Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
GA and NY Courts uphold bans on gay marriage
Posted by: McQ on Thursday, July 06, 2006

One of the dominant arguments for a federal Constitutional amendment for a ban on gay marriage has been that the attempts to do so by the people of several states through amendment of their state's Constitution has been blocked by the courts through various means.

Of course here at QandO, I believe I speak for all of us when I say we believe this is something which should be settled at a state level (if I've misspoken, my pards will let me know).

Today the Georgia Supreme Court unanimously reaffirmed the constitutionality of the state amendment banning gay marriage by denying a previously held technical argument on which it was overturned:
Georgia's amendment banning gay marriage is constitutional, the state's highest court ruled Thursday.

The unanimous decision effectively reinstates the ban, which was thrown out by a lower court judge in May.

The state Supreme Court justices ruled that the amendment to the state constitution, approved by 76 percent of voters in November 2004, does not violate the single-subject rule by addressing other issues such as civil unions in addition to marriage.
Note the grounds for opposing the amendment: it is a violation of the single-subject rule (it discusses other issues within the amendment and, the argument goes, is therefore confusing to voters). Here is the amendment as it was printed on the ballot:
Amend the Georgia constitution to recognize that marriage is only the union of a man and a woman; no same-sex marriages from other states or jurisdictions would be recognized by the state; no divorces could be granted by a Georgia judge in the case of same-sex marriages.
When it was originally overturned, the stated reason was the violation of the single subject rule:
Fulton County Superior Court Judge Constance Russell in May created a political firestorm when she threw out the ban, agreeing with opponents that the ban was unconstitutional.

Russell did not rule on the merits of allowing gay couples to marry. Instead, she said the measure violates the state constitution's single-subject rule because it required voters to decide on marriage and civil unions in a single amendment.
So the argument was a technical one and didn't address the issue per se. Frankly I tend to agree with the Georgia Supreme Court, I'm not sure how what is discussed in the amendment as worded is about any other than one subject.

To me the argument comes down to whether the amendment is talking about all unions when it uses the term marriage (to include gays) and thus excluding gays from any sort of future union or whether it reserves the term exclusively for a man and a woman but doesn't rule out something such as civil unions for gays.

Presently the law in Georgia doesn't recognize civil unions for gays. Is such legislation and recognition possible in the near future? That is where any future argument or activism should now be focused:
Opponents of the ban expressed deep disappointment over the court's decision. They had argued for months that the amendment could be interpreted to prohibit the Legislature from in the future allowing civil unions between same-sex couples. Georgia law does not currently recognize civil unions.
While I don't agree with their argument that the amendment addresses more than one subject, I do think the points the opponents of this amendment raise are fair points, and points which need to be addressed and clarified by Georgia's legislators. And the sooner, the better.

UPDATE: The Court of Appeals (NY's highest state court) does the same thing in NY:
In New York, the Court of Appeals said in a 4-2 decision that the state's marriage law is constitutional and clearly limits marriage to a union between a man and a woman.

Any change in the law would have to come from the state Legislature, Judge Robert Smith said.

"We do not predict what people will think generations from now, but we believe the present generation should have a chance to decide the issue through its elected representatives," Smith wrote.
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
Your headline is a bit sloppy. NYS had no bigot amendment; indeed it did not even have a DOMA.
 
Written By: KipEsquire
URL: http://www.kipesquire.com
Praise God!
 
Written By: James Padgett
URL: http://
Judge Russell’s decision was especially chilling here in GA because if this amendment’s wording was too broad, then the wording of most conceivable amendments could be found to be too broad. It went far beyond simply thwarting the will of the people here in GA on this one issue. This would have set a truly frightening precedent for judicial power. My hat is off to our state Supreme Court. Good job!
 
Written By: BrianOfAtlanta
URL: http://
Kip is essentially right (leaving aside "bigot amendment" whatever that may be). The NY Court of Appeals ruled that (i) the NY Domestic Relations Act did not contemplate same-sex marriages (thus limiting its application to opposite-sex couples only) and that (ii) the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage violated neither the due process nor equal protection clauses of the State Constitution. The CofA basically said that the decision of whether same-sex couples could marry needed to be made by the Legislature — i.e. the way that Georgia did it.


The GA Supreme Court simply ruled that a legislative Act passed muster (it didn’t rule on a direct challenge to the Act).

This strikes me as the best way to go about it — leave up to the legislatures or referenda. Even though I don’t agree with gay marriage, if my state elects to allow such unions I’ll deal with it, just like I deal with a bunch of other stupid laws that I don’t necessarily agree with. That’s democracy after all. We can’t have everything we want.
 
Written By: MichaelW
URL: http://
Kip is essentially right ...
I agree and have adjusted the title accordingly.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
Judge Russell’s decision was especially chilling here in GA because if this amendment’s wording was too broad, then the wording of most conceivable amendments could be found to be too broad.
Well that’s the trouble with Constitutions then, isn’t it? Too broad.

I don’t know the GA Constitution, and I will take the word of those that suggest that this was the appropriate Constitutional decision.
But I can’t help but think that this is another slap in the face. Not to the judiciary that originally struck it down, not to the people of Georgia that passed the amendment, but a slap in the face to the idea of liberty.

It’s a sad state of affairs when the amendment process devolved from the heady days of traditionally granting freedoms to the dispiriting present where there are so many who wish oppress them… and succeeds.

Of course here at QandO, I believe I speak for all of us when I say we believe this is something which should be settled at a state level…
Congratulations, Georgia. You only serve to reaffirm the stereotypes that so disquiets Your Man McQ.
 
Written By: PogueMahone
URL: http://
You only serve to reaffirm the stereotypes that so disquiets Your Man McQ.
And what stereotypes are those, Pogue?
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
Why,… this one, McQ.

With the ascendancy of a red state evangelical movement the south is back for blood revenge, thundering a bastardized version of Christianity from pulpits, preaching hatred and bigotry and the end times and drawing the masses of the disenfranchised into ever growing mega churches and mobilizing armies of activists.
Surely you remember.

I’m sure your baiting me, but...
Carry on.
 
Written By: PogueMahone
URL: http://
I’m sure your baiting me, but...
Carry on.
No, no, nothing so dastardly ... I was just wondering who was doing the stereotyping in this case.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
No, no, nothing so dastardly…
Dammit! And I am soooo in the mood.

I had URL links ready to go and everything! :)
 
Written By: PogueMahone
URL: http://
Well Pogue it’s called Democracy not Anarchy...Now IF it had legalized Gay Marriage I’d be upset, BUT have to say well the people of GA spoke. "fraid you’re gonna have to be the same way.

