as not to waste tax money?
Bear,
You appear to be a lawyer. This is a sincere question that is a tangent but relevant because Ohio includes a birth certificate question.
Historically, birth parents and biological parents almost always the same so birth certificate practice was effectively until a paternity test proved otherwise, there was no distinction in record keeping. Think, "not a significant issue. Don't worry about and prior to the medical/lineage issue, what difference does it make practically."
Birth adoption treatment with regard to biology/lineage is a patchwork of conflicting rules across the states and in most cases provides for no means to know there is a distinction.
The advent of sperm donors, cohabitation/multiple sex partners, and now same gender parenting has led to child rights advocates raising issues with regard to the child's right to know biological/medical/genetic history and/or contact the biological parent when they reach majority.
The laws in most states have been very slow to do anything despite everyone knowing something needs to be done. I got alerted to it in my college ethics class and we didn't even discuss medical issues, just right to know.
When politically we finally start to deal with this growing biology/lineage issue, I have two fears related to the inclusion of Ohio (because the federal judge said the birth certificate would list two dads. I don't know if either have a biological connection. Ohio currently avoids the possibility biology and legal parentage might be different) for consideration by SCOTUS:
1) The future needed reforms (independent of same gender parenting) might get caught up in the emotion of the gay rights issue. Instead of thinking of the child, people might say this is a way to target, retaliate, diminish same gender marriage and/or it might be used by people with interests other than the child. I'm thinking of those who like sealed records so they will never be found by the children they gave up or abandoned and insensitive to legitimate medical/genetic reasons to know one's biological parents.
2) The court rules so broadly on Ohio without thinking the birth certificate issue through all the way and precedent prevents walking the ruling back. This goes to the existing practice of presumption legal/biological match or most adoptions occurred within a family (unwed mother gives child to mother's sibling) so there is no process for data on biological parents.
In the event, especially with greater genetic marking and connection to family history, states finally decide to start dealing with modern realities and desire to have more hoops where non-biology is known (adoption and same gender marriage) that doesn't apply to likely biology/legal match, might a broad ruling because it may in the future mostly apply to children raised by same gender couples, get in the way of best solutions.
I know there has been movements in the child rights movement to have birth certificates for legal purposes (legal parents listed) and a notation where there is a question of biology that says there is another certificate that is biological so when a child reaching majority can access, especially only if there is a medical reason. That said, most child rights advocates want them to be able to contact their biological parents for any reason the child wants, even if sometimes it is done by a process that protects the person from existing family disruption (e.g. can't just knock on the door and say "I'm your son.")
Even before the issue of same gender parenting, there was resistance to such a notation because it would be percieved a Scarlett Letter on a certificate that says something isn't normal with this kids parents because the birth certificate is used by schools and so many others who might not be diligently confidential.
On the other hand, same gender parents might be a force for good on this issue because nobody needs a notation to know same gender parents (at least one for sure) aren't the biological parents. But, if the ruling is too broad, it won't matter what same gender parents want to contribute because of legal precedent.
We all know a significant consideration in diagnosis is related to family history. Knowledge of this improves care and chance of early diagosis and favorable prognosis/outcome.
As a nation, we have put little thought into the increasing need for dealing with this issue. Regardless of this ruling and this issue, we are "putting on the street" a lot more children whose legal parentage and biological parentage don't match than we did a few decades ago and none of the states have a very good system that acknowledges the child's rights.
For those of you who think we are in the dark ages with regard to marriage, I hope we can both agree we are behind with regard to legal/biology lineage issues and as it affects life and death, it can be argued is of greater consequence.
Bear, long ramble. You likely forgot there is a question. Is there a chance including the Ohio birth certificate case into this might cause unintended consequences? Is there a way for the SCOTUS to rule Yea on same gender marriage issues and Nay on the birth certificates? And, if they mess up the ruling with regard to inclusion of birth certificates, how do we walk back under the principle of precedent?
https://www.donorsiblingregistry.com/blog/?p=618
http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_27341729/archbishop-leads-1-500-pro-life-march-and?source=rss
And one party claims registering guns is unconstitutional.
https://www.thenation.com/article/195337/twilight-gay-marriage-movement
Troy,
That is a pretty long question and I'm not quite sure what you are asking.
