We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page
Thursday, March 28. 2013
If marriage is primarily a legal contract, then why can't two elderly sisters marry? It might very well be to their advantage, and they may love eachother deeply. Or does marriage have to involve sex? If so, who from the government is going to check to make sure that sex is happening? God knows, the world is full of sexless marriages.
And, yes, what about polygamy? Why not? It's not Christian but it is Old Testament Jewish and it is modern (quietly) Mormon - and Islam. How many wives did David have? I read that Solomon had 200 wives and 800 concubines, or maybe the other way around. I do not know when the Israelites gave up polygamy.
The whole topic becomes more and more absurd and confusing as cultural traditions are undermined. Gays can get married while the heterosexual people are now up to 50% childbirth out of wedlock. Crazy world. It's called cultural change.
Then I noticed this: Kagan ’09: ‘There Is No Constitutional Right To Same-Sex Marriage’. That statement signifies to me that she is an unwise person. The Constitution does not set up government to dole out rights to the people, but rather to protect the mostly-unlimited rights of a free people. But I am repeating myself.
Freedom and privacy require no "penumbra." Back to the US Constitution, the American social contract:
Tracked: Mar 29, 16:30
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)
Will be a real boom for family law attorneys. Who is the mother and why does he deserve custody.....
Marriage, the union of a man and a woman to create a third entity, is a deeply spiritual and mystical concept that makes little sense to the highlly materialistic culture we've devolved to. When you try to define it in strictly materialistic, legalistic concepts it quickly becomes absurd.
I could care less if two men or two woman want to be recognized as a unit for the purposes of estate and benefits purposes and the states are willing to honor that. Just don't call it marriage because it cannot physically or spiritually be marriage.
One time, some years ago, Bird Dog posted a tribute to some acquaintance (or family?) in recognition of some significant anniversary of marriage, if I recall correctly. The poem or story in question referenced marriage being something akin to two trees growing near enough each other that eventually their roots co-mingled... or something similar. I don't recall the exact piece, which is why I am posting this - Does BD remember this, and could he perhaps re-post or at least send me a link or post a link here. I've searched for it several times over the years to no avail. Thanks in advance! -MWP
The battle for control of language - our very vocabulary is being lost everyday.
As the traditional meaning of familiar words such as Marriage, "The union of a man and a woman to create a third entity" are destroyed, perhaps new words need to be created retaining and preserving the meaning of the old.
Suggestions for the new word? Other words that have been lost?
ObamaCare does not equal Health Insurance
Assault Weapon does not equal pistol, shotgun, semiautomatic
Gay ≠ Happy
Rainbow ≠ Inclusive
Tolerant ≠ Open-minded
Diverse ≠ Heterogeneous
Investment = Tax hike
Growth = Control
Education = Reeducation
Weather = Climate
Bad = Cool
Good = Evil
White = Racist
Re: Kagan... Any legal experts here know if it is true that this recent member of the Supreme Court of the United States of America had never actually presided over a court case of any kind prior to being appointed and subsequently approved by the Senate? Similarly, I hear, Ms. Kagan had never argued a case before any judge prior to being advanced to the position of Solicitor General. Could this be true? Is this entire administration an affirmative action administration, advanced for reasons not specific to any practical experience for the positions in question? Yikes!
There are certain individual right that are enumerated in the US Constitution by way of the Bill of Rights, and one might interpret Kagan's statement in that manner. As for SSM, I agree with others who say it is not a Federal issue, but if a government issue, it belongs with the separate states to decide which unions between individuals deserve legal recognition and which of them do not. Beyond that, whether two people wish to consider themselves bound as a couple and to live their lives together, I take the true Conservative approach and prefer less government intrusion and more personal freedom.
The problem with polygamy for guys is that each gal will want her own American Express Gold Card.
Plus, each will want half your stuff upon divorce. If you have more than two wives, the math will kill you.
I am still trying to figure out why so many straight people are so up in arms over this!