Constitutions are about process, structure and limts. They set permissible metes and bounds of behavior. They relate to a society’s vision of the Good and Just Society. So when folks amend they are adjusting the metes and bounds. IF people weren’t inherently evil/flawed/limited we wouldn’t need ’em but as they are we gotsta have’em.

Libertarians seem to have less problem with fewer metes and bounds, it doesn’t make you better just more comfortable with fewer. Most of us feel that "some things" just aren’t right and we don’t see the need to accept them. Note the word, "Accept"... we might have to TOLERATE them, but not accept them.

Gays can vote, speak, assemble, and print no rights being lost there and I have to tolerate gay speech, assemblage, voting for marriage amendments, and publiciations on gay issues. But I do not have to accept them. I will pour gasoline here and say, gays are like Nazi’s to me. You can be a Nazi, if you want, run for office as a Nazi, publish in the Nazi Gazette, BUT don’t expect me to accept that being a Nazi is like being a Republican, ’cept we just don’t have as many Jewish friends. Being a Nazi or being gay is NOT the "same as" the liberal hetero-normal life that most us us lead.

I think that’s what most of these marriage amendments are about, acceptance v. toleration. The toleration battle has been won.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
I will pour gasoline here and say, gays are like Nazi’s to me.
Oh, goody. Duuude, thanks man, I needed this…
Constitutions are about process, structure and limts.
Yes. And according to the people of Georgia; limits to freedom and the process to destroy them.
They relate to a society’s vision of the Good and Just Society.
Because you believe that it is good that Gays are unable to have their relationship recognized by society and therefore justice is served.
IF people weren’t inherently evil/flawed/limited we wouldn’t need ’em but as they are we gotsta have’em.
Evil, flawed gay people.
Most of us feel that "some things" just aren’t right and we don’t see the need to accept them. Note the word, "Accept"... we might have to TOLERATE them, but not accept them.
And gay people should just consider themselves lucky to be TOLERATED.

Gays can vote, speak, assemble, and print no rights being lost there and I have to tolerate gay speech, assemblage, voting for marriage amendments, and publiciations on gay issues.
Well thanks, Joe. Thank you for your tolerance. I think we should have a Constitutional Amendment stating that people should have the right to … well … only if Joe tolerates it. Your benevolence is uncanny.

But I do not have to accept them.
By LAW.

I think that’s what most of these marriage amendments are about, acceptance v. toleration. The toleration battle has been won.
And let freedom ring.
Freedom of tolerance by society, of course. Not freedom for the individual.

Thanks, Joe. You’re to be commended for taking one for the team.
 
Written By: PogueMahone
URL: http://
Pogue,

Now I am a supporter of gay marriage rights, but the amendment does not conform to the stereotype as represented by the essay you excerpt. You can oppose gay marriage without seeking "blood revenge" or "preaching hatred and bigotry and the end times."

Moreover, whatever may be wrong with being opposed to gay marriage it in no way can be called a "bastardized version of Christianity." Myself I am in favor of it as I said (and I am not attacking churches either, proscribing certain behaviors is at the core of religious observance and that includes many things I have no problem with) but if anything, accepting gay marriage would be a bastardized version of Christianity. I might prefer the bastardized version, but then it is often said I am a bastard myself.

Observing Christian strictures causes great difficulty for many people, and that observing such norms would give gays great difficulty because the church views the behavior as sinful shows no hatred or bigotry any more than the church saying I can’t have sex outside of marriage shows a hatred of me. Are many who use such justifications filled with hateful bigotry (so hold the links proving it is so?) Of course, but many are not. Is it reasonable to expect gays to forgo homosexual relationships? No, but being unreasonable does not mean hatred or bigotry. I think that is especially true since I feel you are at times unreasonable as well;)

IF people weren’t inherently evil/flawed/limited we wouldn’t need ’em but as they are we gotsta have’em.
Evil, flawed gay people.
I disagree with Joe on this issue (and strongly disagree with some of what he says here) but I think you are misrepresenting what he is saying in this passage. He is not saying gay people are evil or flawed (though he may, in fact, believe so) but rather that people in general are evil/flawed/limited and therefore we need these constitutional processes regardless of how distasteful the particular outcome may be at times.
 
Written By: Lance
URL: http://
You can oppose gay marriage without seeking "blood revenge" or "preaching hatred and bigotry and the end times."
Well I’m with you there, Lance. The excerpt was merely to show McQ of the stereotypes I was mentioning that other people cast upon the so-called “peckerwood”. Nothing more.
I might prefer the bastardized version, but then it is often said I am a bastard myself.
Uh… You bastard. ;)
I think that is especially true since I feel you are at times unreasonable as well;)
Really!?
I consider myself to be the voice of reason. Well… one of my voices, anyway.
I disagree with Joe on this issue (and strongly disagree with some of what he says here) but I think you are misrepresenting what he is saying in this passage. He is not saying gay people are evil or flawed…
Uh huh.
Queen threatens Bishop.
I will pour gasoline here and say, gays are like Nazi’s to me.
Written By: Joe

Check mate.
 
Written By: PogueMahone
URL: http://
So let me ask you Pogue, since we all seem to be in the mood for a little Molotov tossing : do you condemn the beliefs of approximately 3/4 of the world’s population?

I throw the 3/4 number out there becuase the religions that 3/4 of the world’s populations identify with are adamantly opposed to same-sex unions and same-sex sexual relations. In this group we have : Jews, Christians (of most sects), Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims, and Daoists.

Are you honestly saying that the beliefs of all of these billions of people are simply hate filled, ignorant, and bigoted? If so, is this not simply an attack on the religious?

 
Written By: The Poet Omar
URL: http://
So let me ask you Pogue, since we all seem to be in the mood for a little Molotov tossing
Bombs away, motherscratcher.
do you condemn the beliefs of approximately 3/4 of the world’s population?
Well, it’s more like ⅞. But nevermind…

I throw the 3/4 number out there becuase the religions that 3/4 of the world’s populations identify with are adamantly opposed to same-sex unions and same-sex sexual relations.
You’re assuming that ¾ of the world’s population actually observe the tenants of the religion to which they identify. Many Jews eat pork, many Catholics use birth control, many Muslims frequent gentleman’s clubs, and many gays identify with the various religions that you site.

Are you honestly saying that the beliefs of all of these billions of people are simply hate filled, ignorant, and bigoted?
You forgot ugly, fearful, selfish, and superstitious.
 