In the Ohio case, what is the language used to include the birth certificate issue in relevance to same-sex marriage? How does any of your comment differ from single parent adoptions which are a growing trend?
Specifically what is Ohio's fear?
Roger, if Judge Schreier grants the motion to lift the stay, Marty would typically ask the 8th Circuit to issue a new stay. If the 8th denied such a request then SD would have to obey Judge Schreier's orders immediately, although Marty perhaps could then seek a stay from the SCOTUS. If I recall correctly, the SCOTUS has the authority to grant a stay while a case is pending in the circuit courts.
Troy, I don't have enough knowledge about the Ohio birth certificate issue that you describe to render any rational opinion, but it should be a given that any court decision can lead to unintended consequences, just like legislation. A few years ago the SD legislature proposed a very restrictive abortion law with the unintended consequence of making any doctor who provided an abortion without following the new proposed restrictions exactly subject to a 1st degree murder prosecution, and since the aborted fetus was under age, the physician was eligible for the death sentence. Fortunately the bill was defeated.
Do birth certificates always have two parents listed? What happens if a mother refuses to name a father?
Troy brings up a tangent I've been trying to address for years. Bioethics. Technology is advancing so quickly, our legal system hasn't even begun to keep up with it. I'm reading books right now about 'virtual humans' which are basically human consciousness 'machines' that won't have any biology whatsoever, but they'll be as sentient as any of us are, and most likely far more intelligent.
Meanwhile, as per Troy the things 'on the drawing board' that can be done with 'old school' biological stem cells, gene therapy and manipulation, etc. boggle the mind, and it seems we have very few, if any laws covering it. Should we? Or is information moving so quickly that the 'genie is already out of the bottle'?
Old Testament, meet Brave New World. I'm guessing our grandkids and their kids will just roll with it, but personally, I'm already feeling kind of like a fossil exhibit at SDSMT. Flemosaurus Rex. LOL.
"Flemosaurus Rex." Sounds like a respiratory infection. Hahahaha! Good one Bill.
Regarding science and humans, or humanoids and consciousness and all that stuff:
I find it concerning too. The law has to catch up fast. However, science is really exciting. I like to read what the futurists are imagining. I've always liked Popular Science when I was a kid on the farm. It was for dreaming and imagining.
This is the person whose book I'm reading currently, Deb. As I review their ideas, what I find conspicuously missing in the programming is what Jung calls 'the archetypes' and Anthony Stevens references as the 'two million year old self' or 'umwelt,' the set of instincts all in our species possess that make us uniquely 'human'.
My thought is 'don't leave home without it' but hey, what do I know. ;-)
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/life-after-life-trangender-ceo-martine-rothblatt-builds-robot-bina48-mind-clone/
Bear,
Thanks for responding. No problem you don't know. It is a tangent. We will find out in the summer.
Now if they could transplant a conscience into practically every wingnut out there,woo hoo! No more war on women or sovereign nations or the poor,the elderly,veterans,the IRS,the USPS,the EPA,living,breathing children and who the hell knows who else.
Poor widdle koch bros would have to buy pols who might actually tell them no once in awhile.
Troy, I don't think I'm moving the bases. Marriage is forming a household (a word I take that we are both using to mean something more meaningful than mere roommatery), making a lifelong commitment, and obtaining the recognition and benefits that various institutions grant to such endeavors in our society.
Ch,
You claim that gender diversity makes a material difference in all areas of society but claim the difference household with a man and woman vs two women or two men is trivial.
Said an another way, you claim for instance government needs the perspective of both genders but reject it for households.
Inconsistent and refute both your arguments because use of selective subjective standards leads to circular reasoning and confirmation bias, logic fallacies.
Yeah, Cory: like making a woman wait three days to exercise her right to a D & C because religion trumps equal protection under the law.
Discrimination is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Republican Party.
"Love is a Human Right
The right of adults to enter into consensual marriage is enshrined in international human rights standards.