People who don't go to church are ranting, quoting the bible...
People who have been divorced several times...
People who have had more than their share of put-of-wedlock sex...
I'm just not following this unified horror for some reason...
Yes, of course. All the people who disagree with you are hypocrites. It is logically impossible that anyone against gay marriage could have an honest reason for that and live out their professed values.
Furthermore, it is well-known that all supporters of gay marriage are decent, upstanding people who don't have anything to gain from it and always live up to their ideals entirely. Every one.
Nice black-and-white world you live in there. It sure makes political decisions easier, doesn't it?
Village Idiot, your screen name fits you perfectly. Rather than posting a politely written reply to L, you chose to go on the attack, impugn L's motives, and fling insults. To me it looks like this is a conversation you'd like to stifle because someone has expressed a different point of view than yours. As I see it, you did what you accused L of doing, and IMO that's not a winning argument.
So Agent, you agree that L’s argument parodied by AVI is a losing argument. AVI’s argument is therefore successful since its goal was to bring L’s into its deserved disrepute.
Duh: the Idiot's post wasn't a parody (look up the definition of parody: an exaggerated imitation of something else), and it wasn't an "argument". It was a snarky putdown, whose intent was to insult another poster to cut off debate. Had it been an actual ARGUMENT on SSM, I would have liked to have read it. My own thoughts on the matter have evolved over time. I'm still open to the ideas others may hold, and I respect the positions of those whose take on the matter differs from mine. AVI took the easy way out and chose to insult L instead of presenting a reasoned counter-argument on SSM.
Nice try, EG, but Big Fail.
I did not exaggerate his/her argument. That is what L actually said, s/he just didn't realise it. The accusation of hypocrisy was pretty general. Unified horror doesn't admit of too many meanings. I brought the bad news into focus. L was insulting, far more so than I. I noted that one argument was stupid; s/he accused a significant fraction of the citizenry of hypocrisy, making no additional logical points. I pointed out that the insult could not possibly be justified at that level, and was thus a foolish comment.
My tone was indeed insulting in return. I think that was appropriate, and at least has the advantage of being framed around statements I can back up: that L cannot have more than anecdotes and impressions for those generalisations, and yet makes categorical statements about those who disagree on the point.
As for your attempting to score points off my blogname, I wrote about that two years ago. Thank you for another notch in my handle.
L could be describing a class of leftists: not a churchgoer or even a Christian, but quotes the Bible - or rather strawman distortions of it - telling us we believe stuff we don't believe...active nonmarital sexual life...serial divorcee...yeah, that describes quite a few.
Excellent unintended consequence of same gender marriage, mobsters marrying so that they can't be compelled to testify against each other.
Gay marriage is about special rights not constitutional rights. If you are for gay marriage and opposed to every other variation such as polygamy then you are discriminating. I would actually feel better about this entire effort if the activist supported all variation and perversities rather then this one variation/perversity. It is inexplicable that in a free country with a constitution that declares us all equal that every minority seeks to find something in the constitution that makes their situatiuon "special". We have reached the point where "some animals are more equal then others".
I don't have a dog in this fight as I have been divorced twice and yes, the math will kill you. However, I pointed out to my niece, who was posting her support for gay marriage on facebook, that this opens a wide door and polygamy is perfectly capable of walking through it. She doesn't think so and is old enough to know better but the youth never seem to look ahead for the next move.
Think of what would have happened if you'd divorced both wives at the same time with equal claims on your marriage assets at that time. Not to mention, who gets the kids? Who gets visitation? Do the kids cycle through each spouse in turn for visitation? What if one was the biological parent but another was the primary care giver?
Polygamy under our modern equal partner marriage could get ugly in dissolution.
Have you asked your niece, if it need not be two sexes, why does it need to be two persons? And, while asking that, have you reminded her that only bigots and haters think they can tell people whom to love?