Written By: PogueMahone
URL: http://
IF people weren’t inherently evil/flawed/limited we wouldn’t need ’em but as they are we gotsta have’em.
Evil, flawed gay people.
Nope, Pogue, whoe quote:
Constitutions are about process, structure and limts. They set permissible metes and bounds of behavior. They relate to a society’s vision of the Good and Just Society. So when folks amend they are adjusting the metes and bounds. IF people weren’t inherently evil/flawed/limited we wouldn’t need ’em but as they are we gotsta have’em.
Bzzzzzt, Wrong anwer Poque, nice try...The quote applies to ALL folks. Folks are inherently evil/flawed/limited You don’t have to buy into Origianl Sin to understand the necessity for laws and constitutions... the metes and bounds. You need to read the post for what it SAYS not what you WANT it to say.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
Well thanks, Joe. Thank you for your tolerance. I think we should have a Constitutional Amendment stating that people should have the right to … well … only if Joe tolerates it. Your benevolence is uncanny.
Pogue it ain’t just me. It was the VOTERS of Georgia. And you’re welcome for my tolerance. Actually you’re not, it’s what I owe 97% of the US population...Sorry Pogue YOUR side didn’t make the case to the consumers of ideas in the market place of ideas and they didn’t buy the product.

To be honest let’s just turn this around...YOU’RE the one with the ego problem here. POGUE thinks gay marriage is a right, so by all means let’s all accede to HIS/HER demands.

 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
Pogue you don’t present any limits, so let me throw something else back at you as a hypothetical:
Is human sacrifice OK, IF all members of the cult accept it? I mean can there be any limits to freedom? Does society get to place any limits on human’s actions? I ask this seriously because you talk about the freedom of individuals and said society should butt out. So where do we draw the line? Is there a line?
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
If you dont want gays to get married, then live up to your own words you so called "conservatives"(most of you are on your second or third marriage). Lets push an amendment that will BAN DIVORCE? Unamerican? You are trambling my civil liberties? Now who is having a hard time?

This is pure political manipulation. What is so sacred about marriage in America if 50% of the time it ends up in divorce?

I highly suggest this program. Most of the time poeple are actually manipulated into their believes. More than likely you have been manipulated into your current state of mind. Think for yourself for once.
Read this story "A Country Divided"
 
Written By: Egypto
URL: hhttp://abcnews.go.com/2020/print?id=2140483
Bzzzzzt, Wrong anwer Poque, nice try...The quote applies to ALL folks. Folks are inherently evil/flawed/limited
I call bullsh*t.

Let’s examine, shall we…
Constitutions are about process, structure and limts. They set permissible metes and bounds of behavior. They relate to a society’s vision of the Good and Just Society. So when folks amend they are adjusting the metes and bounds. IF people weren’t inherently evil/flawed/limited we wouldn’t need ’em but as they are we gotsta have’em.
First of all, Constitutions traditionally set structure and limits to government. They traditionally set metes and bounds of behavior of government. Not the people. Just read the Bill of Rights. Government shall make no law, government can’t do this, government can’t do that, the people have the right to this/that, and so on… So I believe your premise to be wrong.
And since we are talking about the GA amendment banning gay marriage, your statement of, “So when folks amend they are adjusting the metes and bounds. IF people weren’t inherently evil/flawed/limited we wouldn’t need ’em but as they are we gotsta have’em.”, sorry Joe, you’re suggesting that it is the behavior and wishes of gay people that is evil/flawed and so we “gotsta have’em”.
Your words, man. And your Nazi comment doesn’t help you.

I ask this seriously because you talk about the freedom of individuals and said society should butt out. So where do we draw the line? Is there a line?
Sure there’s a line. One’s freedom’s ceases to exist when they infringe upon the freedoms of someone else, but of course. In a nutshell, your freedom to swing your fist ends at my nose.

POGUE thinks gay marriage is a right, so by all means let’s all accede to HIS/HER demands.
Umm. I’m not demanding anything. I’m not the one pushing for laws banning something. I’m just willing to let the natural progression of the Human Condition move forward. And public opinion data suggests that young people are increasingly willing to accept a legal union between members of the same sex. You, along with the people of GA and many other states, are the one’s demanding that something should not exist, ever.

Make no mistake, Joe. Same sex marriage will be accepted, eventually. It’s just, again, the natural progression of the Human Condition. And as interfaith marriages and interracial marriages were once intolerable and unacceptable but are now commonplace, so too will same sex marriage.

They’re here, they’re queer… get used to it.
 
Written By: PogueMahone
URL: http://
Egypto you mean the Catholic ideal of marriage? And I might note that the religious have a lower incidence of divorce, so mayhap Egypto that the 2nd-4th marriages aren’t with, at least the Religious Right, but with more tolerant and open-mided folks in the centre and left... just a thought.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
First of all, Constitutions traditionally set structure and limits to government. They traditionally set metes and bounds of behavior of government. Not the people. Just read the Bill of Rights. Government shall make no law, government can’t do this, government can’t do that, the people have the right to this/that, and so on… So I believe your premise to be wrong.
Not unsurprsinly I’d say you’re wrong. The CONSTITUTION is about the structure of government, the BoR is NOT the Constitution... and yes the Constitution sets out metes and bounds and defines the Enlightment, plus more modern editions, of the vision of the Good and Just society.
Sure there’s a line. One’s freedom’s ceases to exist when they infringe upon the freedoms of someone else, but of course. In a nutshell, your freedom to swing your fist ends at my nose.
So you’re saying that the First Church of Christ Cannibals WOULD be acceptable in Pogue-Land, as long as all the members understood and accepted that they might be killed and eaten on Easter? I’m trying to "operationalize" your thinking here. Is there a limit that a society can set on individual behavior? This goes beyond gay marriage, abortion and the like, can society confine the mentally ill, is there any limit on what a person can do with or to another, AS LONG AS BOTH PARTIES AGREE?
As to the Invetible march of Human Progress, well Mao, Lenin and Hitler said the same thing, so did W E B DuBois... I’ll leave that for future generations.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
Pogue,

Joe’s Nazi comment is a different matter, but his statement about what he is saying in reference to the evil/flawed/limited quote is exactly how I read it, and your reading is tendentious. As I said, Joe may actually feel that way, and the Nazi quote certainly doesn’t help him, though I can think of more benign interpretations. You have a point (not endorsing it, but you have a point) about the logic behind the quote, but just because you feel his logic is flawed doesn’t mean you get to assert he meant what you are claiming he meant.