Article 16, Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR):
Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution."
http://www.amnestyusa.org/our-work/issues/lgbt-rights/marriage-equality
A Blueprint for Federal Non-Discrimination Protections
http://hrc-assets.s3-website-us-east-1.amazonaws.com//files/documents/HRC-BeyondMarriageEquailty.pdf
Troy, I finally took a look at the Ohio birth certificate issue. As I understand it, Ohio, like many other states, places the biological names of any child born in Ohio on the original birth certificate. If that child is then adopted, the original birth certificate is placed under seal and an amended birth certificate is issued with the adoptive parents' names on it. See generally,
http://adoption.com/birth-certificates-for-adoptees/
In the Ohio case, a same sex couple was married in New York and adopted a child born in Ohio. Because of its opposition to same sex marriage, Ohio refused to issue an amended certificate with both adoptive parents' names. Instead it placed the name of only one of the adoptive parents on the birth certificate. The Ohio couple argues that this violates the Constitution's Full Faith and Credit Clause by refusing to recognize a marriage that was lawfully entered into under New York law.
I cannot see how requiring Ohio to apply the same birth certificate law to a legally married same sex couple would lead to unintended consequences, nor affect the laws relating to the issuance of birth certificates regardless of the parents' gender. Ultimately, the birth certificate issues you raise seem to apply across the board and have little or nothing to do with gender issues in marriage, hence, a ruling that Ohio must give full faith and credit to the New York marriage and apply Ohio birth certificate law exactly as it would for opposite sex marriages doesn't seem to affect your issue.
Bear,
Thanks. My fear is not a marriage issue but that SCOTUS will make a ruling that intentionally or intentionally makes biological information no longer permitted on birth certificate.
My understanding is Ohio separates birth certificate and adoption. I am not a lawyer so I could totally confused.
Troy, Assuming Ohio's practice is as described in my last post & link, I don't think the SCOTUS will issue any ruling prohibiting Ohio from placing genuine biological info on an original birth certificate, sealing it and then issuing an amended birth certificate with the adoptive parents names on it. As best I can tell there is no issue before the Court pertaining to whether Ohio can issue an original birth certificate with accurate biological info.
BCB, some sources I looked at on this — and similar — issues noted that the Full Faith and Credit clause, while quite clear in the Constitution has nonetheless rarely been evoked in cases before the SCOTUS. Does that square with your observation? And if so, any idea how that came to be so? Seems like the clause could be invoked whenever people's rights appear to differ from state to state. The 9th Amendment also seems to get short shrift for whatever reason.
Regarding the 9th Amendment:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html/amdt9_user.html#amdt9_hd1
Bill, I would speculate that the reason the Full Faith and Credit Clause is not invoked very often is because most state officials recognize the obligations of the clause and litigation to enforce it becomes unnecessary. In addition, most state laws operate only within a state's geographical jurisdiction rather than create a status for a person.
Interestingly, some states still have "common law" marriages, while SD no longer recognizes them under SD law. Nevertheless, SD does treat people who comply with another state's common law marriage requirements as being married when the couple moves to SD, and this is in compliance with full faith and credit.
Similarly, if a married couple obtains a lawful divorce in another state and then moves to SD, SD recognizes the divorce.
Good overview here of the four specific cases that have been bundled into one for SCOTUS review and decision. Looks like the question is being framed in the context of the 14th Amendment primarily. I wonder if the FF&CC wil be invoked (or any other clauses or amendments,) or if they will just focus on the 14th and decide exclusively on that basis.
http://time.com/3672404/supreme-court-gay-marriage-plaintiffs/
Bill, another excellent source of information is the SCOTUSblog where you can find the actual Petitions for cert, responses, briefs for all sides, including amicus curiae, citations to the lower court decisions, and analysis by legal experts.
Good idea, BCB. I'll check it out and come up with a million more questions for you. LOL. Thanks, by the way, for your patience and insight. Much appreciated.
http://www.adn.com/article/20150116/walker-administration-asks-9th-circuit-pause-same-sex-marriage-appeal-pending
Bill, one more observation about the SCOTUS blog. On the days that the Supreme Court issues decisions the blog runs a live feed starting about 30 minutes before the first decision during which attorneys take and answer questions from readers. The blog then reports, with comments and explanations, each final decision as soon as it is announced by the Court. It also reports on the Court's grants of cert.