#5 Pajak: Elena Kagan is probably one of the least qualified people ever to sit on the Supreme Court. She was a practicing attorney for about 1 1/2 years as an entry-level associate with Williams & Connolly. That's it. Virtually her entire career has been in ivory tower academia, or for a short time as a policy geek in the Clinton White House. Most of her success has been based on playing the "progressive" political correctness and gender cards.
Contrast her career with Harriet Miers, Bush's nominee who was roundly dismissed as being "unqualified" to serve on the Court. Miers, in contrast to Kagan, was: (1) A longtime trial litigator; (2) first managing partner of a major Texas law firm; (3) first woman president of the Dallas Bar Association; (4) first woman president of the Texas bar association; (5) chair of the American Bar Association's committee on multi-jurisdictional practice; (6) named numerous times by the National Law Journal as one of the nation's top 50 woman lawyers; (7) elected member of the Dallas City Council; (8) five-year chair of the Texas lottery commission, who came in and cleaned up the corruption that had existed before she got there.
(2) for Harriet Miers should read: "first woman managing partner of a major Texas law firm."
Thank you, Jim. Just as I suspected. We live in a world of opposites.
Or murder. There isn't a constitutional right to murder or anything, but neither should the government be interfering in that. People should be able to define murder any way they want, and the Constitution expressly limits the government's right to interfere in any way with them doing that.
Yes, how does your neighbor murdering someone impact you? How does that harm your life or what you are doing? Your neighbor shouldn't be discriminated against because he likes to murder. It is his right to live out his life as an unmolested murderer. He should be free to do as he chooses so that he can be happy. How dare you judge him and place your morals on him!
Speaking of dog in the fight, if we can redefine wife/husband in the relationship to another mammal, how about making my dog a child? I spend lots on him, he has sugar and I buy insulin, he went blind, I took him for surgery, I feed him, talk to him, walk him, clean up after him, worry about him, etc. It sure would be nice for tax purposes if because I love him so, and it goes without saying he loves me unconditionally like a child, how about that being the next family definition?
Our cat got glaucoma and we had to buy human medicines at the pharmacy to treat her, and we were shocked to find that she was not covered by our family medical insurance policy. Absolutely unacceptable that pets should not be given the same equality as humans. And I understand that Obamacare still does not cover our animal companions. Shameful.
"Just don't call it marriage because it cannot physically or spiritually be marriage.>>>>>>>>""
Most problems in the world are caused because people are not capable on minding their 'own business'......
Oughta be a mandatory thing, to learn how to mind your own business,before you graduate from H. S.
Happy Easterbunny to ya'll!
If you read that Solomon had 200 wives and 800 concubines, you weren't reading a Bible at the time.
For the record (1 Kings 11:3), Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines.
Mormons haven't practiced polygamy since the late 1800's when it was outlawed. There is no such thing as a 'fundamentalist Mormon" with more than one wife - they have nothing whatsoever to do with the Mormon church. Any member who condones or practices polygamy is excommunicated.
Why isn't polygamy workable now? Matthew 6:24 - "Man cannot serve two masters."
Nice try, Bret, but no cigar. We all know better, and so do you.
I've been LDS my whole life, living in Utah, Texas, Ohio, Minnesota, Washington and Japan. There are no polygamous Mormons.
Unfortunately, the media has perpetuated the myth of "fundamentalist Mormons". Just because someone claims to belong to the church doesn't mean that they do. They have no affiliation whatsoever with the Church.
Ashkenazi Jews were prohibited from polygamous marriage by a specific ban from a rabbi in or around the year 1000. These were Jews from mainly European countries. Sephardi Jews, mainly from the Mid East and North Africa and Muslim countries, were still practicing polygamy into the 1940's (though it wasn't common); when they fled or were exiled from their home countries to Israel, the Israelis said that the already-present marriages could continue, but the next generation would be unable to have polygamous marriages. So now, all Jews are monogamous (unless they go out of the realm of the Jewish religion).