I suggest that if your goal is to show Joe is a bigot you should stick to the Nazi bit.

This gets to an issue I have often struggled with and was touched upon in my emphatic defense earlier of Rush Limbaugh as the personification of all that is good, right and wonderful about the world, er, well that maybe he is ok, er,that maybe he is not as awful as some think, er, maybe he just isn’t as awful as Pogue thinks or something like that. Let us just say that I think it is okay if someone listens to Rush and laughs at his portrayal of their sometime political enemies without necessarily being an atavistic toad.

I think the term Nazi and fascist gets thrown around all too often. I have a real problem when people suggest seriously that someone is a fascist or Nazi without backing it up. Hence the constant and seriously advanced assertions of Republicans or this administration being fascist is not only wrong, but it shows a real ignorance of what a fascist is, kind of like calling Bill Clinton a communist (despite his financial shenanigans with Red China, that was greed and lust for office, not ideology.) However, it is certainly okay(or at least a totally different issue)to use the terms to demean, especially humorously an authoritarian streak in someone, as long as there is no real representation that they are in fact Nazis. I often refer to the anti-smoking Nazis, which hardly means I think the American Heart Association is going to begin gassing Jews, gypsies, gays and other supposed undesirables. It doesn’t even mean I dislike people with such impulses. Therefore terms like feminazi don’t bother me a bit.

I suggest that many of those who are offended by the term (not you Pogue, really, I am not just sucking up oh wise token liberal) take it seriously because they tend to throw the term around seriously themselves and therefore don’t recognize the insult as being a bit milder than they imagine. They actually believe the Bush administration has not seized control of everything because of their heroic efforts to oppose and expose the nefarious plot. Bush isn’t a man trying to balance freedoms he holds dear with legitimate concerns and seeing the scales a bit differently than they, he is a Mussolini wannabe who gladly orders the deaths of innocents (I read it on Kos all the time) but just can’t quite get the votes to do so. Of course they miss the point that Mussolini didn’t allow votes to stop him once in office, but hey, we are not talking logic here. (Pogue, about the token liberal comment, I know you are not the only regular liberal commenter on this site these days, but I left mk out on purpose. I guess most intelligent liberals would thank me.)

Another way to use the term Nazi well may be how Joe is using it, but hold his feet to the fire and find out, because it isn’t clear he is, and with a spirit as generous as mine that may mean he crossed the line, if only inadvertently. That legitimate, though dangerous if people are not willing to submit you are being hyperbolic, method is to use an extreme example so as to make your point clear. The goal is to get someone to admit that if the point holds for Nazi’s, then it holds true for other people. What Joe may mean is that if he has to tolerate Nazi’s then he can tolerate gays. Joe obviously disapproves of gays behavior, it is not obvious that he feels the term "like" means same, as in he has a similar level of disapproval. Rather he could mean they are alike only in the sense he disapproves. Joe was unclear and his gasoline reference implies purposely so.

Obviously he is trying to get a rise, I suggest you allow him a measure of success, but rise in the right place and force him to be clear.
 
Written By: Lance
URL: http://
Ummm, I assume nobody would read it this way, but when I said here:
I often refer to the anti-smoking Nazis, which hardly means I think the American Heart Association is going to begin gassing Jews, gypsies, gays and other supposed undesirables. It doesn’t even mean I dislike people with such impulses.
that I don’t even mean I dislike such people, I meant people with the impulse to ban smoking. I do dislike people who wish to begin gassing Jews, gypsies, gays and other supposed undesirables. That is on general principle mind you, not merely because I suspect I would be included in the undesirables category. I would hope no one would think otherwise, but some people (which computerized response machine could I possibly be referring to?) are looking for any excuse.
 
Written By: Lance
URL: http://
You have a point (not endorsing it, but you have a point) about the logic behind the quote, but just because you feel his logic is flawed doesn’t mean you get to assert he meant what you are claiming he meant.
Well of course I believe Joe’s logic to be flawed. And as far as asserting what Joe meant with that quote, well it was a conclusion – not limited to that quote – consummated by Joe’s other rationales.
• Most of us feel that "some things" just aren’t right and we don’t see the need to accept them. Note the word, "Accept"... we might have to TOLERATE them, but not accept them.
• Gays can vote, speak, assemble, and print no rights being lost there and I have to tolerate gay speech, assemblage, voting for marriage amendments, and publiciations on gay issues. But I do not have to accept them.
• I will pour gasoline here and say, gays are like Nazi’s to me.
• Being a Nazi or being gay is NOT the "same as" the liberal hetero-normal life that most us us lead.


So you’ll forgive me if I asserted Joe’s comments to mean that he believes homosexuals to be Evil/Flawed.

I suggest that if your goal is to show Joe is a bigot you should stick to the Nazi bit.
Your suggestions are unsolicited (thanks anyway), as that was never my goal. I never mentioned the word “bigot”. It would be a fool’s errand to try to prove that Joe is a bigot. My goal – if it could be said that I had one – is to prove that Joe is wrong. And that his obvious animosity towards human beings of another sexual persuasion is unwarranted and unnecessary.
I suggest that many of those who are offended by the term (not you Pogue, really, I am not just sucking up oh wise token liberal) take it seriously because they tend to throw the term around seriously themselves and therefore don’t recognize the insult as being a bit milder than they imagine.
No, no. Make no mistake, Lance. I’m personally not offended by the term “Nazi” (or any coupling thereof). I’m one of the most un-PC motherscratchers that I know of. And I have a very, very thick hide. If one were to call me a liberal-elitist-snobby-America hating-drunken Irish fool, well I would simply laugh that off as I know that the accuser doesn’t know me. However, if one were to spit in my stout, … well …, then one would look mighty silly eating corn-on-the-cob with no f*cking teeth.

If you’ll remember, I commented regarding the Limbaugh/feminazi brouhaha stating that it is reasonable to accept how persons of which the attack was intended would find that offensive. Not me personally.
That legitimate, though dangerous if people are not willing to submit you are being hyperbolic, method is to use an extreme example so as to make your point clear.
Maybe. But isn’t there a “Godwins Law”… or something?
What Joe may mean is that if he has to tolerate Nazi’s then he can tolerate gays.
*sigh* (chuckle)
Well … then … (more laughter)… how reasonable of Joe.

Obviously he is trying to get a rise, I suggest you allow him a measure of success, but rise in the right place and force him to be clear.
Well thanks for the tip, and your patronage. Worthy of consideration.

We’ll see,
 
Written By: PogueMahone
URL: http://
Not unsurprsinly I’d say you’re wrong. The CONSTITUTION is about the structure of government, the BoR is NOT the Constitution..
Well, first off – not that I make a habit of correcting others grammar – but, “Not unsurprisingly”, is a double negative. But whatever, let’s clean it up. (You see how I did that, Lance? It’s my turn to get a rise.)
Secondly, the Bill of Rights is part of the Constitution. Now I’m no Constitutional scholar, and lest we have a history lesson,
The Bill of Rights comprises the first ten amendments to the Constitution. Those amendments were adopted between 1789 and 1791, and all relate to limiting the power of the federal government. They were added in response to criticisms of the Constitution by the state ratification conventions and by prominent individuals such as Thomas Jefferson (who was not a delegate to the Constitutional Convention). These critics argued that without further restraints, the strong central government would become tyrannical. The amendments were proposed by Congress as part of a block of twelve in September 1789. By December 1791 a sufficient number of states had ratified ten of the twelve proposals, and the Bill of Rights became part of the Constitution.
You may be in a lonely place if you believe that the BoR is not apart of the Constitution.
So you’re saying that the First Church of Christ Cannibals WOULD be acceptable in Pogue-Land,
Not only accepted, but encouraged. ;)
This goes beyond gay marriage, abortion and the like, can society confine the mentally ill, is there any limit on what a person can do with or to another, AS LONG AS BOTH PARTIES AGREE?
Generally speaking, no; I believe that if all parties agree, then there shouldn’t be any limitations placed. Just so long, naturally, if implied actions do not infringe upon the liberties of persons dissenting.
Keep in mind that I’m discussing competent adults. Now there is an ongoing debate regarding competent consent, i.e. the mentally disabled, the unborn, minors, etc. And we can have that debate, if you wish, in another thread of course.
As to the Invetible march of Human Progress, well Mao, Lenin and Hitler said the same thing, so did W E B DuBois... I’ll leave that for future generations.
Dude, are you calling me a Nazi!?

Oh, and Joe,
Egypto you mean the Catholic ideal of marriage? And I might note that the religious have a lower incidence of divorce, so mayhap Egypto that the 2nd-4th marriages aren’t with, at least the Religious Right, but with more tolerant and open-mided folks in the centre and left... just a thought.
You wouldn’t happen to have any evidence to back up your claim? All of the evidence that I’ve seen suggests that Atheists and Agnostics suffer a divorce rate no more, if not less than, the so-called religious.
Also, the divorce rate is higher among southern – identifiably conservative, Republican, evangelical – Christians.

I personally think that most dissolutions have nothing to do with religious affiliations, or lack thereof. I think it has more to do with economics, and … well …, toilet seat lids.

But perhaps you have evidence that proves me wrong.

If you dare.
 
Written By: PogueMahone
URL: http://
As to the Invetible march of Human Progress, well Mao, Lenin and Hitler said the same thing, so did W E B DuBois... I’ll leave that for future generations.
Dude, are you calling me a Nazi!?

Or a Stalinist or a Leninist or one of the founders of the NAACP... you need to read what I write Pogue, and leave the endocrine system on hold.

As to the religious, those who attend religious services weekly have a LOWER incidence of divorce, Pogue, IIRC.

Trust me Pogue IF I CARED, I’d dare dispute you...You’re only angry words on a CRT.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
Pogue,

That whole discussion of feminazi was only inspired by you and Joe, I assure you that I in no way was addressing you in particular at all.

What Joe may mean is that if he has to tolerate Nazi’s then he can tolerate gays.
*sigh* (chuckle)
Well … then … (more laughter)… how reasonable of Joe.
Well, maybe such distinctions are unimportant, but I in no way feel Joe is being reasonable, I am just saying the Nazi comment does not necessarily mean he feels they are in any way comparable sins. I know, splitting hairs and all that, but some hairs should probably be split if we are to communicate well. I will point out that you and I are on the same page here, I just think Joe might not feel that gays are evil or on par with Nazi’s.
This goes beyond gay marriage, abortion and the like, can society confine the mentally ill, is there any limit on what a person can do with or to another, AS LONG AS BOTH PARTIES AGREE?
Generally speaking, no; I believe that if all parties agree, then there shouldn’t be any limitations placed. Just so long, naturally, if implied actions do not infringe upon the liberties of persons dissenting.
Keep in mind that I’m discussing competent adults. Now there is an ongoing debate regarding competent consent, i.e. the mentally disabled, the unborn, minors, etc. And we can have that debate, if you wish, in another thread of course.
Pogue,

I will admit this is something that leaves me scratching my head, which is not necessarily your fault, but I am going to blame you anyway. Certainly that is my view on things (though I would probably have to find a way to deal with the cannibals ala Joe, but I don’t want to go down that path at the moment. ) However, and I may misunderstand your politics (which, I repeat, I am blaming on you;) how does that square with being a Democrat or contemporary liberal? The modern liberal is behind a vast state apparatus that limits what I can do with or to others, even when they agree.

Take drugs, (insert painfully old joke) while some liberals (I think, but I may be wrong, which is your fault, that this includes you) feel drugs should be legalized they are absolutely behind the active regulation of what I can take for medicinal purposes. I often point out that contradiction which leads to some rather pathetic arguments. However, occasionally someone (and I am going to claim you are in this hypothetical group of intelligent liberal commenter’s, you can thank me later) brings up the reasonable point that what they really want is to treat heroin and marijuana just like something from Pfizer and tax and regulate their sale. This leads to all kinds of issues such as that heroin or cocaine wouldn’t survive the FDA and if they did it would be decades, but I’ll leave that discussion for another time.

What interests me is how can one say what you said about liberty and be in favor of the FDA? Or all kinds of other regulation? We consent in all those cases to take the drugs, buy the car, hire the carpenter, engage in a particular sex act, whatever. In each case there are potential or imagined harms, but both parties consent. How does that square with modern liberalism? This touches vast areas of government action including taxation, where obviously consent is rather tenuous. I understand government is necessary so liberty has to be compromised somewhat, but how does that justify what modern liberalism endorses? If Joe believes that homosexual sex damages a person emotionally or otherwise, how is regulating that potential harm any different than cigarettes, heroin, pot, alcohol, my own land, whatever? Or does it just come down to what harms you take seriously versus what I take seriously or Joe?

Of course it is possible I have your politics all wrong (which, as I said before, I blame on you to protect my own ego) but I promise to listen to your explanation carefully and will try to question it and understand it without calling you an idiot or some other such nonsense. You seem like somebody who respects at least some of us here enough to give a thoughtful explanation that is not just trying to show we are all selfish greed heads and will take our arguments seriously. Of course I expect Tom Perkins to swoop in, so don’t blame me if the rhetoric is less restrained than I am trying to get at here. It would be nice to occasionally have someone debate an issue without trying to win, but rather to arrive at some kind of understanding. It makes no difference in my life if you end up agreeing with me, or I change your mind, or if Shark lets me know I fragged your ass in some flame war (though it would certainly be appreciated) but it might make a difference if I had a coherent explanation of how you can reconcile this seeming contradiction. I doubt I would agree, but that is okay.
 
Written By: Lance
URL: http://
Pogue ol’ boy you completely failed to answer my question, but as always your response to my post and others was highly amusing. I grant you top marks for being one of the most underrated commenters on this site. If everyone had your wit, QandO would be beating Kos in numbers of visitors every day.

Now, to business. You failed to answer a straight question.

Are you honestly saying that the beliefs of all of these billions of people are simply hate filled, ignorant, and bigoted?

If the answer to the above is "yes," then:

If so, is this not simply an attack on the religious? Or perhaps an attack on religion?

I have no idea what your personal religious beliefs or prefrences are. Nor do they matter. I am asking about your personal opinion of the religious beliefs of 3/4 or 7/8 as you claim of the world’s population.

Your next response about the religious not observing the tenants of their religions is pure and simple ignorance. That’s a perfect example of ad hominem. "Well, Bobby down the street was drinkin and beatin his old lady. Bobby’s sposed to be a Baptist. I reckon them Baptist folks must all be drunken wife beaters, then." Has this nicely summed up your opinion of the religious?

Although religious observance is probably at an all time low, the VAST majority of the openly religious are still quite observant. As for the ONWARD MARCH OF HUMAN PROGRESS, I suggest you take a look at the history of non-Christian religions, my friend. The tenants of Judaism have not changed since Mt. Sinai 4,000 years ago. Islam has not changed in 1400 years. To my knowledge, no major changes have taken place in Hinduism, Buddhism, or Daoism in millenia. So, yes the non-religious have indeed "evolved" and, to their great discredit, some of the liberal "religious" have too. You are making the mistake that many many leftists make : You are mixing state and church (not church and state which is a vastly different issue). Or put more simply, you are trying to force the religious to adopt your political views and, if they fail to do so, you brand them as homophobic, anti-woman, sexist, racist, fascist and whatever else you have in your arsenal.
 
Written By: The Poet Omar
URL: http://
Well Pogue since you seem to have your knickers in a wad, here goes...
Wherever I said "Nazi" substitute... "Fred Phelps" or "Socialist Workers Party". That’ll help I’m sure... Now you’ll think I’ve accused you of being a homophobe or a Socialist. But at least that nasty term "Nazi" will be gone, if you like.

As to divorce you’re right and wrong... divorce rates seem to be higher in areas of Republican Evangelical strength, HOWEVER, when you unpack the divorce stat’s one finds that regular religious observance REDUCES divorces by ~30%, all other factors held constant. The prime contributor to divorce is early marriage and economic disadvantage. So an equally valid explanation is that in areas where people marry young, with few economic prospects divorce flourishes and that religion actually holds that number DOWN. In short it is NEGATIVELY associated with divorce.

Should one then compare say Harlem to OKC, one might still discover Harlem has a LOWER divorce rate, BUT that can be explained that marriage rates are so low in certain areas that anyone who DOES choose to get married is the exception and probably will have a stronger marriage than areas with a higher average degree of marriage...I add this as a codacil the argument in re; divorce rates in other areas.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
Joe to tack onto your argument about divorce rates (which I agree with), the statistics (as with just about all statistics) lie. Or rather, they say what the makers want them to say. The 50% divorce rate is a raw number. It is in no way filtered. It therefore includes second, third, fourth, fifth, twentieth divorces. Many of the people who can be included in the 50% divorce rate are not getting divorced for the first time. This statistic merely tries to show that marriage is in its worst shape ever, when, in fact it is nowhere near as bad as all that. People who don’t marry when they are 21, are financially stable, and have a significant amount of pre-marriage counseling (as provided by qualified clergy or professional counselors) are highly unlikely to get divorced (barring chemical abuse or adultery). A predicted 50% failure rate on marriages of this type is just plain wrong. The divorce rate would be lowered significantly if many people would simply learn to respect what marriage is and not try to make it into what it is not. There, I’ll climb off of my soapbox now.
 
Written By: The Poet Omar
URL: http://
However, and I may misunderstand your politics (which, I repeat, I am blaming on you;) how does that square with being a Democrat or contemporary liberal?

Of course it is possible I have your politics all wrong (which, as I said before, I blame on you to protect my own ego) but I promise to listen to your explanation carefully and will try to question it and understand it without calling you an idiot or some other such nonsense.
One thousand pardons, Lance.
I’m sorry that you do, in fact, have my politics all wrong. I don’t know if blaming me is appropriate, but it isn’t completely your fault.

Let me be clear – and maybe I should use Joe speak so that some will have no trouble understanding – I AM NOT A DEMOCRAT OR A CONTEMPORARY LIBERAL. I try to follow traditional libertarian philosophy as much as I can. And to further identify my political beliefs, I should inform you that I am not a Neo-libertariawhatever. Being a libertarian does not mean that one should hop along on one’s right foot.

But like I said, it’s not completely your fault. I do tend to comment only when I believe obstinately contrary to the post, it’s author, or the denizens that comment concurring. Which on this site, would side heavily to the Left/Liberal/Secular, and that would give the appearance that I’m a liberal Democrat.
But trust me, I’m a lot more conservative than would seem to be the case. I could comment on every post, but that would have to be comments reduced to one-line cheers, harmonizing paraphrases, and summary atta-boys.

How boring.

And besides… others here, like Joe, FILL that ROLL ABUndanTLY. And they obviously enjoy it.

So it’s understandable if the casual or distracted reader would assume that I am a liberal Democrat. And I’m sorry that you thought the same.

I’m also sorry that you went to the trouble of writing queries and contradictions expecting me to answer – and presumably hoping I would answer – with non-sequiturs and faulty analogies.

I’m also a little heartened that you would at least try to not call me an idiot.

Cheers.
 
Written By: PogueMahone
URL: http://
First of all, Omar, thanks for your kind words.
Now, to business…
Now, to business. You failed to answer a straight question.

Are you honestly saying that the beliefs of all of these billions of people are simply hate filled, ignorant, and bigoted?
I find it impossible to lump billions of people in one easy category to be labeled as hate-filled, ignorant, and bigoted. Some may be hate-filled, some maybe bigoted, and some could merely be ignorant. And, yes, some maybe all three. If indeed billions of people would shun same sex unions, then I’m sorry… I believe they’re wrong. And until I’m able to meet everyone of them, then I’ll have to assume that they are one of the three.

People can change, you know.
Your next response about the religious not observing the tenants of their religions is pure and simple ignorance.
Umm. You’re not calling me ignorant, are you?
That’s a perfect example of ad hominem. "Well, Bobby down the street was drinkin and beatin his old lady. Bobby’s sposed to be a Baptist. I reckon them Baptist folks must all be drunken wife beaters, then." Has this nicely summed up your opinion of the religious?
You’ve got that all wrong, Omar. Read again, if you please.
You’re assuming that ¾ of the world’s population actually observe the tenants of the religion to which they identify. Many Jews eat pork, many Catholics use birth control, many Muslims frequent gentleman’s clubs, and many gays identify with the various religions that you site.
Follow it. To use your ad hominem, I would have had to state that, “Well, since Bobby down the street eats pork, and Bobby is a Jew, I reckon all Jewish folk must eat pork.”
No, Poet, I didn’t state anything like that. It is not Kosher to eat pork, yet there are many Jews that eat pork and still consider themselves Jewish. See the difference? Let me try again.
If the religions of the world state that homosexuality is a sin, and ¾ of the population claim to believe in one of those religions, one can assume that ¾ of the population believe homosexuality is a sin. But, as my argument, ¾ of the population do not follow the tenants of their religion, and so one can assume that it is not ¾ of the population that believes homosexuality is a sin.

And what about homosexuals who claim to be religious? How does that fare?

Moving on,
I suggest you take a look at the history of non-Christian religions, my friend. The tenants of Judaism have not changed since Mt. Sinai 4,000 years ago.
Not necessarily true, Omar. There are different sects of Judaism: Reform, Conservative, Modern (Orthodox), Chassidic, Charedi and Igaliatarian. And so not only have the tenants changed, they’ve divided, multiplied, and increased. My wife is Jewish, she believes there is nothing wrong with gay marriage.

I guess my point is that is difficult to envelope the religions of the world for the practice of defining “religious people”. And moreover, I believe that religion shouldn’t play any part when deciding what the government will allow its people to do, or not to do.

Or put more simply, you are trying to force the religious to adopt your political views and, if they fail to do so, you brand them as homophobic, anti-woman, sexist, racist, fascist and whatever else you have in your arsenal.
This is completely wrong. And if I considered you a friend, Poet, I would find it insulting.
I’m not forcing the religious to adopt my political views. If religious people wish not to recognize any particular union, they don’t have to. They don’t have to recognize that the world is round if they don’t want to. Nobody’s stopping them from not recognizing anything. And on the contrary, it is religious people trying to force their religious views on others, namely homosexuals.
And you’ll be kind enough to point to where I unleashed my “arsenal” and branded anybody “homophobic, anti-woman, sexist, racist, fascist” or “whatever”.

You will do that for us, right?

Omar?

Right?
 
Written By: PogueMahone
URL: http://
Well Pogue since you seem to have your knickers in a wad, here goes...
Oh, I’m sorry Joe. I didn’t notice you there. What were we talking about, again?

Oh, right. Divorce and faith. You originally suggested that “the religious have a lower incidence of divorce”.

I suppose it you cook something long and hard enough. You’ll get the statistics you desire.
Should one then compare say Harlem to OKC, one might still discover Harlem has a LOWER divorce rate, BUT that can be explained that marriage rates are so low in certain areas that anyone who DOES choose to get married is the exception and probably will have a stronger marriage than areas with a higher average degree of marriage...I add this as a codacil the argument in re; divorce rates in other areas.
Needs more pepper.
 
Written By: PogueMahone
URL: http://
"You forgot ugly, fearful, selfish, and superstitious" PogueMahone. Or was that a sarcastic remark? I never can tell. Sarcasm is much more of a live, performance art than one suited for the medium of blogging. Oh, well I digress.

"Some may be hate-filled, some maybe bigoted, and some could merely be ignorant. And, yes, some maybe all three. If indeed billions of people would shun same sex unions, then I’m sorry… I believe they’re wrong. And until I’m able to meet everyone of them, then I’ll have to assume that they are one of the three." PogueMahone. Another quote. This one I assume to be quite serious rather than the above potentially sarcastic one.

Perhaps I am attributing some leftist smears against the religious to you without justification. If this is so, then I humbly withdraw the accusation.
And we are friends Pogue, or at least distinguished colleagues on opposite sides of the aisle in the noble blogosphere.

What you are getting at in your last paragraph is an idea that is very very soon to be put to a real world test. When nations pass laws that directly assault the religious beliefs of its citizens, what are the religious to do? For that matter what are the religious leaders to do? Italy is a wonderful battlefield for this type of politico-religious dynamic. Southern Italians, wonderful people, are quite fervently Catholic (and oddly, mostly socialist or communist). Northern Italians tend to be more liberal (or in American terms pro-capitalist, non-religious). Italy has been in the process of passing or attempting to pass laws regarding abortion, same-sex unions, etc. which are absolutely in opposition to Catholic teachings. If these laws pass (usually thanks to the money and power of northern Italians), how do religious (mostly southern) Italians react? Do they just take it on the chin and keep on making spaghetti? Suppose the Vatican (technically an independent foreign nation within Italy) declares these laws to be unacceptable and demands non-compliance. They have some small measure of influence within Italy (unlike in the US), I’m sure you will allow. What happens then? Civil war?

Although you may disagree with the laws currently on our books regarding same-sex unions, what you are proposing is tyranny of the minority. An island cannot rule a continent to borrow a phrase and while I’m certainly not for tyranny of the majority either, it makes a lot more sense in a democratic system than the other way around.

Your argument about major alterations of Judaism falls flat I’m afraid in the face of facts. The original 613 mitzvot of the Torah are no different today than they were 4,000 years ago. How people choose to observe, or not observe them is another issue entirely. For example, Mrs. Pogue happens to be Jewish. I suspect (though cannot prove) that she is Reform, Reconstructionist, or non-observant for two reasons : she married a gentile and she does not oppose same-sex unions. Does this make her any less a Jew than the Chief Rabbi of Israel? No, it simply means she is not a religious Jew. Although, interestingly, despite her religious views, your children (if any) will still be considered Jews by Orthodox and Masorti Rabbis. They would not need conversion. It’s a Mad Mad Mad World isn’t it?

I regret that you seem not to have had the wonderful experience of living amongst observant, non-hypocritical religious people (of any religion). I detect some resentment and/or bitterness toward the religious in your posts and I suspect that this comes from some past negative experience. I could be completely and totally off in left field with this, but reading between the lines leads me to this conclusion. More people in the world are religiously observant than you think. In America, perhaps, things are not this way, but that should not be an indictment of religion. In another post I will be happy to debate the pros of being religiously observant versus the cons of not being religious. I’ll have to end here, though. I think Dale, McQ, and Jon may cut me off for taking up too much room on this one. :)
 
Written By: The Poet Omar
URL: http://
Yes Pogue I’ve foubnd that when we resort to the "inevitable march of progress", catty remarks, and grammar corrections, what we’re really finding is that well we’re not arguing well.

As far as arguing stat’s I didn’t cook them. Like all stat’s they mean EXACTLY what they mean, no more no less...As Churchill said, "lies, D@MNED lies and Statistics".

Religious observance is strongly NEGATIVELY associated with divorce. But you are right the religious do not have a lower incidence of divorce, per se.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
And we are friends Pogue, or at least distinguished colleagues on opposite sides of the aisle in the noble blogosphere.
Happy to be your friend, Mr. Poet. So I’ll take it that you will cease to conflate me with whatever Leftist Demons you have propped up as targets for your water pistol?

I’ll assume a “yes”, thank you.
What you are getting at in your last paragraph is an idea that is very very soon to be put to a real world test. When nations pass laws that directly assault the religious beliefs of its citizens, what are the religious to do?
What you’re getting at in this statement is what usually summarizes my problem with anti-gay legislation/amendments.
What are the religious to do?
What are the religious to do?
What are the religious to do?

I don’t know, Omar. Why don’t you tell me? Or better yet, why don’t you tell me what the religious have done. You know, since gay marriage has been legal in Mass. for a while now. What have the religious done? How has it affected the religious? What are the religious to do?

You will be able to tell me how gay marriage has affected the religious up in Mass., won’t you? Good. I look forward to reading your well articulated explanation.
Southern Italians, wonderful people, are quite fervently Catholic (and oddly, mostly socialist or communist).
Oddly, you seem to suggest that fervent Catholics aren’t necessarily what you would expect them to be. Strange… I had this funny feeling that you had once suggested that … well … since they’re religious, they must believe a way you would expect them to believe. Guess not.

Your argument about major alterations of Judaism falls flat I’m afraid in the face of facts.
Well, at least you refrain from calling me ignorant.
For example, Mrs. Pogue happens to be Jewish. I suspect (though cannot prove) that she is Reform, Reconstructionist, or non-observant for two reasons : she married a gentile and she does not oppose same-sex unions.
You forget a possible third reason: She is an independent individual and she accepts the will of other independent individuals free of influence from those who wish to manipulate the faith of her ancestors to further their own unity and conformity to accelerate their own selfish desires. Or something.
Does this make her any less a Jew than the Chief Rabbi of Israel? No, it simply means she is not a religious Jew.
Really, Omar. Are you prepared to define what constitutes a “religious Jew”? Are you really up to the task of dissecting my wife’s views in order to determine what her religious beliefs are?
So much for the Poet’s freedom of religion.

I invite you to Passover at the PogueMahone compound. It should be interesting watching you tell my wife that she is not a “religious Jew”. But I warn you, bring armor … you’ll need it.
I regret that you seem not to have had the wonderful experience of living amongst observant, non-hypocritical religious people (of any religion).
No regrets here, Omar. Lest one attempts to force, by law, that I must observe the “wonderful experience” of any religion.
I tell you what, Omar. You keep the wonder that is the Poet’s experience to yourself, and I’ll keep the deliciously liberating existence of yours truly right here smack dab in the middle of PogueMahone compound.
And if you won’t subject me to whatever viper bitten, tongue speakin’, prostrating trance, or whatever it is that makes this experience so wonderful, then I won’t subject you to the horror of interracial, interfaith, and interpretational deliverance.

Mmmkay?

I can only thank the Lords of Valhalla that I was born a heterosexual. Otherwise, my interpretational deliverance would likely be illegal.
I detect some resentment and/or bitterness toward the religious in your posts and I suspect that this comes from some past negative experience. I could be completely and totally off in left field with this, but reading between the lines leads me to this conclusion.
Heh. And somehow you determined that without me calling anyone a Nazi?

Godwin would be proud.

Look, Omar. Religion has nothing to do with my position. My position is quite simple and clear. Behavior that harms no one but oneself should not be limited in any way, shape, or form. And if Billy and Jimbo want to tie the knot, what in God’s name should I give a flying f*ck.

And the funny thing is, every time I ask the question of how Billy and Jimbo getting hitched would effect anyone else’s lives, all I get is a bunch of hooey about imposing on other peoples beliefs.
And even the wise scribes who graciously host these exchanges here at QandO have been unable to illuminate. Nor have they themselves inquired. To which is the greater fault, I have yet to determine.

Of course here at QandO, I believe I speak for all of us when I say we believe this is something which should be settled at a state level (if I’ve misspoken, my pards will let me know).
Thanks, fellas. How … Neolibertarian of you.

Now, correct me if I’m wrong, but I thought that restricting people’s beliefs, words, ideas, or actions because it might disturb and offend the fragile sensitivities of some … were the trademark tactics of the Left. According to those on the Right.

Seems to me, that the Right is just as eager to restrict the ideas, beliefs of some just because it offends their own fragile sensitivities.

Talk about the Queen calling the Kettle Queer.

"You forgot ugly, fearful, selfish, and superstitious" PogueMahone. Or was that a sarcastic remark? I never can tell. Sarcasm is much more of a live, performance art than one suited for the medium of blogging. Oh, well I digress.
Yeah, see. You should interpret at least half of what I write as being tongue in cheek. Which half? Well, if you knew that, then I wouldn’t be doing my job properly, now would I?
It’s a Mad Mad Mad World isn’t it?
With you and I in it… even more so.

Nice chatting with you.

My work here is done.
 
Written By: PogueMahone
URL: http://
But you are right the religious do not have a lower incidence of divorce, per se.

Written By: Joe
Good.

Another notch in the “win” column.

You’re a good man, Joe.

Good man.
 
Written By: PogueMahone
URL: http://

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider