All hail the philosopher kings!
Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license. Indeed the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California constitution the notion that opposite sex couples are superior to same sex couples.
And this ruling does nothing more than enshrine the notion that what has always been the definition for marriage can no longer be the definition for marriage, because defining marriage as it has always been defined is discriminatory against those who wish it was defined in a way more to their liking, and in a way that changes what it is and has always been into something it never was nor ever has been. But be that as it may.
I guess some discrimination is more equal than others.
As I’ve been arguing over at Ace’s:
stuiec’s making the best arguments over there, BTW. Knows his stuff.
What is so damned frustrating about this is the persistent belief amongst so many Americans that the judicial branch has the final say upon what is or is not constitutional. The Constitution does not delegate that power to the federal courts. It is high time that the executive and legislative branches – along with state governments – grow a pair and tell the federal judiciary to enforce their own damn rulings. It has been done before (Andrew Jackson, anyone?), it can be done again.
we should have a vote on whether white trash Christers should be able to marry I think
I can’t tell if hf is being sarcastic or not.
equal rights for perverts now!
we should have a vote as to whether RINO griefers should marry I think
The fact that some people are unable to bond with members of the opposite sex is tragic…
So true. Does that mean my datelessness is unconstitutional? I knew it! Someone overturn a Prop so that the other side is forced to find me attractive.
I can’t tell if hf is being sarcastic or not.
Does it really even matter?
This will have to go to the Supreme Court, who, according to Marbury v Madison, do have the right to decide what is Constitutional. It didn’t start out that way, of course, and I doubt the founders would have meant it to turn out that way, but that’s the way it is.
i want to marry an oak 2×4
me and a cupcake named little debbie are to wed
On this issue, I’m with dicentra, so I’m a hater I guess.
My favorite part is the judge who made the ruling is, apparently, gay. No bias there. Nothing like one gay judge telling the people of an entire state they have to bend over and take it.
Time to start electing judges. Might as well do away with the other two branches while we’re at it.
It’s the word rational that I am most fond of in this ruling. It’s a magic word.
Marbury v. Madison should be disregarded – an unconstitutional usurpation of power by the unelected branch of government.
Matt – How would that make it any more bias than if an evil heretronormative breeder made the ruling?
yes happy the entire state of california is white christers. Again, we’re your allies, you disagree with us. The ad hominems are unnecessary to express your feeling, unless you say things like that for the sole purpose of aggravating christians that read this blog. Which if so, and I hope its not, is as pathetic as yelverton and the other sock puppets who drive by ad hom.
advocates for radiator marriage demand justice
I just think it’s a neat thought problem exercise
This is so fucked up on so many levels.
Yes, but is it rational happyfeet?
me and my horse are riding west to ca to find marital bliss
i think the progg judges should change the meaning of tacos to cupcakes next
Just skip the entry-level pleasantries and get your twin fistings pumping, ‘feets. It’s the only way to roll around evil Christothugs, eh?
I think this makes people more “hatey” towards gheys than they were on August 3, 2010.
JD I guess its kinda like letting a muslim judge decide if a law banning sharia law is constitutional. From what I’ve read on Drudge, it looks like the judge was out too – I’d be surprised if nobody filed a motion to recuse. I know two gay judges and I’ve never had a case in which their sexual preference would make any difference in a ruling but this is clearly a different story.
Which would be a shame Alec. The proper target for their ire should be federal judges who have the gall to state that the desire to not change a longstanding institution properly expressed through a constitutional amendment process is deemed irrational, and thus illegal. I think the proper response to something like that is a long string of curse words.
of course it’s rational Mr. Makewi… those ones are solemnly bound by the injunction to do unto others… it’s like their code or something
I think you don’t quite get the whole meaning of that phrase happy. It’s ok, because unless you are either gay or married you probably aren’t allowed an opinion in any case.
He would also have a duty to recuse himself under certain circumstances. I wonder if he’ll get married to a man (he is gay) soon – conflict of interest, it would seem.
alinsky tacos
hf, do unto others doesn’t mean quite what you think it means, I’m thinking.
alinsky tacos are endorsed by lou “big guy” lucifer
I’m sure that they will steer clear of buggery to fulfill the “as you would have done to you” part.
I have a very expansive interpretation of what do unto others means Makewi and also Ella and what it means is that if this person’s kid can get married and they can die knowing that their kid has someone to care for them and to care for then this person over here with the gay kid should also be able to know that their kid has someone to care for them and to care for.
It’s very simple and Jesus would think it was a neat idea.
Why is that any different than having the ruling come from a guy that lurvs the vi-jay-jay and is married, Matt? I don’t agree one little bit with his thinking, but it is patently silly to suggest that because he may be Teh Ghey, that he cannot follow the law. Teh Ghey is not the problem, his fucked up thinking is the problem.
jesus of 2000 years ago would thought you an idiot. like mary marrying a burro.
“Slouching towards Gomorra”, anyone?
Hell, we in a dead sprint now.
Hey look – happyfeet found a Jesus puppet.
teh radical ghey is part of the progg army. so the radical ghey is the problem.
hey next stop sodom
And of course, that was illegal while the definition of marriage remained what it had always been.
bosh I say… does any one else think it wondrous strange that your average white trash Christer in America talks about the eeevils of the gay somewhere on the order of 7 kabillion percent more than Jesus did in his chart-topping book, The Bible?
*He would also have a duty to recuse himself under certain circumstances*
Well interesting thing about recusal motions – and I just spent six months on this issue in Florida but it may vary somewhat from state to state- when a recusal motion is filed, if there is ANY apparent bias, the judge is supposed to pass the case. The rationale, of course, is that if a county has 25 judges, many of them will not have any bias and even a hint of bias can color a judge’s decision making. Of course, most judges ignore this fact, almost always claiming they can overcome bias (which is almost always bs) but you’ll win the issue on appeal more times then not- the entire point of the judicial system is the (allegedly) provable lack of bias on the part of judges.
I’m sort of wary in proclaiming what Jesus or God would do. Seems like a pretty haughty thing to do. Jesus told the mob to be cool and the adulteress to stop sinning. Does being cool equate to having a formal legal recognition of same sex marriages?
I’d also point out that a marriage license is not required for a parent to know that his kid is in a loving relationship in which he or she will be cared for. That said, you already know that you and I are not far off on this issue.
I think this one goes to SCOTUS and I think they ultimately agree with this ruling.
Face it: whether you agree or disagree with the decision, what you can’t argue is that the fundamental conditions for marriage — and so its very definition — is being changed.
And the question is, on what legal basis is this being done? On the “I’m the judge, and I simply don’t find it ‘rational'” test?
ever try to marry a bowl of ice cream?/ once u take it
outta the fridge u could concievably put a ring
around it but u put it in the sink and as you run down the jewlery store to buy a ring and then u go to the state office to get a liscence
and u wait in line/ and u wait in line/and u wait
but then u get a liscence and run home to marry the ice cream but as u look in the sink the ice creams melted..
and u realize another love affiar is going down the drain
Jesus taught about things that were controversial. The propriety of sodomy was a rather settled issue by the time he came around.
It’s not strange if that’s how you define “your average white trash Christer in America,” hf.
On doing unto others:
Jesus said to his disciples. “If your brother does something wrong, go and have it out with him alone, between your two selves. If he listens to you, you have won back your brother. If he does not listen, take one or two others along with you: whatever the misdemeanour, the evidence of two or three witnesses is required to sustain the charge. But if he refuses to listen to these, report it to the community; and if he refuses to listen to the community, treat him like a gentile or a tax collector. (Matt 18, 15-17).
Happyfeet to miss the point and focus on gentiles and tax collectors in 3… 2… 1…
actually the trailer trash christer could care less unless it is exposed that dale earnhart is funny in his loafers
Fuck off, meya. You racist cunt.
There’s a balancing scale. In one dish, you have 4,000 years of cultural and religious tradition and in excess of seven million votes. In the other dish, you have the whims of a Faaabulous Ghey Judge.
Of course in any sane system the Ghey Judge’s whims would win out . . .
I don’t know if I agree or disagree with his legal reasoning actually. I’d have to do a lot of reading.
But I think it was a very sporting decision.
Further, if the aristocrats of Jesus’ day had had the phrase “trailer trash,” they probably would have applied it to Jesus and his followers.
Dale Earnhardt is dead and was not Teh Ghey, newrouter. Neither is Jr. NTTAWWT, but fuck you just the same.
I lived in a trailer once, but it was an accident! I swear!
thank you sir may i have… oh wait
on a ghey marriage thread?
Now you are denying your own self? Good Allah, you ignorant slut.
actually a specific example may help- I represent a kid who killed 4 nice ladies on their way to a wedding in the civil case. He was charged with DUI w/ fatality and ultimately copped a plea that netted him 30 years. The judge in the criminal case, during sentences, lectured him till he was in tears, made him stand in front of pictures of the deceased as their families spoke. Two mos after the criminal case ended, the crim judge was promoted to civil bench and he ended up with the civil case against this kid. Motion to Recuse filed, judge says “no I can be unbiased”. And I like this judge, he’s a good judge but there is no doubt in my mind that he cannot be unbiased because he knows everything there is to know about the night in question. I think this is similar. I was really surprised to hear the judge was gay given the circumstances.
Do laws against polygamy pass this “rationality” test? Don’t they create an irrational classification on the basis of number?
“Good Allah”
JD, so muslims are welcome here, but not us white Christers? ;-)
I still don’t get it. Unless Teh Ghey can only think in one way about teh ghey. And I do not think that to be the case.
T+T – I am an equal opportunity offender.
JD,
LOL.
In my experience, motions for recusal are governed by the principle “strike at the King, kill the King.” If you have reason to believe that a Judge may not be unbiased, once you file the Motion and he denies, you’re stuck with someone who may have yet another burr under his saddle.
Why do people always laugh at me? Makes me think that I have spinach on my front teeth, or a booger hanging out my nose.
Not just “laugh” but “OUT LOUD” too.
Better than a booger on your teeth and spinach in your nose, JD.
Would a married judge need to recuse himself? How about a judge who believes that homosexual sex is a sin?
I used to live in a trailer. Was once a trashy dirty hippy, and could be correctly classified as a christer. In the interest of full disclosure.
actually, Happy, your thoughts on the judge’s sexual preference? I’m interested in this, because it has nothing to do with anti-gay because someone is christian – the judge himself is gay. Should he be allowed to make this decision?
*If you have reason to believe that a Judge may not be unbiased, once you file the Motion and he denies, you’re stuck with someone who may have yet another burr under his saddle.*
I think you’re right about that. Its usually a bumpy ride until the case gets tried and we start the appeal process. I rarely move to recuse but in a big case like my 4 death situation or on a decision that overturns a properly voted on law like this one, I’m going to come at that judge with everything in my arsenal because my record for appeal is going to be the most important part of any ultimate decision. Especially, in this CA case, where an eventual Supreme Court decision is almost a guarantee and the more appealable issues you have, the better chance the SC can latch onto something that wins your case.
I don’t have any thoughts on the judge’s gayness I didn’t know there was any such thing as gay judges.
You call them Judge or your honor I know this cause of my dad was a jp which is like judge lite but he wasn’t gay. He married lots of people though. To each other. But not any gay ones.
elana kagan is ghey and harvard certified stupid
I would vote for gay marriage.
But to argue you can find this “right” in the 14th Amendment or other state constitution equal protection clauses is bullshit. I am pretty fucking sure 19th Century lawmakers were not doing that. And if the equal protection clause is so friggin broad, why did we need the 19th amendment to guarantee women the vote in 1920?
Andrew Sullivan says the trend is for gay marriage. Well, if history is on their side, why not bring a new referendum in California and try to get it legal again? If gays took this battle head on, my guess is same sex marriage would pass in a few states. If it works out over time, perhaps an argument could be made to pass it in a few more.
You know what else Jesus would totally be okay with? Abortion. Basically, Jesus would be okay with anything I’m okay with, because I’m the staunchest and so is He.
Jesus, like me, also doesn’t like white trash Christianists.
California already had civil unions, but Teh Militant Gayz wanted “marriage” so they could shove it down the throats of the heteronormative breeders. “Look at me. I’m gay and I’m married.”
I happen to think civil unions are find, and probably a good idea, but it isn’t marriage if it’s a same-sex couple.
If Jesus was here today, he’d tell you to suck his penis. No homo.
find = fine
Just another lefty judge inventing – making – overturning laws to suit his party’s ideology. As this one goes, so goes the rest of the rules of Law, and so goes the pissed-in bowl of cornflakes that was once our Constitution.
Teh Gheys cannot marry; because they cannot procreate naturally. They could enjoy as many civil unions as they desire AFAIC; raise nice little houses with legal documents and enjoy putting up fine window dressings, but marriage (and raising children) is not really meant for them.
No point in engaging hf on this issue, as he’s using it as yet another opportunity to showcase his anti-Christian, classist bigotry.
I actually support ghey marriage, but as per usual, when I’m on the side of lefties I feel dirty for consorting with people who reason like infants or cupcake-breathed morons.
Just another lefty judge inventing – making – overturning laws to suit his party’s ideology. As this one goes, so goes the rest of the rules of Law, and so goes the pissed-in bowl of cornflakes that was once our Constitution.
That is exactly right. There is a bigger issue here.
Anyone who supports gay marriage being called marriage, but who doesn’t call me a white trash Christofascist homophobe because I do not support that is okay by me, Abe.
oh good you can marry a twinkie now
In other words, we can have a difference of opinion without it getting personal.
However, I agree that gay marriage of some kind is definitely going to happen, though I tend to believe the form it will take will be civil unions. It may well be that civil unions become the norm for everyone, and marriage will be left as a religious institution.
there’s nothing personal about it at all when every time you ones want to otherize the gay I otherize the white trash christers… it actually has a very elegant symmetry I think since gays and white trash christers both tend to have huge martyr complexes
BS
I think the reason civil unions are not sufficient is because its not just about civil unions, especially for the non-gay yet still hardcore gayrights crowd. I do think alot of it is finding a way to to undermine the Christian church- legalized gay marriage opens the doors to churches get sued for discrimination for refusing to marry gays, as well as risk their tax exempt status for violating federal law. I always look worst case and that’s it, for me anyway.
No point in engaging hf
on this issueFIFY
yes because attacking a 3000 year tradition is what exactly if not progg think. power to the ghey people!
No one was otherising anyone. You started it, all pre-emptive like.
who are these ” white trash christers” exactly?
I’m full of shit.
comment #1
The fact that some people are unable to bond with members of the opposite sex is tragic but not relevant to the question of what marriage is.
and the ghey have power so that that the “blacks” have power so that the “union” have power so that the those helpers of the “children” have power and so the protectors of the “environment” have power.
With an exception granted for those who disagree based on religious reasons exempting individuals and groups against discrimination claims, I’d be inclined to vote for it. Otherwise, I’m inclined to be the staunchest against it.
Mr. newrouter ”white trash christers” is a formulation I made up for so anyone could decide it referred to themselves if the wanted… you’d be surprised how many people are eager to own that.
What we’ve learned I think is that identity politics is every bit as rife among Team R loosely defined as it is among the dirty socialist tribes – it’s just the dirty socialists embrace it, exploit it even, while the Team R ones are in denial. This also a lot helps explicate how we can get to a point of explosive cognitive dissonance where Mitch Daniels is considered unqualified for the presidency by white trash christer Hot Air commenters but Sarah Palin is.
if *they* wanted I mean
Let the lawsuits against the Church for not marrying gays begin. Freedom of religion is so passee.
You can’t be serious but I think somehow you are.
who are these people? did they go to bryn mawr?
or haverford?
yes the first gay marriage in nyc should happen at the cordoba mosque
yes the first gay marriage in nyc should happen at the cordoba mosque
Just before the beheading at the reception.
The first interspecies marriage (man & goat) should happen at the Cordoba mosque, too.
Mr. JHo “white trash christers” are to Christians what those people in the pictures Zombie takes are to gay people.
Ironic. If the damn State weren’t all in marriage wall-to-wall and 24/7, we probably wouldn’t be having this conversation.
I figure somebody should be able to marry their dog. As long as the State isn’t involved, and as long as said marriage doesn’t break a basic, constitutionally-reasonable law, go for it.
But, what the State has power to influence, meddle in, regulate, tax, terminate, or “protect” the State has power to destroy. Freedom of that religion was passe half a century ago.
No wonder hf loves nishi so much – two bigoted peas in a pod.
No sweat, ‘feets. I’m just over here trying on an assortment of creative and colorful slurs.
Seeing which fit. Thanks!
you are welcome Mr. JHo I rather doubt they fit you very well
camels will have husbands at the cordoba mosque
happyfeet,
I didn’t take offense when I first read your “white trash Christer” remark, but took your point instead. But then later, being your victim seemed like more fun. It still does.
Hater! :-P
militant communists are radical gheys
I guess we just have a different opinion on what would constitute an othering.
i want baracky hussein obama to preside over my marriage to a camel at the cordoba mosque
The way I figure it, ‘feets’, once we thoroughly define God we can then set about defining Christ — you know, causes and effects.
Once you think that out you kinda realize that waving around blindly in the dark about existence isn’t exactly reserved for your christer trash is it?
T+T the art of victimyness takes many many moons to master.
JHo,
No, that’s backwards, because Jesus Christ reveals both God and man. Cf. Karl Barth (1886-1968, esp. “Church Dogmatics”).
‘feets,
And I am but a beginner on that long road. And Momma taught me that mooning is impolite.
You’re overthinking it JHo… here at the tawdry unkempt intersection of religion and politics Jesus is never defined he’s more malleable that way.
I think I am prolly a white trash christer in the way the leftists use the term, but not in the way that happyfeet uses the term.
Does T+T stand for tits and tits?
Just so we are clear, if I use the term “stupid cocksucking faggot”, then I’m ok because it’s really only a slur if people try to own it? Not that I would, mind you, just checking.
That would make you a homophobe, not that you were not already.
but Mr. Makewi it’s already well-established that gay people comprise an identity group
study JD’s #125 for clues
JD, you’re a stupid cocksucking faggot.
Let’s see what happens.
LOL!!!
No. Time and tea. My blogspot name. Maybe I should change it to T+T+T? Nah, too much overstatement there. The fact that I am male will have to imply what it implies.
language, people
Christ described attributes and the system, T+T. He didn’t define God any more than we can but debate who He was.
It’s all based in biology; this annoying ‘othering’ that’s bugging ‘feets is hardwired in our genetic code, as is our innate dislike for cannibalism and killing children. Just now, lately, we’ve become so very much well-populated with an overabundance of humanity, that homosexuality looms unchecked as possibly an ‘escape hatch’ that’s also hardwired in our genetic code, to prevent extreme human overpopulation and bonus! still allow unpleasant sorts to get their sexual gratifications. Win-win for all.
But if the population drops off to less than a couple-three millions, you can bet we’ll again need every breeding human, intact and not hanging curtains.
Ooo! Ooo! Semiotic question here!
Can I accept the phrase “white Christer” as accurately descriptive WITHOUT trying to play identity politics? If not, then what descriptors (by way of politely introducing oneself) can one use without playing identity politics?
Serious question. This seems to be an issue in contention here in this discussion.
Which was my inference. So since you can’t arbitrate that dialog or its participants, maybe leave it be, you mote-caster.
no you can’t T+T person … go ahead… try
Sorry mom.
I think it a long shot, but wouldn’t it be interesting if this ruling led to a constitutional amendment defining marriage as one man and one woman?
no because calling people names is childish. does your mama wear army boots by the way?
Should be “or define its participants” in #135…
JHo,
Ah, but if God is a person, rather than an impersonal theoretical construct, then defining would be a category mistake, not to mention impolite. We can define terms, of course, and how we use the term “God” is open to that operation.
Thus, I define “God” to be the term by which I refer to the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Oh my. Did that sound fundamentalist? Hope not. I was aiming for more of an antique, classical, “little-c” catholic tone.
bh buggers goats and jerks off to visions of cheeseheads.
Er, ‘feets,
Then how do any of us describe ourselves without playing identity politics?
Or are you saying that self-description is illegitimate?
I don’t understand.
that would be the wise path Mr. JHo but I think it matters cause what I think is that the inevitable culmination of that dialog how it’s defined is found in what has happened to Mr. Daniels, which is a very very bad result for classical liberalisms
i want to marry a hebrew national hot dog at the cordoba mosque w/the “rev sharpton” presiding
T+T it’s not self-description it’s I stand with them because they are my group
“white Christer” is a group identity, yes?
free markets
free people
freedom
Mr. newrouter that was beautiful
“black Christer” too
It may. And since he can no more consider your soul than he should use his view of it to impute your motive, ‘feets should let it all pass. “Christers” is an offensive construct one must first delve into very precise personal judgments in order to wield. Better not to.
Heh. You have that backwards, JD.
What?
hf,
Oh. Okay. That makes sense.
That leads to two further qualifications:
1. If I am organically connected (and not merely by voluntary social decisions) to other Christians, I still think I should say, “I stand with them because they’re my brothers in Christ — even if they’re idiots and I wholeheartedly disagree with them” ?
2. If someone attacks Christians because they are Christians (e.g., Nero and the burning of Rome), I still think I should defend them. Then again, I would defend muslims under the same circumstances, so maybe this isn’t a qualification after all.
beauty = $200.00/day plus expenses
Cheeseheads jerk off to thoughts of bh?
So you’ve got concrete evidence — a crime has been committed because of the evidence of that crime.
The problem is, ‘feets, that you’ve earned a reputation smearing a certain cross section of society you don’t really know. If you were dispassionate about them in proportion to the evidence of their many crimes you calmly and faithfully brought forward, that’s be another thing. But you don’t.
yes mo liked doing 9 year olds so his ideology is ok to you?
newrouter,
Nonononononono, you miss my point, which is, if Nero decided that Group X had burned Rome, when they hadn’t, I would defend them against that charge. Even people who should be hanged for crime A should not also be hanged for crime B if they didn’t commit crime B.
I know this, the Judge in CA couldn’t give a flying fuck about the actual law, and the Constitution. Or simple English.
Heh, JD, that’s probably the least vulgar permutation so, yeah, let’s go with that.
newrouter,
And, further, it should be clear by now that I am an orthodox catholic reformed protestant Christian (Wow, if THAT isn’t an identity group!), so of course I disagree quite radically with Islam.
I’m a good Lutheran I have a bracelet.
Boy howdy.
People that refer to themselves as bh like to have non-consensual buttsecks with shetland ponies, midgets, clowns, and other small farm animals.
Mr. Howard what has happened to Mr. Daniels is a big damn deal and we foreshadowed it here with our arguings in a dozen ways I think.
Identity politics has Team R by the balls. And it’s not pretty.
JD,
Enough of these unsubstantiated accusations. REALLY! You should be ashamed. Do you have films of bh engaging in these activities?? If not, then that’s enough. If you do, can I borrow them?
I don’t insult anyone who doesn’t deserve it, you white-trash Christers what hate gays.
Seems like the democrats can’t help themselves from suffering one uproariously self-defeaty success after another these days, doesn’t it? Poor buggers can’t win for winning.
Identity politics does not have Team R by the balls, happyfeet. Only in the sense that you use identity groups. There are a variety of interest groups within Team R, and some are too fucking loud about their particular issue, given the larger issues at stake.
How dare you. It’s always consensual.
Yes, but the films!! Who has them? And where do I get a copy?
T+T – bh has it on youtube. Or you can see it here … http://www.break.com/usercontent/2009/1/Funny-monkey-sex-with-goat-642530.html
by the balls might be a little hyperbolic but we’ll see what happens in the 2012 primaries
You can try to guess which one is bh …
T+T, if you can dream up a deviancy, there is probably a website for it already. A google search should get you what you want.
Proposition 8 Unconstitutional? You mean to tell me that Leviticus, was just the original fundamental Republican (emphasis on mental) who had not made it out of the closet (kinda like Ted Haggard)? Lets face it was not in the Ten Commandments or even addressed by Jesus the son of God, so are we surprised with this ruling, its about time.
Neither is wearing a cheesehead so it proves nothing.
The 2012 primaries do not matter, as Barcky is going to win again.
Is it worse to have buttsecks with a shetland pony or to want to see others doing it? Probably best not to dwell on that sort of question.
Eeew.
Makewi,
I may be a Christian, but I’m not a good person.
Linda has persuaded me. Thank you Linda.
I’m not sure what language Linda is attempting to write in.
One blog entry in over a year, and it’s a review of “My Neighbor Totoro.” Perhaps that says something. I own it, but haven’t watched it yet, and that might say something, too.
Linda is an idiot.
Leviticus is a song by michelle ndegeocello she’s epileptic so when you go see her don’t take pictures with flashes
cranky-d,
Okay, so I’m not a good blogger, either. But I did watch the movie.
T+T
I have that same problem. Maybe we should start some sort of support group. People who want to be good but just end up sucking.
Would it really foul hf’s comfy bigotry nest to remind him that Blacks voted in favor of Prop 8 by more than 2 to 1?
People that want to be goo but just end up sucking would be a great nickname for the Cubs.
I barely write an entry every week, T+T, so I’m not pointing fingers, really. I’m just being annoying.
Makewi,
It’s hard to find churches that openly operate on that premise, but I bumped into one. What a relief!
I think you missed it Spiny, he told us that blacks are allowed because of how it affects their historical grievances. In short, gay black people are not helpful.
cranky-d,
It’s much more fun having a conversation here than shouting into the void and wondering if it makes any difference.
I think “A Boy Named Goo” was a pretty good album, except for the last song, which I rarely listen to.
http://www.break.com/usercontent/2009/1/Funny-monkey-sex-with-goat-642530.html
It is quite easy to tell which one is bh in this one …
So, Linda, if some Christian church refuses to perform a wedding ceremony for two men because it is against their particular religious beliefs, would it be proper for that church be sued for every dime it has, effectively shutting it down?
To comment a bit more seriously: I’m for the gay’s normalization into society generally, against activist judges specifically, have some fears about identity politics on the right, but don’t think we’re in a new place in that regard as we’re humans and humans are always sorta tribal.
that doesn’t foul anything Mr. Norman at all we already know from many other instances that a lot of black peoples are very very comfortable using the state to advance the interests of the group at the expense of the individual
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GBaoxnZH1Ug&feature=related
bh’s starring role …
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y8q_bEcjP-A&feature=related
The best thing is that the goat doesn’t seem all that concerned.
I should probably elaborate but I want to go home… black people very very much do not want to see black guys marrying other black guys.
Can we think of reasons why this might be?
Nothing rational comes to mind happyfeet.
or marrying white guys really
Don’t know about the boy but I still listen to Goo by Sonic Youth once in a while.
I think they’re more understanding with lesbians but that might just be I’ve seen The Color Purple too many times
Makewi
Now, that response would not surprise me, but I went back over the thread and I still can’t find it.
bjork doesn’t have sex with tiny farm animals/
tiny farm animals have sex with her..
there is a huge marriageable black man shortage Mr. Makewi or at least a perceived shortage I dunno really but you can google it
JD is finding these links so quickly because he already has them bookmarked.
that’s because Mr. Makewi is misremembering another thread, Spiny
yes they like little debbie marrying a camel too at the cordoba mosque
As usual, you’re missing my point. I’m beginning to believe it is intentional.
yes prison time does that
i like the goo from the teeth of them alien monsters..
but i just want to be a dentist..
it’s off to the land of misfit toys for me!
I misrembered another thread, and the whole sweater came apart. Wouldn’t have mattered much, but it was November and raining, and I caught cold and died.
Older thread Spiny. One in which I was pointing out the problems with limiting his ire to only white christers.
well if you want me to give the black prop 8 cheerleaders a piece of my mind I sure will I will say look bitches I don’t find your trashy bigotry very acceptable and how would you like it if people made rules about who black people could marry you wouldn’t like that very much would you
and they would say sorry happy we never looked at it like that before
i like working in the “hood”. old guys go to work young guys watch ohpra and something else
Only if they were all Chris Tucker.
black men were always free to marry black woman. not black men.
I wish we didn’t have to use the word gender when we mean sex but it seems like it’s too late to fix. Score another for J. Ginsburg.
I guess that was an oblique Weezer reference. Or not.
sdferr,
We’ve lost “lectern” too, since people now say “podium” instead. And they use “impact” as a verb (shudder).
and they say wee weed up when they mean hello I’m the fucking anti-Christ nice to meet you
How concise of them.
black jokes.. bring it!
so the momma sees her daughter crying on the porch and she hugs her and asks/why are crying?
and the daughter looks up an between sobs utters/ too many blacks
I recall reading in some biology book about species that have 3 sexes, others greater numbers even (seems like one was up to eight or so) and never could really get my brain wrapped around the concept. Much, I guess, in the way it’s hard to wrap my brain around dimensions higher than four.
sdferr,
If you think of time, temperature, spin, stickiness, and peppermint as added dimensions, it becomes easier.
Weezer transitioning to November Rain by Guns and Roses.
So you say. I ain’t venturing that far (the easier, that is).
the whiskey helps
Me and peppermint do not get along. You do not want to know … trust me.
The 5th dimension is profit.
Yeah, that’s what their agent said after “Up, up and away in my beautiful balloon,” but where are they now?
The 5th Dimension is a bunch of singing hippies.
Pretty sure I’m the only person on topic here.
Repent!
the whiskey helps
Sure, I’ve heard that before. Only it always end the same way – with me crying softly into my pillow and pain where I make my poop.
Good heavens, Makewi! That’s clear evidence that you should switch to gin and tonic!
The trailer for Psych about the tacos, burritos, and tortillas is hysterical.
JD,
Link?
T+T – Makewi should switch to White Zinfandel.
when black friday comes\ i’ll stand down by the door
and catch all the grey men as they dive from the fourteenth floor..
i won’t catch black men though/ cuz they splatter awesome!
and i’m a sidewalk artist/ currenly out on parole
T+T – I can find a link to a monkey fucking a goat or giving itself a blowjob in about 8 seconds, but I cannot find a link to an actual trailer for a television show. How sad is that?
JD,
Not just sad. Appalling.
Sure, JD, you had to find those links. No one is buying it.
would u like to fly in my beautiful/ my beatiful/ my beatiful ballon?
i’ll insure it/ and u/ for lots before i shoot u down
NTTAWWT.
Bjork Orr!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e5DwY4dRMBY
I do not know why this is so funny, but it is. I have often held that tortas, tacos, burritos, fajitas, nachos, chalupas, and various other delights are all the same thing in different packages.
JD,
Thanks. Funny.
I am going to have to bid all of you racist goat-fuckers goodnight. I am off to meet Malaclypse the Tertiary …
JD,
Sort of like Republican statists and Democrat statists, eh?
say hi to Mal we miss him
or I miss him
say you hi to him JD and be sure to invite him to visit with us more often please.
Thanks, guys, it has been lots of fun. G’night.
I suspect that Mal has lurked …
Somebody else is in charge of keeping bh away from the small farm animals, midgets, and clowns.
White Zinfandel or Gin and tonics. I just realized that you people hate me.
The one of those I looked at that didn’t seem like a goat but a kid, which, that’s not right, is it?
If I hated you, Makewi, I would not bother …
You need to get new glasses, sdferr.
More of my stuff from Ace’s thread, because I’m too lazy to read this whole p-dub thread and craft a new response:
I’ve hired a midget clown to rape you at the restaurant where you’re meeting Mal, JD. Good luck.
Best to Mal. He’s an insightful mofo and you can tell him I said that if you don’t act all gay about it.
(Ace commenter)To me this about gays declaring that they’re equal to straights and as such should be viewed as no different than heteros.
Gays are equal to straights under the law. That’s not the problem.
It’s that gay couplings are not the same as hetero couplings, not by a long shot, but our society’s concept of marriage and sex has degenerated so far that it’s been reduced to property law and sex and cohabitation.
No, the radical gay activists are hoping to destroy marriage by undermining it from within. Not all gays who want gay marriage have this goal, but the ones who do have the goal are the ones who will relentlessly work to bring it about.
Racial differences are merely cosmetic; sexual differences are real, and for a society to pretend otherwise is asking for deep trouble.
Actually, don’t. It’s, uh, a bit vulgar.
bjork attacks photographers at international airports..
ha/ and u thought ur luggage was safe..
half coconuts on ur elbows/half coconuts on ur elbows!
remember that scene in the birds from alfred hitchcock movie and
tippie/ ha/ tippy!/ hedren was all fumbly with her cigarettes and
the edit was all
tippy/smoke/birds
tippy nervous smoke/ birds on wires/ tippy smoke/ smoke agitated/ more birds
tippy looking behind her finally and saying/ /fuck/ time to get out of dodge!
there’s a black joke in there somewhere u rascist bastards
“. . .for a society to pretend otherwise. . .”
I’m not sure that this proposition is even possible, though the proposition that “someone might pretend that a society might pretend otherwise” does seem possible.
I leave you with this … http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e5DwY4dRMBY and this … http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GJ1yg1pKnXE&feature=related
Would you believe me if I said your Bjork period might be your best, ‘buttons?
Mr. newrouter ”white trash christers” is a formulation I made up for so anyone could decide it referred to themselves if the wanted… you’d be surprised how many people are eager to own that.
What we’ve learned I think is that identity politics is every bit as rife among Team R loosely defined as it is among the dirty socialist tribes
Oh, for the sake of Pete, feets. “Christian” isn’t an identity group equal to race or sexual orientation or nationality. Christianity is a path one decides to embark upon voluntarly, having covenanted with God to carry His Son’s name.
“Christian” was a tribe during the middle ages when “Christendom” existed as a political entity. Being Christian was the same as being European, whereas Arabian and Muslim were also the same thing.
As it stands, modern Muslims indentify the all Americans as Christians, and the fact that many aren’t into the church thing is unimportant to them: because their religious identity is paramount, they project the same categories onto us.
Well his bjork period was his best work, but after that he kind of sold out.
It all seemed to be about the money
and the zinfandel
If the State doesn’t give a rip, why is the license it allows — the rights it dispenses — so contingent on the entirely personal spiritual constructs of “two cosmic complementarities, male and female, yin and yang”?
Which is why marriage must be a private institution established by a private contract validated by not more than the State’s courts. In this setting such rulings as the one above become impossible to make.
Also real? Gay brains. Not like straight brains. To ignore this, society is doing what exactly?
Seems like it might be a good time to reread Euclid’s 10th book outlining proportionalities amongst incommensurables.
midget clowns are good for the enviroment
cuz their carbon boing footprint is.t so much/ and u can kick them with ease and they land/ far away
but they’re cut and they struggle up and dust their little clown
uniforms off and come back and approach u again
but u can kick them again! thats the beauty!
and if ur an asshole u can
get ur funky ass off the couch and as they lay there
in their in their tiny lil colorful midget clown costumes/ u could stomp them.. but if anybots from this website would stomp a midget clown…?
would u stomp on a vulnerable midget clown for shirley sherrod jumpstice
amen
would u heel the nation/ racially by just kicking the fuck out of a clown midget?
clown midgets were the unsung heros of the civil rights movement dagslagnabit
sure/ u might of not seen them on ur videos and such/
but they were there ..
when they hosed hosed hosed peeps in alabam.. who’s head got wet?
little tiny midget clowns for justice!
let’s erect a statue!
Get the math, don’t get the metaphor, sdferr.
If the damn State weren’t all in marriage wall-to-wall and 24/7, we probably wouldn’t be having this conversation.
If the state didn’t enforce the marriage “contract,” then children would have no claim on their parents support, or wives on their estranged husbands’, etc.
The state is involved in marriage for the same reason it’s involved in enforcing commercial contracts and such. Somebody has to be the referee to say what is and what isn’t an actual marriage, and when a marriage begins and when one ends and who’s obligated to take care of whom.
Because in the middle ages, you had “Secred Marriage,” in which young couples could agree just between themselves that they were married riiiight before consumation.
ODDLY ENOUGH, a young woman would often find herself with child, and her putative husband could deny that they were married at all, it being her word against his.
Hence the public ceremony with official officials making it legal instead of permitting the horny guy’s dumb friend to perform the ceremony, thereby making it their word against hers.
The first and most important purpose of marriage is to make sure that the children are taken care of, not to provide love ceremonies for adults. Same for adoption, an institution that exists for the benefit of the child, not for adults to add accessories to their households.
Our society now puts the whims and desires of adults over the needs of children, to the point where gays are demanding the right to claim the term “marriage”–not to ensure that children have a mother and a father (a psychological need and a spiritual RIGHT)–but to fulfill their own peculiar desires.
Feets, it wasn’t so long ago that people were insisting “we don’t need a piece of paper to prove our love,” a saying that gained traction despite the fact that it revealed a profound misunderstanding of what marriage is for.
These same people are now going to suddenly insist that they do need that piece of paper?
They don’t understand marriage and family any better than they understand the free market.
Euclid was all about sex sex sex bh, with his axioms & postulates, proofs & theorems constituting no less than his own flavor of “would you like to come up to my room to see my engravings?”
I am at a loss. Assuming this judge was The Ghey, I have seen many people advance the argument that he should have recused himself. This makes not one lick of sense to me, as we would not be asking for a hetero breeder to recuse themselves. Am I missing something?
money is a crafty way that bjork divides us…
Also real? Gay brains. Not like straight brains. To ignore this, society is doing what exactly?
I’m not asserting that homosexuality is a choice. My first two boyfriends were closeted gays, and I’ve had crushes on several more. They were all trying like crazy to be straight but couldn’t.
But the fact that gay brains are different from straight brains has what, exactly, to do with the fact that children need a mother and a father?
1 squared + n squared = n+1 squared.
Sorry, don’t know how to do the squared root symbol.
That, precisely that, di, that marriage is different because of children, is exactly right.
It’s not often enough mentioned though.
Euclid beyond the math is just one of my many, many areas of complete ignorance, sdferr.
Speaking of bjork, how’s her unpronounceable volcano doing these days? Chilled out has it?
a knife
a fork
a needle and a spork
that’s the way we spell new york
she’s coming/ death from above!
Bjork gets djorked by pjork!
bjorks volcano ash was just a feint to test ur crackers abilities
to fly/ she just probed us!
run to the coconut store! run…
One of the neat things with that theory of dealing with incommensurables bh, was seeing it presented as a sketch in its infancy in the Theaetetus, thence to be fully developed later in Euclid. It was just another of the discrete triumphs of rationality applied to what had been previously an unsettling problem with no solution.
Waaaaaaaaaaay off topic – but I am all sorts of pleased that my Cardinals finaly beat, or are beating knock on wood, the fucking horrible Astros.
Preaching to the choir, sdferr. Though, the irrational wasn’t conquered by the rational, merely described.
Math jokes: yep, still really gay.
put ur purple sneakers on !
and sing
she wore an ittsie bittsie teeny weenie purple polka dot bikini!
u have to sing it in public
loudly to save ur miserable ass
bjork prefers u sing it in a library or an
old age home
i’m just warning u/ she’s pissed!
and it’s a hard
and it’s a hard
and it’s a hard
rain thats gonna fall!
22/7. Yeah, I warned you, gay.
Beloved though it may be in some quarters, maths struggle to compete with chocolate in whatever form. Some things just aren’t going to be equal.
You know what, sdferr? That might have been the only truly offensive thing said in this entire thread.
I like this sdferr.
heh, so harmless observations of ordinary American health are offensive huh? If eating chocolate bon-bons is wrong, they don’t want to be right.
Me, too.
I’m covering my ears now.
Fudge packers of the world unite! You have only the intemperate Dedekindians twixt yourselves and candified glory!
me and bjork went out in high school..
well/ i was in high school and she was..not
she was a little critter!
in fact/ that was my nickname for her/ lil critter!
and after the trials and her pointing at doll parts cuz
of mr mean prosocuter had to ask her on the stand under oath
mean mean mean mr prosocuter!
and after my prison time/ i thought/ maybe..
maybe we could get back// like friends or sump?
but bjorks still wicked pissed off and unfortunately/ we’re all gonna die..
i’m resigned cuz even in the act of killing me
she might.. she just might/ touch me and we’d get back together
hope.. and.. fart..change?
ask bjork the square root of pi..
i dare u!
she taps it out with her hoofs and it gets loud sometimes/ but u get the answer!
My ears are covered! Get thee behind me, Bjork!
“Dale Earnhardt is dead and was not Teh Ghey, newrouter. Neither is Jr. NTTAWWT, but fuck you just the same.”
Yeah newrouter, what you were looking for was “latent homosexual“.
Oh, and I say only fuck yourself if afterward you can restrain the impulse to marry yourself, ‘cuz that probably would be a purely sexual thing, and thus fatally diluted.
So for the practicality of it all we must devolve a system where a judge can pee all over the moral will of the people…and the State can dispense and routinely void marital contracts at the will of one party.
The State is involved for control and money, dicentra, and increasingly for social remodeling. You of all people.
The State is actually involved in marriage because we’re foolish enough to make it an arbitrary, wholly involved, noncontractual party that by the will of special interest and sloppy voters a very bad national policy does indeed referee what is and isn’t a marriage. The State defines when a marriage begins and when it ends and who’s obligated to take care of whom — see above; see divorce and custody; see support and property.
It’s interesting that most of that is taken from your words.
I understand that you’re speaking in the ideal. But the ideal didn’t hold in this ruling and the ideal vanished decades ago where the State intersects what had been private marriage and what can only be private marriage if the institution is going to survive.
Lee apparently wants to dance on the grave of a great American too. Unleash the GNOMES !!!!
the best thing about clown midgets’
no/ the second best thing about clown midgets is u can
dress um up and be all like telling them they’re jockey for the running of the roses/ u know/ build up their self esteem/ then blindfold them and put them on a shitty one step from the glue factory horse
slap the horses ass and sing’ that old grey mare/ she aint what she used to be
ain’t what she used to be
aint what she used to be..
aint if the blindfolded midget clown jockey falls off old skipper
and a hoof crushes his skull/
well/ theres not anything funnier than blindfolded midget clown jockey brains
which is a delicacy in some parts of earth
i’d tell ya/ but then id have to kill ya
Gnu gnaws gnomes! See it now!
I’ll unplug my ears for a second and ask a question. Sdferr, while you did it, did you consciously understand how well Dedekind works in your joke?
That was fucking inspired.
Catenary.
The tactics of the No on 8 (pro-gay marriage) side were despicable. They accused everyone who opposed gay marriage as being filled with hate. They hounded people out of their jobs for contributing to a legitimate political cause. They lied that the Mormons were driving the issue. Totally disgusting.
People are riffing all over the place. Is this a fevered, Bjorkian dream?
GNOMES!!?! AAAGGH…No! I thought you said NTTAWWT!
if u want to get on bjorks good..
mmm/ hard to explain..side?
cuz bjork dont have sides//
but crippled midget half clown jockey brains are a treat
she don’t do mercy so just back out and pray she remembers ur stank
just dont look in her eyes
and wear coconuts on ur elbows
ps/ if she accepts/ mention my name? / thanks
on ur elbows
“. . . did you consciously understand how well Dedekind works. . .?
Not a bit of it, for I’m a gnu without a gnife.
New Prop rule: Be not the Judge of fudge-packer marriages if you are a judge who lurvs the fudge cupcakes.
And, not just anyone can judge good beers.
know why bjork made like zebras stripes different?
cuz maybe one day a zebra would get captured and
shipped to ur local zoo and u’d go to the zoo w childs and
be staring at it / transfixed and shit
and she’d cum up behind u and kill u!
se’d kill ur whole family!
and ur memories!
I’m wondering, if I tallied up this thread, where would I find more ad homs and logical errors? Side A? Or, Side B?
By the way JD, about the judge recusing himself? I think it has to do with whether ther is a personal interest for the judge. Like, a judge can’t preside over a trial involving a company he has stock in, or a trial of his son.
In this case, one has to wonder if the judge has always longed to throw the bouquet.
Your point that there might be a similar conflict with a straight married judge is valid however, and begs the question if this is a case for the judge recusing himself, is there any judge that shouldn’t?
I would say it is suspect to run this past a gay judge, unlike a straight one, unless the straight one was involved in any way with the prop 8 campaign.
Of course Judge Walker should’ve recused itself. There’s no way s/he could be ‘straight’ with the constitution. This was a joke from the minute Walker took the case; and will be a joke in the 9th Circuit. We’ll have to wait until this hit the Supreme Court for any real ‘non-liberal’ judges to study it. Oh, and the good news is the rule is stayed until the appeals are done, so there’s no new marriages happening tomorrow.
Here’s some good analysis…
*
“I’m wondering, if I tallied up this thread, where would I find more ad homs and logical errors? Side A? Or, Side B?”
No tiny animals were buggered in the course of making this thread, though a definition or two may have been bent, spindled or mutilated.
Jeff, earlier, framed this mo’ better. Gay judge, straight judge, the recusal angle is tangential. Along these lines, black, white, left, right, flat-earther, orgone boxite. It’s the judicial philosophy that matters. Will one interpret as best one can towards the intent of the legislature or (in this case) ballot box proposition.
We wallow around, here and there talking about horses marrying martians, talking about Mormons and white christers. Without asking why society sets married people into a separate class. Why they are different than single people or clown cultists or infertile earthworms.
So, this thread is like the all the other threads on the topic. Shallow questions asked, shallow insults exchanged.
Jeff’s question, as I take it, involved the basic supremacy of the legislature (as it represents popular will) vs judicial authority. Are they coequal like bulls fighting in the ring? Are is the judicial party required to at least pretend to maintain some fidelity towards interpretion of the former?
The comparison of legislative vs. judicial authority as framed would be legitimate if both factions followed strictly the constraints placed on their various actions by the Constitution, which should be the commonality (and bedrock) to both factions. No longer is that the case; no longer can we expect either side to truly live up to their oaths. Therefore the comparison as framed is moot.
This judge has taken to himself an enormous liberty, it looks like to me. While his presumption may take one’s breath away for the moment, the judiciary as a whole has not been heard from. I’ve no surety that the 9th Circuit won’t toss this ruling for starters. And much less do I believe that the Supreme Court will see it stand.
Into the void then.
“We wallow around, here and there talking about horses marrying martians, talking about Mormons and white christers. Without asking why society sets married people into a separate class.”
That question has been answered ad nausium so many times only dicentra had the energy to lay it out again.
Also,I think JHo has taken a severe libertarian stance, and like all such stances ignores reality. Family law, with questions about child welfare, property, divorce, wills, etc., needs be. That our system has been divorced (if you’ll pardon the phrase) from logic and common sense is obvious. That there needs to be no system at all is non-sense. And a Red Herring in this discussion.
“Therefore the comparison as framed is moot” lead to my “Into the void then”.
I can no longer make an extemporaneous comment apparently. Brain lesion.
Lee, I’ll grant you that we’ve gotten to it before, but I don’t think the basics are ignored here out of purely repetitious fatigue.
“Christian” isn’t an identity group equal to race or sexual orientation or nationality
that’s why I don’t say “Christian”
white trash christers though, they’re very real, they’re very tribal, they have devolved, there are many copies, and they have a plan
and people need to stop mollycoddling them to where they’re exempt from generally accepted enlightenment precepts
“….shall make no laws respecting religion…”
Which is the way it should have been handled from the beginning.
If Gheys want to band together and put on faux rituals and call it marraige, thats their business. The church can discriminate against perfectly legally, just as they would against NAMBLA or child abusers, or serial killers, or little old ladies that rob Walmarts.
– In this case discrimation means that whatever the groups activities are that the church disagrees with. Nothing wrong with that.
– The idea that ALL forms of discrimination are punitive is total bullshit. A construct of the usual Lefturds moving the linguistic goalposts yet again.
– Why should the Ghey community even care what the church thinks. As long as they have the freedom to practice their unnatural acts. pretend they are married, whatever, that should be no concern of the church, or any branch of government.
– If it would have been handled that way from the beginning all the air would have gone out of this obvious movement by the Left to subvert secular religion.
we went and had japanese noodles cause that’s the new thing – ramen houses – but I thought they were kinda gack – I’ll go back there though cause that’s the new thing – ramen houses
White trash has a plan? Funny.
The bitter clingers have no plan, they are much too bovine.
“I don’t think the basics are ignored here out of purely repetitious fatigue”
It’s what stopped me.
? ?
?
I dunno Mr. Hunter they seem to have a highly coordinated plan for Mr. Daniels replete with synchronized messagings and calculated evocations of wholly unrelated yet highly exercising hot button issues such as the fetuses and the homo matrimony what drive the tribe wild with Palin lust
That’s when I get wildly off topic, insult JD, make dumb math jokes and stop pretending a discussion is taking place.
The 9th is everyone’s drunk uncle, sdferr. But, yeah, agreed. The judiciary has only pipsqueaked a non-thought as of yet.
It’s a huge society we’ve got here, so we’ve no way of discerning the fallout of this decision in the opinions about it amongst the men and women filling the lower courts of the country, let alone the opinions of the higher courts, the people themselves, and their representatives in governments federal, state and local. Heck, how many of us commenting here have even read the decision, not to mention the months of trial transcripts. So we may blather inconsequentially for a while as we begin to work through the issues the decision alone poses, but I think we may be forgiven the interlude.
Some of us have positions as to human relationships which are more or less habitual, hardened and unlikely to change, perhaps for very good reason. Others of us may revisit the questions raised by this challenge to eons long practice, possibly arriving back where we began, possibly arriving somewhere new we cannot now predict. For my own part, I like that the decision presents such a stark challenge, at so fundamental a level of human action, though it may have been preferable that the challenge not arrive in this form. Still, here it is.
So, it invites us to reexamine once again what it is that constitutes a good or best human life, which I’ve always thought a worthy topic, if not the only topic. The thinking through part takes time.
I thought they were kinda gack – I’ll go back there though cause that’s the new thing – ramen houses
A well followed path to those “enlightened precepts.” The que forms in the back….
– The church took the bait, and they’re shooting themselves in the feets. They should have gone about their business and left the Ghey communitty to it’s own devices.
– As soon as they started making things a matter of law, or accepting it as a legal question, they were opening a massive bucket of worms.
– By this judges definition a girl scout group would have to accept a 58 year old CPA from San Francisco that has an eye for young “split tails”.
– They jumped the shark by accepting the whole premise.
Dude, flesh out “secular religion” for me.
That should have been “organized religion” – K?
Thanks.
Stephanie it’s Los Angeles what’s the point of living in Los Angeles and not living in Los Angeles? It has nothing to do with gack noodles it’s about seeing people and talking to them and understanding why the new thing is the new thing. Why do people like it? Why do they like it now?
Were the noodle makers doing the noodle making thing on display hf? The videos I’ve seen of the Chinese style of the noodle makings show a heap of flashy showmanships verging on entertainment worth the trip.
people forget that prop 8 was preceded by prop 22 in freaking 2000 when I first got here and the court said that one was unconstitutional like keeping slaves and coveting your neighbor… so now we’ve just gone in a big dumb circle and frankly I’m not getting very much out of it
– I think you’re referring to soba feets, not sure. It’s a fad, probably stemming from the successes of “Chop Stix”, or whatever that chain is called.
– They started getting a rep for being sort of an asian “hookup” place, similar to TGIF. As usual the young set is 5 years behind the curve.
– Tried that a long time ago and I found it to be heavy, cloying, and not very good. But you know, when your main interest is meeting chics or guys it probably wouldn’t matter if they were serving dog food on toast.
oh!!! maybe… we sat outside so I dunno – the cool one people have been talking about is on Wilshire and it’s different from this one – I haven’t been – that one is more cafeteria style – this one is more sit down – they started around colleges and the thing was you got out of there for $6 or so – and you got real ramen – this one wasn’t like that – you got more substantial noodles and the thing of it is you have a list of things you can add – I got chicken ball – I should’ve added more stuff I think – plus they have a dozen or so sushi rolls you can pick from (but not sushi sushi) – so it gets to where it’s like any restaurant and not really austere at all
next time we’ll sit inside
know why bjork sits on
a hillside and watches u?/ with her hands around her shinny shin shins
cuz she hopes u’ll crash
pickup stix? that’s fun they have the cream cheese wontons and if you go the right day they’re only 25 cents each – but that’s more chinesey like – but yes you’re right I think these ones I had are soba not ramen except the name of the place was blah blah ramen house
Check it.
Dog food on toast? Mmmmm, sounds rilly good.
i blame bjork for.. u being a jjerk and the sluggish economy
but mostly for u being a jjerk
that’s wicked cool he is noodle man
– Soba is generally, no always, wheat based, and it just doesn’t translate as a savory meal. But I suppose its a taste thing.
– For me it was like wet tissue paper in dish water textured soup. Some of the other choices weren’t bad, but nothing to write home about. With the limited sushi, and rather weird menu, the whole thing was a dud as far as I could see. You’d do much better going to restaurants that do certain foods as their main offering.
bjork invented toast/ with a wink of her eye!
sure/ enjoy the crispy succulent benifits
but ur all gonna die
ur toast!
‘nother sharper
robert johnson went down to
the crossroads/ fell down on his knees
when he looked up/
he saw bjork
The point is, they tear down everything around us, make heterosexual marriage a controversial thing, mom and apple pie, are next. Specially the pie with it’s high carbohydrates, love of country, we can’t have that, own the car and/or the house you want, well the government will determine that.
*
i think I kinda get it now but still that’s remarkably resourceful I could be locked in a kitchen with hunks of dough for 20 years and not have gotten there
To be just a bit chauvinistic for my adoptive home town, *.
“. . .make heterosexual marriage a controversial thing. . .”
I’m not getting how this part works Mr smiley. I get how the definition itself has been changed, but not how that change would affect the internal working of the ordinary marriages we’re all used to?
I can’t believe she married a guy I though she was cool
loser
*thought* I mean sorry I was listening about the crossroads
To me, making my italian style pastas at home hf, the tricky part they’ve got that I don’t is the easy stretchy dough, like their wheat is crazy chock-a-block with glutens galore or something, maybe the special water they use makes the glutens better somehow.
I have no idea about that really my last dough experience was the persimmon cookie fiasco
that was sorta my first dough experience too
I just through out the shortening I bought for those cookies like a month ago
what’s wrong with me?
*threw*
oh, heck, you oughta have fried up some chicken with it.
i like when u enroll ur daughters in
girl scouts but then u meet the den mother whose gonna be taking care of ur kiddies and she looks like..looks like?
say it!
it will free u!
bjork
we are all gonna die!
u are gonna die first tho..
i think i got an in with bjork/ cuz i talk like a dolphin
i’m starting a
“save ur life” foundation
send me gold
1/ peices /neck chains from reecently shot rappers
that old dude from treasuse from the sierra madrees..
he’s got some gold.hidden. crafty bastard
goldilocks/ natch//
and the jews
my criteria for my new place is very kitchen-centric – that sort of thing is no fun here at all it’s like a winnebago kitchen
Mine is a rough and ready sort of kitchen, plenty of space though, with nothing fancy, and the greatest drawback, an electric stove (blech). If it ever breaks down, I think I’m switching over to the propane since we got no nat.gas service.
how that change would affect the internal working of the ordinary marriages we’re all used to?
What, the Left won’t find a way to make traditional marriage “hateful”? Are you high?
If Gheys want to band together and put on faux rituals and call it marriage, that’s their business. The church can discriminate against perfectly legally, just as they would against NAMBLA or child abusers, or serial killers, or little old ladies that rob Walmarts.
How are those anti-miscegenation churches doing, huh? The GLBT activists have already stopped Catholic Charities from preferring married couples for adoptions and have made them open their adoption services to same-sex couples. They forced another church to rent out their property for a same-sex marriage.
They won’t rest until all churches either honor same-sex marriage or are hounded from polite society.
I don’t see why people who want to be married would give two shits what the left thinks about their lives. Why should they? Seems to me like that sort of influence is way beyond the capacity of an ideology not backed by dungeons to carry off.
p-def has this today
bjork don’t care about hetero homo farm love and marrige
know why?
cuz she’s busy sticking u with bjork pins
draining ur essence..
not true?
oh yeah/ have an extra cup of coffee in the mjorn..
are u tired?
do u suffer from constipation?
fits
scurvy
frequent nods
sudden compulsion to lash out?
wink in the eye?
stink/ or a general”not time for prime time odor”
is ur daughter trying out for americas next crotch?
we will send an ambulance asap but bjork might bomb it
ya know/ death from above..
plus she’s fickle
“They won’t rest until all churches
either honor same-sex marriage orare hounded from polite society.”It’s not as if the Left plans to stop undermining the core institutions of western civilization.
Damn, it seems like western civilization has got itself ahold of some weakassed institutions. Maybe westciv wants to fix that?
“President Palin”. Get used to sayin’ it ‘feets. It’s gonna happen.
Maybe there’s too much rot from within and too much pressure from without for westciv to survive. Maybe what’s left of westciv to save won’t be worth the trouble of saving to the only people capable of saving it.
if polite society says hey you know what we think gay marriage is nice and allyson and stephanie are coming over for dinner tonight so we better not invite our wtc friends cause you heard what they did at Carol’s when Jason and Micah showed up and we can’t have that here… what’re you gonna do?
It all comes back to what the principal told Andie.
If you give off signals that you don’t want to belong, people will make sure that you don’t.
True dat, Principal Donnelly!
This decision can, and by some will, be seen as progress. Perhaps I should say Progress. The “evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society,”
* Whether it is or not can be debated as can whether or not “progress” is desirable in this or any other case.
What cannot be debated or seen as unclear is that the method, the style, the form that the decision takes is “progressive”. It is a trademark, part of the very definition of what it is to be “progressive”. It is at the heart of what they perceive as humanity’s social contract. For them “rulers were accorded power, and the people consented to that power on consideration that they be accorded certain rights. The task of statesmanship has always been the re-definition of these rights in terms of a changing and growing social order.” **
It has been the work of over a hundred years “to make self-government among us a straightforward thing of simple method, single, unstinted power, and clear responsibility.” ***
Singular, unstinted power, clear responsibility, and a very simple method, force.
*Chief Justice Earl Warren
** FDR, 1932
*** Woodrow Wilson
how many bjorks does it take to change anything?
if u can still read this u must have mighty coconuts on ur elbows
impishly said.. wink wink
we are gonna die..
and on the first day of trespass bjork did give to me..
a pass!
The left wants western civilization to undergo it’s own “moor’s last sigh.”
– Mike, you like to tease the bunnies a bit don’t you, *chuckle*.
– This thread will now soar to 500+ before feets gets his blood pressure down below 90,000 feets.
That historian fellow Davies says it’s already gone in fact Ernst, says it’s been gone for awhile now, but our ways of thinking about it haven’t caught up to the enormous complexity of the whateveritis yet.
well Mr. geoff there will come a time when it’s a done deal and conventional and everyone’s onto the next new thing… but it’s not til that exactly that moment where you’ve had any progress I don’t think – and then nobody will really notice except for NPR
Yep, I’m a natural agent provacateur. ;)
I want to read this Davies.
What Davies historian fellow is that, sdferr? I’m not familiar with him. I know of a Wendy Davies, but she’s a medieval welsh specialist.
Easier yet you can listen to him. brb.
I’d say we’re progressing right back to the 1st century, B.C., but that’s just me.
Palin can’t beat Obama. He’s kryptonite to her putative grizzlyness and it will end in tears.
And probably a reality tv show.
Here ya’s go.
Norman Davies.
they/ i mean the man/ was gonna through the book at me/ man
was i worried.. i was facing ten to forever
no man
but the charges were deep/ i laffed/ scoffed
rolled another cig and said
bjorks my ljawer..
and all the jailhouse birds leap up and said {cuz bjork can get u off.. fotr a pjrice)
bjorks ur lawyer?/ with this kinda pathetic hopefully earnest ness/ and i flicked my ciggy in the toilet/ paused
and sighed
yeah/ but ur all gonna die
Oh, Stephen Davies. First I’ve heard of him.
So you don’t find the method, the means by which progressives progress humanity to be for reals progress but a cheap Chinese knockoff sold by a sleazy dude from the trunk of his Chevy, perhaps? If so I agree.
I love the title it’s bookmarked for tomorrow
Nope, not Norman but Stephen. Norman was featured in that film about the Soviet Union from a few days back though, he’s good.
it makes no difference geoff that’s all very superficial, the gay marriagings sort of progressing… if you make something conventional and accepted you make of it something conservative… you’ve just changed the tablecloth
this is an adding to not a taking away and that’s why it’s inevitable… like monkeys
– feets, you could rephrase that with anyone’s name you like on the left, but if things go anything like they have so far for the next two years I don’t see any way in hell the Dems will run Bumbblefuck a second time.
Thanks for the link. I’ll check it out if my tin-echo phone line dial-up connection lets me. Maybe by Sunday. I’ve never heard of Stephen Davies. Norman Davies’s Europe is excellent. He’s a Polish specialist.
I hope he’s wrong though. The last time a civilization died, nobody recognized it for about 150 years, and then everybody recognized it all at once. The next several centuries were unpleasant.
– Yes. The Inquisitions were not a walk in the park.
I wonder that too Mr. Hunter – and he doesn’t seem terribly engaged in his own presidency – like he knows it’s just a sweet gig he’ll have for a short time and he wants to enjoy all the perks while he can
You know what’s conservative? Child brides. That’s the staunch.
that was very random Ernst
The great hockey stick gives me some reason to think a bit more optimistically Ernst, provided we can bring ourselves to come to grips with modern tyranny, in order to prevent it, that is.
no, this is random:
it makes no difference geoff that’s all very superficial, the gay marriagings sort of progressing… if you make something conventional and accepted you make of it something conservative… you’ve just changed the tablecloth
They change something, and you go along with it. You’ve just reduced conservatism to figuring out how to raise the money to pay for the liberal spendings, just the way the dirty socialist like it, you naughty naughty boy.
– Obama has managed in his short time in office to cement the concept of the obligatory showcase black for all time.
I feel kind of aroused
that’s probably wrong of me
A couple talk about children and later have sex trying to have a child. A man entreats a young woman with promises of love and devotion to get her to have sex with him when he knows he will desert her come morning. A woman has roofies in her drink, placed there by her date so as to have sex with her later. A woman is raped at knifepoint in an alley.
In each case there was progress made to a certain end, sex between a man and a woman. The method by which that progress occurred, the “how” that led to the “what” is the important part. Progressives also believe that the method is important as does the rapist above. The means by which an end is arrived at are important.
if you make something conventional and accepted you make of it something conservative
Child brides are very conventional in a culture that will go unnamed, lest I be accused of being unhelpful. Burning the widow on the funeral pyre used to be very conventional too. And honor killings! Don’t get me started!
staunch staunchier staunchiest
well remember this started in 2000 in California as far as I know – Team R had more than enough opportunity to lead – they failed… and so they’ve precipitated a raping I guess. Sucks for them. But that’s not the same as saying it sucks for America.
right well the people who fought against getting rid of child brides? Those were conservatives, Ernst.
Ever get that weird thing with people sounding totally wrong on the phone? Just experienced the exact opposite. Ever wonder where some pw people are at 1:30 on a Wed night? The bar.
I got the gnome!
Yep, the GOP legislates (DOMA, anyone?), either the Dems obstruct or the courts overturn, and it’s all the GOP’s fault. Thus the GOP earns its raping for not dressing demurely enough. But (for once) that’s not a bad thing for America.
You know, it’s fascinating to me the issues on which you choose to distinguish between “Team R” and the US of A.
[T]he people who fought against getting rid of child brides? Those were conservatives[.]
Only until some court comes along and says that the state has no rational interest in preventing a second generation Middle Eastern immigrant from marrying his 11 yr old cousin. You see, “it makes no difference … [it’s] all very superficial, the [child cousin] marriagings sort of progressing.” We’re just changing the tableclothes, aren’t we ?
I see that I cannot make my intent clear enough or else it is to be purposely misconstrued and my words twisted to mean what they do not. I’ve heard of such things happening.
For now I do not wish to live on California time and that is where this shall lead me if continued. G’night.
Good night geoffb, see you mañana
?
I thought I understood where geoffb was going:
the ends justify the means/by any means necessary. Perhaps not. But it’s already too early in the a.m. for me as well, so…g’night – I thought I understood you … I think if means matter then Team R should have guarded against this outcome more better – they saw this coming many many moons ago inasmuch as it’s a rerun already
bjork never sleeps/
and is often randy
I definitely failed by a little and by a lot.
bjork and feces should not be mixed
but when she puts that shit on her forehead
all injun like and goes
whoop whoop whoop!
well/half coconuts on ur elbows arent gonna
save ur scalp
“All hail the philosopher kings!”
This decision’s pedigree couldn’t get any better. Ted Olson on the winning side. The judge recommended by Meese, appointed by Reagan and opposed by Kennedy. It’s time to get on board.
Enjoy reading the findings of fact. Why did the state put up such a weak fight?
Because they wanted to lose, in spite of the desires of their pesky, ignorant citizenry.
Just waking up but I did my best to explain the reasons for recusal towards the beginning of the thread. Recusal is NOT just proper when the judge has a personal stake in the outcome (for example, stock in a company involved in a suit over which he is presiding), it is ALSO proper when the judge has a demonstrative bias on a particular issue, especially if said issue is important to the community. Whether the judge plans to marry or not, if he is openly gay, there is a pretty good chance he has an opinion one way or the other. The difference between a gay judge and a “breeder” judge (as JD puts it) is the breeder represents the majority view (by a wide margin) and then gay judge represents a minority view and/or a viewpoint which shows potential bias towards the law in question. Again, example, muslim judge presiding over a court case banning sharia law – while the judge MAY not be a fundamentalist, he also may be a fundamentalist and his beliefs would color his views. The point of recusal is to pass the case to someone who does not hold views in complete contrast to the majority view. Its not a perfect example but again, recusal is about possible bias.
well Mr. geoff there will come a time when it’s a done deal and conventional and everyone’s onto the next new thing… but it’s not til that exactly that moment where you’ve had any progress I don’t think – and then nobody will really notice except for NPR
the next new thing? Well, that would be teaching little kids in public schools about gays, transgender lifestyles, “gender stereotyping”, etc.
We’re going to start teaching kids about teh gays in grade school. It’s only fair.
Oh look. It’s meya.
From #433:
And until they do, dammit, it’s the State’s responsibility to _______.
legs – who is the AG of Calfornia…? Oh, yeah.
it is for all students growing up in our increasingly diverse world.
Are there any new subspecies I’m unaware of?
hf is scroll through material on this issue
Sorry I’m not following you geoffb.
I think if means matter then Team R should have guarded against this outcome more better
I guess that means we’ll have to stop rewarding bad behavior by starting to bring guns to gun fights. Can you counter-march through the institutions, or do you try to hunker down in the tall and uncut and wait for the left to turn on itself?
hf is scroll through material on this issue
I was going to read the whole thread until I first encountered grieferfeets Christophobia first thing.
My hope is when the lawsuits against ministers who refuse to perform same-sex “marriages”, and against any photographer/caterer/church hall who won’t book same-sex “marriages”, and the clamor for laws to jail anyone (ala Canada) who stands in the pulpit and calls homosexual behavior a sin comes to pass, that an angry Christer beats the shit out of griefer.
I mean, you’ve got some assholely university telling a student they will NOT get a diploma, indeed will be expelled from school, unless she repudiates her religion and takes a “sensitivity” class including attending gay pride parades.
Griefer’s anti-socialist rhetoric is a sham.
All students should feel …
STOP RIGHT THERE. It is not the friggin duty of the SCHOOL to make a kid FEEL ANYTHING!!! The mission and duty of schools is to EDUCATE.
FEELINGS are the realm of parents, church/temple, social organizations (scouting, philanthropic organizations).
it offers a wide range of resources for school administrators and educators on supporting students who are on a unique gender path.
what the hell does that even mean?
[Welcoming Schools] is for all students growing up in our increasingly diverse world.
I have a feeling we’ve about maxed out on diversity, and are going to start seeing a good deal more of global cultural conformity. I have no idea what that conformity will look like, but it probably won’t be celebrating diversity with the HRC Foundation Family Project.
John Dewey begs to differ with you Darleen.
Says you!
*sigh*
Jeff has this exactly right IMHO. The question is not one of Civil Rights but of equal protection under the law. I have debated this issue with so many people both for and against and so many seen to be stuck in the “what’s the big deal?” or “But gay is teh sinning!”
Neither get it. The core of our point of view is that marriage’s existence as a legal institution is clearly defined (as pointed out by dicentra’s #1) and has been for hundreds of years. What would make “marriage” unconstitutional is if there were legal protections available to married hetero couples that were not available to gay ones. That was the whole point of Civil Unions to begin with. Now ‘feets (when he isn’t screeching about lifeydoodle white Christers) makes a valid point that Team R hasn’t been very supportive of Civil Unions. Speaking as a religious conservative, I believe that position to be wrong. Equal Protection is just big enough to separate committed gay couples from horses and children and stuffed dolls. Acknowledging and protecting legal rights is valid and humane.
This court’s position is that the word “marriage” defines the right, not the legal protections. Thus not being able to call it “marriage” creates a Civil Rights issue in opposition to the Constitution. The gay marriage advocates argument used of “separate but equal” is a crock. There is no comparison to segregation and schools as there is no financial or quality of life difference. The difference, quite frankly, is in the heads of gay marriage advocates who see this as no more than an opportunity to thumb their nose at heteros and proclaim, “See? We’re just like you, breeders!” The irony is that many gays don’t want to be “married” and would rather celebrate a union, civil or not, that glorifies their differences from “breeders” and provides them with legal protections as a couple.
I haven’t come to these conclusions in a vacuum. My wife works for, quite possibly, the gayest company on the planet and my sister in law is a lesbian. Equal protection is important but it is not a legal nor definitional truth that that couples protection needs to be called “marriage,” thus redefining the term to suit a group shouting to make “breeders” kow-tow to their re-definition of marriage.
That having been said I hope a bunch of people running in 2010 don’t allow themselves to be distracted from “the spendings” and give in to the temptation to play the “defense of marriage card” 2006 style.
If I can now marry my sprawling estate and claim it as a dependent, put me in the “thumbs up” column.
I could then divorce my house and collect tractor support payments. Win/Win
Someone was saying, how they would never go there, and if it does happen, “enjoy it and think of England”
you want to revise and extend:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/0,1518,702679,00.html
BJ I think there’s a big problem what comes from anti-gay marriage people not having a very effective elevator pitch. It’s no harm no foul – nobody can make people understand what the big deal is if gay people can marry. Lawsuits? Yeah there will be some legal terrain to map. Big deal. That’s life in America, and it can probably be managed to some extent with legislations.
But if you don’t want to think in your head of gay marriage as for reals marriage – you will never have to do that. Ever your whole life. But other people should be able to if they want to. And that’s what you get if you aim for maximal liberty I think. The greatest amount of latitude for people to order their affairs as they see fit. And marriage is just one tool for that.
Yeah there will be some legal terrain to map. Big deal
Fuck you, hypocrit.
Too much pepper Darleen
Palin talked about Mr. Ryan yesterday. I think she must lurk here.
Good for you, Sarah! Now a kind word for Mr. Daniels please? Did you see the map what shows how awesomely he’s handled Indiana’s finances? Pretty impressive, huh? Indianans are like 60% less in debt per capita than Alaskans! And you know what that is… that’s value.
And that’s what you get if you aim for maximal liberty I think.
Is that what we, as a country, are aiming for? The irony, it burns. Gay peps are free to marry each other, but the government demands you buy healthcare.
But, also, let’s not forget that not only are gays free to marry (or may at some point in the near future) but folks are no longer free to criticize. The push isn’t going to end here.
One of the few genuine mistakes that she did make, was endorsing Prop 8, and $, down here, because they were not explicitly foreclosed by the state constitution, that earned her a hanging in effigy in West Hollywood, even though she had allowed benefits for Domestic partnerships in Alaska, unlike Senator bumble. She backed Branstad over Huck pawn VanderPlaats, who’s all about the gay marriage thing. Ryan is on point feets, only a dozen or so of the fracked party support him,
Gay marriage is just a tool that’s used by the left to advance their agenda; an agenda that’s anti-Constitutional and will lead I’m afraid to the dissolving of this Republic. One single man, a Judge, has used his clouded butt-hurt vision to strike down a law mandated by 7M voters in California and millions more voters in the several states who also voted to forbid gay marriages. It’s just not right.
No the push won’t end there – the push never ends – but it’s just as likely that legalized gay marriaging blunts the momentum as increasers it I think… but still –
I said that last night elsewhere. Team R needs to engage and if they choose not to then they’re like this guy I think.
I prefer ordered liberty to maximal liberty. But I’m old fashioned like that.
This wouldn’t be such a problem if marriage (the sacrament enforced by God) and marriage (the contract enforced by the State) weren’t intertwined so closely. I’m waiting for some brilliant legal mind to figure out that the two need to be separated, such that Marriage is a religious ceremony and Civil Union is a civic one, and you can have one or both as you see fit.
“There are some things so stupid, that intellectuals can believe” that’s what Orwell once propounded, yes there is a reason why marriage was organized this way,
Somehow I don’t see the Left assenting to your brilliant legal mind’s separate but equal proposal Squid.
On the other hand, I do see a number of mainline Christian denominations tryiing to do exactly that, and running afoul of the State.
Squid, you’ve nailed it. Marriage is more than Civil Unions because it’s origin and definition is ‘tainted’ by religion; which has no place in legal governance. We should divorce the two; provide for Civil Unions for all and marriages for those who desire a more honorable Church covenant.
Exactly, serr8d, with greater emphasis and weight for the binding aspects of “honorable Church covenant”.
Except Sharia law, that will be fine in the new order, but Christianity, that’s just bitter clinger stuff
I’m really having a hard time getting worked up about this.
That’s just the meat of it, no? I mean, there have been civil unions (in effect) for the areligious for quite some time. It’s almost as if we got chocolate in someone else’s peanut butter, and they want ahead and got peanut butter in our chocolate, just to even things out.
On a purely equal-rights standpoint, though, you can’t just extend privileges to some kinds of couples and not to others, can you? Or is that cupcake going to somehow make healthcare decisions on your behalf, or acquire a Social Security number so you can file your taxes under married, filing jointly?
I don’t disagree with #461 but Team R isn’t and hasn’t been proactive and solutions-oriented in any way what suggests they would ever look at that kind of approach – I think they prefer to use the issue for fundraisings and to excite their base.
Hey you know why there’s not more support for civil unions in the Christian community? Because many Christians are sick of being told how wrong we are and how discriminatory our religion is because we don’t believe God approves of homosexuality. When you try to shove something down people’s throat and then shout to the rafters how evil those people are for not doing what you want, those people get pissed, stop listening to your side of things and tell you to sod off. If gays wanted civil unions, they could stop trying to shove gay marriage down everybody’s throat and accept that there could be an alternative, if their 4% of the population would be willing to compromise with the other 96%.
its not about “equal rights”- its about forcing 96% of the population to accept a lifestyle choice for many and for others, its about sticking it to the churches who make them feel dirty about their sexual preference.
Can we all agree that whether it’s same sex marriage or civil union, the one sure thing is that they’ll both be unemployed before 2012?
And if the BTCs are allowed to expire, at least one of them will be holding a gun in Civil War Part II: The Rangeling
oh shit
Watching Stephen Davies’ lecture that sdferr linked at #397; Mr. Davies speaks of “mutually understood symbols”.
Do you see any irony in this screenshot ?
RAAAAACIST~!
No? Have you talked to many gay people about what it’s really about?
Sorry, the “lifestyle choice” is already there. People are fucking other people of the same sex, with or without marriage.
I must have missed where it came to sticking it to the churches. Tell me more about how this is supposed to work, please.
I refuse to allow the blind to drive.
Obviously, it’s because I hate blind people.
Blindness is not the functional equivalent of sight, and I say that because I hates me some blind folk.
Ergo, when I observe that gay couplings are not the functional equivalent of hetero ones, it can only be because of teh hates.
What it’s about is what Jeff says it’s about: making our culture subject to arbitrary revision without even so much as a political recourse.
When SSM first became a judicial issue, a mainstream backlash was inevitable — and as we do in America the backlash has been seeking to follow peaceable avenues.
If this ruling stands it will close off one of those peaceable avenues.
That cannot possibly be a good thing.
Let’s play the Pope-O game.
With whom would you risk excommunication* for a night of anal?
Mine is nishi.
*I’m not Catholic
blind people are smug and mack on Piper which is really just wrong cause of she’s in a very vulnerable place right now
You’d let nishi drill you up the squeekhole?
NO! DAMMIT! IT WOULD BE ME………I MEAN……I WOULD BE THE………
I deserved that.
…..and you spelled squeakhole wrong. HA! Checkmate!
She’s fine, but I’m still more partial to Jennifer Garner, and Alias
On a purely equal-rights standpoint, though, you can’t just extend privileges to some kinds of couples and not to others, can you?
You’re assuming that rights apply to couples as well as individuals.
Marriage laws are applied equally to everyone. The state doesn’t ask whether you’re gay when issuing a marriage license. A gay man and a lesbian are permitted to marry, just as a straight man and straight woman can.
So if you’re arguing the case on “equal protection,” you’re on thin ice. The law already applies to everyone the same.
What you have to argue is that the very definition and structure of marriage ought to be changed, and that the state’s interest in doing so outweighs the state’s interest in not doing so.
Don’t EVEN try to compare this to the anti-miscegenation laws: the only similarity is that it involved marriage and some people’s ick factor.
What it didn’t involve was an attempt to change the structure of marriage. It also didn’t involve overturning millennia of wisdom. The idea that the races ought not intermarry was a historical anomaly, based on unscientific, untrue ideas about bloodlines and superiority and eugenics.
Yeah, if we dig into it, how much of the miscegenation originated with Woodrow Wilson ::spit:: who segregated bathrooms and the armed forces and such so that the white people wouldn’t get the colored folks’ cooties?
Furthermore, no religious tradition holds that races ought not intermarry, but they all recognize that same-sex unions are not the equivalent of opposite-sex unions, and simple biology can confirm that.
As I said before, it is tragic that some people cannot form sexual bonds with the opposite sex. It’s not their fault. But that doesn’t make it another kind of normal any more than blindness is just another kind of sight or schizophrenia is another kind of sanity.
live by the editorial comment, die by the editorial comment
She’s fine, but I’m still more partial to Jennifer Garner, and Alias
Now that’s what I call Catholic. Hear that Ernst? nishi’s a chick. Game set and match Beeyoncee!
You’d be enjealousing ‘feets either way, alppuccino. Nishams is his somewhat little darlin’.
I don’t see happy as the jealous type.
nishi is like the wind through my tree
Just to up the ante alpuccino, would you let nishi drill you up the squeAkhole for a shot at drilling Mrs. Affleck in same?
What is nishi’s implement? Vaseline soaked Q-Tip? Well-oiled popsickle stick? Pinky?
I confess to be being tired with this topic. Whenever I find myself obsessing about the issues that exist between Gays and straights I take a moment and go listen to this which, in my humble opinion, is one of the most beautiful and heartbreaking songs ever written (by Paula Cole.) It helps to know that the song is about a young man with Aids during his last days, with his father sitting by his bed.
Politically, Herbie Hancock may be an ignorant tool but he and Annie Lennox recorded a gem. Yea, it’s painful but real and, every now and again, it’s good to be reminded of the humanity in our political lives.
A post about my bum. Not where I thought I’d be in aught-10.
Pronoun trouble, I was referring to Ms. Perabo,
Way to weave common sense into what was becoming a deliciously hysteric thread there Beej. Way to go.
This thread is FABULOUS!
You get what give al, for the fairness.
So are we correct to think that the objections to same sex marriage do at root depend on religious injunctions against the practice of same sex sex as sinful? And that without those injunctions, the other appended objections would not have been resorted to?
The Colossus of Golf and common sense only have a passing acquaintance, methinks.
I really like Paula Cole except sometimes she makes weird noises – I think she had a song about nietzsche that frightened me but this song is exceptionally hot – the only version of the whole thing I can find has disturbing soap opera images in it
sdferr: I can’t speak for anybody else but I’m sure I gave an entirely different view in my novella above at #445.
(hush, hush, hush)
I can’t think of how to respond to that.
I was looking more at Matt’s 466 and dicentra’s 479 (with various other versions of the same argument) BJTex, not so much your 445. I don’t know that song, not having heard it so will take a bit to digest it.
‘feets: I agree about Cole but she is an extremely good song writer. I think Herbie and Annie kicked it up a notch with the spare jazz concept and the acoustic guitar is gorgeous.
I’ll admit: I’m really a sucker for songs that touch a personal hurt and tell a story. Further example: Mary Chapin Carpenter’s song about her parent’s divorce.
I’m pretty much harshing everybody’s mellow right now, ain’t I?
*single tear*
Not in my case, no.
sdferr, I’m not sure I understood your comment. Religious objections to homosexuality is usually at the forefront, I guess. My concern about opening churches up to liability for discrimination is due to the fact that yes, many Christian denominations and congregations object to homosexuality and so will not marry homosexuals. I have no interest in condemning homosexuals and their lifestyle and admittedly, some Christians do not feel similarly (I’ve seen pastors claiming they can fix homosexuals and whatnot).
Yes, well, I wasn’t looking so much to anyone’s individual position as to the generalized state of the argument the society is having.
My whole excommunication rant was based on your comment about churches denouncing the “choice” of homosexuality. I now see that it was another wasted gem. Sonofabitch.
For Matt, that is.
I believe my individual position is consonant with the position of a lot of those who object to same sex marriage. Which likely means many in society are having an argument using my position. Qualifying it for part of that “generalized state.”
*No? Have you talked to many gay people about what it’s really about?*
Sure. For some, its about acceptance of their lifestyle, especially by religious persons who object to the lifestyle on the basis of religion. Any of the legal benefits of marriage worked out legally for gays who want to be partners, just not married. Civil unions serve the same purpose. As such, what do you think its about then?
*Sorry, the “lifestyle choice” is already there. People are fucking other people of the same sex, with or without marriage.*
Yes and I support their right to do so. Gay marriage, as a political position, has nothing to do with fucking people of the same sex. I’ve explained my concerns on a number of occasions in this thread and I don’t want to rehash. Please just read back.
*I must have missed where it came to sticking it to the churches. Tell me more about how this is supposed to work, please.*
I’ve explained this as well. I know gay men who are extremely bitter and hostile towards religion, almost always arising due to the lack of acceptance they feel from Christian churches, their parents and sometimes their friends. Churches will be sued, demorats will do their best to strip churches of their tax exempt status. Part of the fight for gay marriage, in my opinion, is about stripping religion from our society- a position many liberals completely support and will use gay marriage to further their agenda.
Matt, I thought that your expression
was good as an expression of the position of a non-trivial portion of the polity. I further took “. . .try to shove something down people’s throat and then shout to the rafters how evil those people are. . .” to be referring to the gay activists as the shovers and the believing Christians as the shovees, rather than as I might the contrary, thinking on the idea that one tells the other that the other’s sexual practices are the very height of sin against God’s injunctions. It’s easy to imagine that one standing in the position of a person being told that they are naught but sinful might find every reason to fight on and on at the first opening to rid themselves of any entailed dishonor at such a condemnation, and in the effort to be spiteful as well.
Maybe “at root” is too vague? On that probability, I mean there to refer to the origins of the argument in time, or in history if you prefer, not as a fundamental tenet taken up for the sake of the argument just within the last century or so or however it is that arguments get built.
I’d quantify that by saying that many liberals support the idea of stripping the wrong kind of religion from our society. Activist atheism is still a tiny percentage of even those of the liberal bent. Liberal Christianity, the sort that takes progressive “truths” and shoe horns them into Christian Theology by getting all present day creative with “What Would Jesus Do?” seeks to reign supreme. As long as you embrace the concepts of Liberation Theology, Jesus empowering woman to abort their fetuses and throw in a dollop of white racial guilt, you are on the “right” track.
My simple answer to this observation, sdferr, is … two wrongs don’t make a right.
And?
And … See my #445. I clearly reject both for the balanced, third option.
You and I may feel comfortable to privately reject either side in that pissing match BJTexs, but for my part I’m gonna be very wary about telling believers that their religious injunctions straight down from God on high are one component in the oldsaw “two wrongs don’t etc.”. That road looks fraught with troubles, doesn’t it?
I just re-named my Jeep a Porsche.
So I finally have a Porsche! And you all had damn well better acknowledge it!
Because why does my no good rotten neighbor get to have a Porsche but not me?
Ha! No more!
The trick lays in persuading the Jeep to drive like a Porsche on the strength of the renaming, doesn’t it?
Not to me, sdferr and I’m squarely in that camp.
My argument to my peers is that Jesus said, “Render unto Caesar what is Caesar and unto God what is God’s.” Our government is not based in toto on the bible. If we are to be a country that exceptionalizes itself with Equal Protection under the law then, sometimes, gross religious moral sensibilities may be trumped within the government. We are not a Theocracy but our religious underpinnings have a place, just not this place.
Clear enough?
Also, sdferr, Jeff is an agnostic and I’m a social con Presbyterian. Yet we are able to agree on this issue. Funny, that!
I was once told I was a Calvinist. They made me sit at the other table.
They allowed you to sit? I would have thought they would have forced you to kneel on broken glass!
Nice Porsche. Love your ground clearance.
Let’s just say that it wasn’t a bad thing, BJTexs.
That’s clear to me BJTexs and seems on the mark as well. But again, you and I in agreement there we may not be representative of the folks who object on other grounds.
Though this remark “Also, sdferr, Jeff is an agnostic and I’m a social con Presbyterian. Yet we are able to agree on this issue. Funny, that!” [I mean, did you think I wasn’t aware of either of those two positions?] indicates that I don’t know where you think I’m coming from here, and as such tells me I’m not getting my own question across very well.
Maybe I should point back to 365 & 377 as better examples of the origins of that question?
I was being playful, sdferr. Thanks for those two references, though. I actually appreciate your willingness to break down arguments and positions. It’s a good think to examine them and think things through.
tiny bacteria
A huge part of the problem is that we’re arguing about the state’s interest in the living arrangements of adults and what it’s to be called.
Which, if that’s all there is to it, the state has no interest at all.
But the state does have an interest in making sure that children have legal claim to both a mother and a father, because otherwise the state has to deal with the consequences of unattached children who grow up to be dysfunctional adults.
Do you see how I’m not making a religious argument here? Do you see how I’m not talking about whether homosexuality is sinful? Do you see how I’m concentrating on the welfare of children rather than the preferences of adults?
My argument of necessity would also prohibit same-sex couples and single people from adopting children or participating in artifical conceptions and surrogacy, because those arrangements automatically deprive a child of either a father or mother.
I am a single woman, and I will never bring a fatherless child into the world. Any desires to “experience motherhood” don’t trump the child’s need for a father.
Also, congrats to Jeff on his new Porche. Bet it’s a dandy!
“…the state has to deal with the consequences of unattached children who grow up to be dysfunctional adults.”
The state can shrug and tell the dysfunctional adults they are on their own lookout. The state can shrug and tell generous open-hearted people that if they want to make it their life’s mission to save the dysfunctional then they may look to it. The state can deal with the dysfunctional where it must by throwing them in the clinker, or setting them out in the public square for pummeling with tomatoes. Who suffers the dysfunctional? They themselves, and their parents, siblings and so on who care about them most of all.
“…I’m not making a religious argument here?”
Then what is the use of “Furthermore, no religious tradition holds that races ought not intermarry, but they all recognize that same-sex unions are not the equivalent of opposite-sex unions, and simple biology can confirm that.” Why focus on religious tradition if religious tradition plays no part in the argument at hand?
Another attempt.
Our elites believe that they know, KNOW, what the future holds for all of society. They have seen the future and wish to hasten it into being. By any means necessary. Quoting myself, hubris, I know.
“A couple talk about children and later have sex trying to have a child.
A man entreats a young woman with promises of love and devotion to get her to have sex with him when he knows he will desert her come morning.
A woman has roofies in her drink, placed there by her date so as to have sex with her later.
A woman is raped at knifepoint in an alley.
In each case there was progress made to a certain end, sex between a man and a woman. The method by which that progress occurred, the “how” that led to the “what” is the important part. Progressives also believe that the method is important as does the rapist above. The means by which an end is arrived at are important.”
To continue the analogy. Our elites know that from the coupling of; “that certain man with that certain woman” will come a most beautiful and wonderful child. They have foreseen it. It is as a fact to them.
Therefore it in important that the coupling take place, soon, soonest, NOW. This imperative drives the choice of method, of means. This style is very “old school”. It has been known as “once you have them by the balls, their hearts and minds will follow.” Or that the proper application of a rubber hose can overcome all objections.
That they cannot “know” the future, only use force to attempt to bring a certain one into being, and that the very method used will affect, corrupt, the end sought seems lost on our intellectual betters.
So geoff, you are pointing in particular at the hubris of the judge, but he has crawled himself and his bulky reason package out on a very thin limb, what with two much heavier weight courts about to crawl out on that limb with him. He may have done himself and his package no favors here.
“about to crawl out on that limb with him”
Thus my “corrupt the end sought”, in this particular case, comes in that form.
When people have had enough, and the backlash comes, it will be a dozy, just like Jeff’s Porsche.
Special interest groups always overplay their hand.
Other than the fact that his findings of fact appear, to some more familiar with the law than I, to be close to bullet-proof. The favor he hasn’t done here is more of the “punch back twice as hard” variety when the people who respect the law get tired of being subjected to its abuse at the hands of the people who own it.
this is exactly how social reforms have happened in America for many many moons – the system is working like it’s supposed to it seems to me especially since America’s failshit political class is more interested in exploiting the issue than addressing it seriously – the judge is concerned that people aren’t being treated equally – he wants this looked at very carefully – that’s a far more judicious impulse than any legislature or referendum has shown
“Thus my “corrupt the end sought”, in this particular case, comes in that form.”
I’m not sure what you mean here: are you of a mind that this ruling will be upheld? I don’t think it will, but I’m not at all sure of that.
It’s probably better manners to not be telling me what I assume.
The legal privilege of certain kinds of two-person relationships above other kinds violates equal protection, I say.
One could make the same argument about same-race (or other-race, if you want a closer analogy) requirements on marriage. That makes it constitutional?
“…he wants this looked at very carefully…”
It’s hard to tell since I haven’t read the decision itself but only read others thoughts about it, but it doesn’t appear the judge has been careful to look to the intents of the writers and history of the constitutional passages he makes use of in his ruling. The decision may be extremely vulnerable on that account.
I’m just going off the snippet Jeff gave
the judge is saying this is above my pay grade and he’s trying to frame the question for a higher court I think
I actually don’t care what you call it, and tend to lean more toward calling them civil unions. Still: same end result.
Part, but not all. I’d wager that you couldn’t assign a percentage, though, with any confidence. I think this is FUD-sowing more than anything else.
That part should be resisted. But my church has and always will have the right to exclude people whose behavior does not comply with our beliefs. Those people will never have any rights to get married in our church, even if they have rights in other, more liberal churches.
As far as recusal obligation goes, I’d be more convinced if he was gay AND wanted to be married.
It matters not if it is upheld or overturned in this aspect. The corruption of the end has already taken place by the choice of the means used to achieve it. And no I am not talking about Prop. 8 as being the bad means. Putting a choice before the voters is the means used in our country. Throwing that out for the “judgment”, the command of one person or even a small group is not.
the means of employing a majority to constrain the rights of a minority are not very America I don’t think – certainly not historically
Not always. At some points in our history, a majority of voters in some states would have voted to retain ownership of black people. Are you saying they would have been right to do so, and that ought to have been the end of it?
These “rights” are not the “rights” as I have known them. They are more attuned to those “positive rights” we are now seeing enshrined as the true “rights of man.” Soon I will have so many “rights” and no freedom at all. Everything that is not a “right” shall be forbidden is the direction headed, pushed by our elite cadres.
I think you’re right generally speaking but it can be shown a lot easily that marriage in America as currently constructed is discriminatory – and it can’t be shown at all really that anyone is harmed by by redressing this discriminateyness.
Of course ‘marriage’ is discriminatory, ‘feets, based on ‘marriage’ is a religious covenant. What you’re looking for is a civil union; apply there at the window in the Government Office Building, pay for your license and he’ll give you the proper papers.
Marriage is religious, and period. If you don’t have one, you can’t have the other, no matter what little fudgepacker judges say.
marriage is not religious period though
But it is. Religious marriages are defined as sacred covenants, above and beyond what the State authorizes. These is, and always will be, a difference; this ruling won’t matter because the Judge is a mere mortal.
I think if means matter then Team R should have guarded against this outcome more better
You live there so you of all people should know better. The fix is in on this thing. Is there a better way then to allow the people of the community to have a direct say on the question?
This is Roe v Wade part 2 in the making. The only decision that matters is the federal one, your community just better get in line, and the only outcome is going to be the one that the progressives have decided it should be. What do you think is going to happen to all of the other states that disallow gay marriage now? This judge just told them that they have no right to decide that.
Is it the wrong decision? I don’t know, but I will tell you that the people are again getting a good ass banging by their “betters”.
So, should the legal trappings of the parent/child relationship be disposed of? That’s on the menu…
The State can take better care of the kids anyway. Just ask them.
marriage is not religious period though
Genesis chapter 2 verses 23 and 24
Maybe Moses meant something else by wife.
This is the thread that never ends!
It just goes on and on my friends!
The haters always praying teh ghey cannot get hitched
while ‘feets cannot help saying that liberty’s a bitch! (Lifeydoodles!)
This is the thread that never ends …
This is where we disagree and that disagreement has things that relate to the thesis of the book by Amity Shlaes “The Forgotten Man”. Those who benefit are easily, publicly, seen. Those who are harmed can be a more anonymous, diffuse and easily overlooked group.
the means of employing a majority to constrain the rights of a minority are not very America I don’t think – certainly not historically
That’s the rub though. Is marriage a right? You have the right of association, but do you have the right to marry anyone you wish?
So the question is that if we accept other limitations on marriage, which we do for both age and familial relationships of a certain type, then is the limitation based on numbers of gender involved reasonable or unnecessarily discriminatory?
“Putting a choice before the voters is the means used in our country.”
If the form of the choice putting were strictly plebiscite (as Prop 8 and other such proposals are in Ca. and elsewhere nowadays), I’d want to go back and look at that a little more carefully, I think. The guarantee of a republican form of government is right there in the Constitution after all. Perhaps the Ca. rule has been approved though, since it has been around awhile. One may still wonder whether the rule was seen as a republican sort of measure when it was instituted. None of this, however, is intended to diminish what I see for now as an over-reach by the court. But only to note the question.
ok that’s stuck in my head now
marriage is certainly not a privilege to be meted out by either the state or the church
I still think the real problem is that religious bodies feel the government is treading on their turf, and redefining their sacrament without their permission.
I support civil unions as a means for establishing that one person is linked with another, with all the responsibilities and privileges that flow from that. So long as both partners are willing and legally able to consent to the arrangement, I don’t care what sex, income, color, religion, political party, ancestry, or favorite sports franchise the two of them are.
Legal consent means no minors and no farm animals, nor would the union be binding if one party could show coercion. It’s pretty standard contract law, so there’s no new ground broken here. A one-to-one union precludes polygamy, not because of religious or historical traditions, but because the State has no interest in refereeing committee meetings in the event of one partner’s incapacity. This isn’t nearly so cut-and-dried in case law, but I think it’s defensible.
The main thing is to separate State-sanctioned legal arrangements from God-sanctioned personal arrangements. Couples of whatever combination could say they were married, or bound, or united, or partnered up, or mated, or whatever, but religious bodies would not be forced to recognize the sanctity of said unions where such combinations ran afoul of those religious bodies’ tenets.
I really couldn’t care less what consenting adults want to do with their lives, so long as they don’t harm one another and don’t harm their neighbors and families. I might not think that Heather is well served by having two Mommies, but I don’t think the lack of a male head of household qualifies as harm that warrants State intervention. But by the same token, I don’t think the State or the queer lobby have the right to redefine traditional marriage, nor to force its acceptance on those who have religious objection to the redefined arrangement.
The State can have its defined legal arrangement that allows one person to speak for another. The Church can maintain the sanctity of its sacraments. Each can have its own term for its arrangement, though each will have to acknowledge that colloquial usage will conflate the two for years to come. Still, the Church and the State need never argue the matter, nor would one be forced to submit to the other, in contravention of our Founders’ desires.
Can’t we all just get along?
Well, homosexuality used to be classified as a mental illness in the DSM III (Diagnostic and Statistical Measurements, III) put out by the psychological and psychiatric folks.
When enough of them went gay, it disappeared from the revision: DSM IV.
I know, a coincidence. Right?
Coming to a theater near you:
Massive Liberties!! The Rights that Ate California!!
‘feets, why don’t you define ‘marriage’ as you hope it should be. Careful, now, of your word choice; some of those things are loaded.
I am very hungry do any of you know the story of Georgie the ghost? Georgie always knew from the creakings and the squeakings when it was time to get his ghost on, but then someone fixed the creakings and the squeakings and poor Georgie got all confuzzled and didn’t know when he was supposed to do his ghost stuff. That’s like how it is with me and lunch with NG gone.
MASSIVE LIBERTIES II; THE CURTAIN TREATMENTS!!
*
Squid again brings the common sense. I will stand with him on this, except the last sentence.
Mr. serr8d if church and state both disappeared marriagings would nevertheless endure – the church and the state both are allowed a role as clerks for to handle the paperwork and the officiatings – but they’re not terribly integral to the institution itself but for the gate-keeping role they have arrogated to themselves. What’s changed is that the complexity of modern life has made partnerings advantageous quite beyond the advantages what the institution bestowed in its rudimentary beginnings. And arbitrarily hobbling some people by denying them these advantages is unfair and unkind and not very America and not at all Christian either I don’t think.
MASSIVE LIBERTIES III: SALMON CHIC IN A BEIGE WORLD!!!
# 561, Squid.
I rather doubt that we can all get along. The de facto redefinition of marriage is what is being attempted. I see no reason for doing so, because in prior societies there were gays and no successful attempts were made to change the definition of the institution-as far as we know.
The Roman Empire had lots of teh Gheys.
I will not be pleased if churches or religious groups can be sued for failing to perform a gay marriage. The prohibition starts in Exodus and the behavior is condemned in Paul’s writings as well. I would be opposed even if they are in Muslim Mosque and not a Christian Church. (That would probably lead from the altar to the head removal site, as others have indicated.)
The gheys have a good hate on for religion, because most religions do not accept the gay lifestyle. And most of those that don’t can point to their foundational religious literature to back up those beliefs (like the Quran or the Bible).
‘feets, if Church disappears, State will have completely won, and become Church. You need some of both I think: State to keep your little eartyly house in order (to a degree, not overdone please!); Church to help you attend to your immortal soul. If you don’t believe in that immortal soul thinger, well, welcome to the Animal Kingdom, and those rules will certainly apply, as State allows.
Church you can flush, but you’ll find you can’t rid yourself of State, ever.
I realized this as I typed it but since the legality of the way the California constitution was amended was not, as far as I know, part of the decision I went, perhaps too boldly ahead. A case could be made in that State that the way the legislature has set up the voting districts is also a violation of a “republican form” of governance too but I believe that is a clause of our constitution which has not had a lot of case law.
‘earthly’ is better grounded than whatever escaped my fingers earlier.
So BJTexs, in light of the wrangling on religious and other grounds here subsequent to my question above, are you seeing why I asked it?
It is? So, if atheists get married, that’s an affront to both atheism and religion?
Moses didn’t speak English.
…that I know of.
I wonder what Moses had for lunch
If we divorce religion from the government-sanctioned act formerly known as marriage, then atheists will have a Civil Union. Which is the same as marriage, just atheists won’t have to be affronted by any hateful religious connotations. Probably they will be happier with that arrangement, given their anti-religious postures. That’s well and good AFAIC.
To be fair the prohibitions are against the sex act. There is nothing that says you can’t be fabulous. To be even more fair the definition of marriage is laid out in the very beginning as between a man and his wife.
Perhaps we shouldn’t confuse Church with Religion. If Church disappears that doesn’t mean people will stop believing in the religion, or importantly in this case, the teachings found therein.
I agree with Squid, and I’ve said it many, many times here that if we were to just legally formalize any consenting pairing as we do marriage then the “gay” issue would simply disappear. With the caveat that the church has the right to decide for itself who it includes in it’s various ceremonies but that the state does not.
I wonder what Moses had for lunch
Mana. With a big deli pickle.
The Roman Empire had lots of teh Gheys
Actually it’s more like the Roman Empire had a not insignificant number of male bi-sexual pederasts and ephebophiles among the Senatorial aristocracy. And it was viewed within that order in a manner not disimiliar to the way in which we look upon smoking, i.e. too much indulgence was believed to be a dirty habit.
that sounds tasty I kinda want something else though I will message my friend P for ideas
no thanks I’m on the patch
There are lots of prohibitions. Divorce, for instance, is right out. Also, I think, nailing your mother-in-law, or some such.
Still?
ohnoes I was joking with Ernst about indulgences
You can’t nail your sons wife either. Which just makes good sense if you think about it.
MASSIVE LIBERTIES IV: ELECTRIC BOOGALOO FABULOUS!!!
Yes, sdferr, I’ve figured out why you asked the question. Did I miss it or have you definitely stated your position on this matter?
I could claim I was talking about nailing one’s mother-in-law, which would be funny gross, but I wasn’t.
I miss all the morning sessions being so very far behind time wise. That’s my excuse.
What, did your mother-in-law nail you?
Important Questions!!!
I don’t know if I have a position really BJT. I’m still thinking it over. Shit, I haven’t even managed to read the opinion yet. But the ancillary theologico-political questions are always interesting in their own right. So there’s that.
First comes marriage in a little chapel; then comes divorce in a squalid courtroom; then, if either divorced partner wants to try again, welcome to Civil Unionsville. Keeping the prohibition intact, as was the intent in the first place.
I’m beginning to like this new Civil Union thinger.
Some mother in laws are very hot. But still that sort of thing leads to what are likely very uncomfortable dinners and such. So even if it wasn’t a sin, you still probably shouldn’t.
the unbearably tragic empty sad obsessive compulsive emptiness what has meya in its clutches has claimed some of our brethren as well
Now is a time for healing I wish them luck.
I will stand with him on this, except the last sentence.
I rather doubt that we can all get along.
I probably should have closed with “Why can’t we all just get along?”
Some mother in laws make lunch for you and cut the crusts off just how you like it.
Does anyone know whether the Fabulous Vaughn Walker, J. has a long-term boyfriend? Anyone he might want to ghey marry when the dust clears? Hmmm . . . ?
Anyone pickin’ up what I’m layin’ down here?
The debate “society” is having consists of a whole lot of yelling past each other so’s to avoid addressing the real issue, which no individual seems sure of what it exactly is, only that he/she/it is extremely uncomfortable with the idea of talking about it.
Which is as it will always be, so long as debates are undertaken by societies rather than individuals.
Some mother in laws buy you shirts for your birthday that you would never consider buying for yourself and would likely never be caught dead wearing but now you have to wear at least once in order to show how much you appreciate the thought.
Some mothers-in-law think that you are a loser and they date an idiot boyfriend who everybody hates and they can’t have anybody at their house cuz the boyfriend is a complete tool and they are worthy of the lowest form of detestation imaginable and … and … and …
[…]
Um … did I type that out loud?
What I find odd is that the Ghey Judge thought it was appropriate to be the finder of fact in a case where he knew that evidence and testimony of a derogatory nature towards gheys would be offered.
And no one will ever convince me that the Clerk of Courts randomly assigned this case to one of the two Ghey Judges in the District.
All I wanna know is: After the divorce, which one keeps the Shar-Pei?
This discussion always makes me think back to a comment by Senor Locke, and something about vegetarians making beef a vegetable so they could eat cheeseburgers.
it would be more like vegetarians making beef a vegetable for to feed people what don’t have vegetables or beefs
No. It is most like vegetarians making non-vegetarians eat Tofu and declare publicly just how fucking tasty that shit is.
I always leave tofu out of my pad thai. I’m a rebel that way.
or everyone could have tacos if you have a variety of tasty salsas than any number of different kinds of tacos can be really tasty and kids love em
Of course, they can still eat ribs, they just have to confine the rib-eating to their hatey church picnics.
John Yoo pummels. Lots of thoughtful commentary at Volokh.
You’re late for the Arizona thing.
Walker asked whether the goal of Prop 8 — higher levels of marriage & less divorce, encouragement of procreation, social stability — were achieved by a ban on gay marriage.
I hadn’t understood that to be the goal.
Betting it was contained in testimony hf. but shit, still haven’t finished reading the decision, so can’t say.
The goal was anti-Marxyness. Oh well.
here is a PDF of the full text of the law.
SECTION I. Title
This measure shall be known and may be cited as the “California Marriage Protection Act.”
SECTION 2. Article I. Section 7.5 is added to the California Constitution to read:
Sec. 7.5. Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.
that’s the whole law I just copied
Yoo’s analysis is not very helpful really
Not exactly a moonshot, huh happy? Not even long enough to have been a Haiku.
On the contrary hf, he has the fundamental question in hand, it looks to me.
Judges are a lot of times lawyers who couldn’t establish a decent book of clients to make equity Partner – in other words, lawyers who failed at the business of practicing law. Something tells me these lawyers are not better equipped to make determinations of the correctness of morality styled as “findings of fact” than anyone else.
Marriage is a state issue. Yeah, that is the ticket for Barack Obama. States should be figuring this out. Except when federal judges have to intervene.
Anybody get nishi up the poopchute yet?
Quit threatening nishi, alpo. You know how threatened she gets when you do that.
but he doesn’t quote anything I mean
I was reading and then my boss person came in he’s been very chit chatty since NG left
You know how threatened she gets when you do that.
It seems to keep her away. But if it’s empathy you’re wantin’ then that will be my policeayah~~~
No mas.
Yes, he doesn’t quote stuff but only summarizes. Here’s the whole thingy in pdf, I’d say that part about the goals can be found at p 6 – 8
OT: It’s impossible for a jilted Favre hater to not link this.
that’s stupid the judge just should have said hey this law is no fairs
This guy has a very large eagle and finds some problems with the decision.
Isn’t that what he did?
Looks like it to me.
What he doesn’t do though, is address the overarching political questions raised as he makes his decision, which questions look like: “How will the people of the United States be better governed? Will they be better governed under the scheme of the Declaration of Independence (natural right) and the Constitution of the United States (a republican-federalist popular sovereignty acceding severely limited powers to a tripartite structure of elected representatives, an executive and judiciary), or will they be better governed by the “scientific” determinations of unelected judges based on [pseudo-] scientific testimonies?
It’s either going to be liberty or tyranny, it seems. We can’t have both.
Large eagle man says:
Which, yeah, I agree.
That is the truly odious bit there. Progressive fantasy writ into fact. Appealable to the Ninth Circus.
I remember a time when the feminist-queer alliance wanted to do away with marriage as an archaic, Patriarchal, oppressive bourgeois institution. Funny that they all just stopped speaking about it in those terms all at the same time, huh?
Vaughn Walker wasn’t he the one who found for the Saudi charity under suspicion of terrorism
Hey, don’t we need to scrap any government intervention that contains the word “women” in the text if that whole notion of gender is discredited?
I see deficit reduction.
More here, along the same lines.
Huh? I though this was about sexual orientation. Are gay dudes not dudes now? Are lesbians not women?
the special flavors today at yummy’s[PDF] are strawberry shortcake and creamsicle and peach cobbler and bon bon and chockit chockit but that one’s vegan
link
Creamsicle sounds like a winner.
A discredited notion of gender. Section 2 of the 14th amendment.
I would bet my left nut that this “evidence” came in the form of testimony by people who spend most of their day on a University Campus.
I know I’m so there for that one and also the strawberry one I wish it was 5 o’clock
but about that gay marriage thing it doesn’t sound like there’s any danger of it being legal in California anytime soon huh
Also, if the notion of gender is discredited then the 19th amendment is no longer required.
Your time zone is silly.
From the PJM link:
Yup. Some talking head was getting all damp over the fact that this ruling emanated from San Francisco. Where else would it come from?
This is the same judge, right, seems imminently sensible to me, sarc
http://reason.com/blog/2010/04/01/we-cant-tell-you-whether-we-br
We ought to save ourselves the trouble and just ask Justice Kennedy now.
with this eco-friendly cupcake tree what holds 300 cupcakes your gay wedding will be the talk of the town!
If they wait another 10 years and vote on it again, they will have gay marriage in CA, without judicial fiat. The trend was heading that way.
gay weddings aren’t just for gay people anymore everybody’s doing them!
oh that’s lovely
Hey, anyone see Inception yet? Any good?
inception I’ve heard a lot of good things about but it’s not as buzzy as Avatar was
God help the poor bastard who marries a girl what wants that. Or, the poor butch, as the case may be.
I liked it bh.
Thanks, guys. Think I’ll catch it tomorrow night.
west coast represent – now put your hands up
The Apocalyse will have less buzz than Avatar feets
I still need to see Avatar but I think Scott Pilgrim comes out this weekend
Sdferr – good link on Yoo. Wish we could use this standard on things like Stimulus or taxes or the other Leftist silliness.
/yellow flag
Going to have to call roughing the passer on that one. That hit was way late.
Heh, it was worth the penalty, B Moe.
see avatar
when it came out i was all fuck it/ it’s the latest
hollywood mega bullshit movie like transformers/ which i saw in a theater and my ears hurt alot after i left/ so that’s what thought
but i got it on netflix and watched it 3 times
visually stunning!/ ur watching certain scenes and ur like/wtf! did i just see that?
the plot is alright/predictable more or less/ but cameron makes quality shit
plus bjorks got a cameo in it/ she’s sitting in a tree strumming
some alien lute / u gotta look fast tho cuz it goes by quick..
it’s no dancer in the dark but…
Tonight is Rookie Blue night. Has anyone got an idea of how to make good garbanzo beans from scratch? That is, a local preparation preference, as between Middle Eastern, Italian, Central American or wherever else?
ok I will see Avatar but over at my friend P’s on his tv with his sound
ever go into the supermarket and as ur at the checkout line
u notice the kid bagging ur graceries reminds u a little of bjork
and ur not paying attention cuz ur getting your money out and paying the clerk
and u get home and check ur purchases and all the expensive shit u bought is missing?
and there’s a turd in the bag?
has this ever happened to u?
i’m starting a sjelf hjelp group
it’s called bjags for bjustice
I buy my hummus from Pita Fresh I’ve tried TWICE to go to Hummus King – they have an exciting Grand Opening banner but both times they’ve been closed
1. Find some free dirt in a sunny spot.
2. Start digging.
There’s more, if you’re really interested.
what if bjork went on the internet
and called itself pdbuttons?..
you’re all gonna die!
Get ’em fresh not dried huh? I can’t say I’ve ever seen a fresh uncooked chickpea to tell you the truth of it.
Nobody knows the Favas I’ve seen.
Nobody knows the Limas.
Nobody knows the haricot vert.
Glory hallelujah!
my sister tried to make hummus once
in a blender and we{she!) didn’t properly
seal the top of said blender
we were drunk
and as she turned the switch on to blend
the top popped off and the mixture erupted and
was stuck on the ceiling for awhile
and she had it all over her face and in her hair..
ahh..memories!
I make a killer hummus. The secret it to take the skins off them. Makes it smoother.
I’ve made the hummus too and am content as far as that goes. I’ve just never cooked the beans from dried is all, always having used canned. And thought maybe I go in another direction than hummus, maybe. So far most of the recipes I’ve looked at just have ya boil ’em in salt water and then do all the other ingredient fixin’ after their cooked.
jeez, double maybes and a their too. more coffee warden?
i like when my sister passes
out in public cuz little critters come out
of the/wodwork/gutter/bjorks cunt
to lick her hummus head..
and i’m conflicted//
should i kick her when she’s down
or try to save the whales..?
flip a coin
kick my passed out sister
or save whales..
kick my passed out sister
or save whales…
hey look/ bunnies!
i always make passes/ at passed out sisters with glasses..
sorry i had to gas ur passed out sister with glasses..
only taking orders
she will make good soap/ the crunchy kind
gave my passed out sister soap on a rope
one christmas
cuz she was starting to stink so i thought..
did she get up?/ no!
did she acknowledge my genorosity/no!
u can draw dead body chalk outlines with
soap if ur squeeky clean
otherwise it’s just madness..
New Burn Notice tonite! Gabrielle Anwar.
Sdferr – add in pureed roasted red peppers.
passed out sisters are awsome for
carpool lanes
tax credits
tieing them up with concrete and
throwing over the boat like an anchor/for fishing
putting them in a couch and pretending they’re ur therapist…. getting really emotoinal/openining up..
cuz if u can’t talk to ur passed out sister ur a fucking bastard!
passed out sisters are good to lay
down in the lane cuz u might think u can dunk..
ur oh so close..
but by stepping on ur passed out sister and jumping
up u could be all like mikely jordany and shit
all thanks to ur passed out sister..
who i sent a thank u card to….
she’s not much into reading right now…
The secret it to take the skins off them.
really? I feel like you might could be joshin
No, seriously.
I think JD is joshing about the pureed roasted red peppers though.
oh. that sounds kind of like a prison inmate job. Is there a trick to it?
They get like watermelon seeds I think, sploink.
but it’s just the one bean per sploink
I’d have to go to my zen place
yep, tedium city, the zen place
The trick? Meth.
Nah, takes me maybe five minutes and I’m not super careful about getting every little bit of skin off them.
It’s odd, but an awful chunk of cooking is like that, ‘specially in a commercial kitchen. Endless fucking artichokes to strip and pare, for instance, day after fucking day, because the customers, they love ’em.
I will try
maybe my new kitchen will inspire me to new heights of tedium
How about if one were to palp them in water say? Would the skins rise and the beans sink maybe? Or vice versa?
the best thing about my passed out sister
is she weighs lighter than my other passed out sister
think sofa/ love seat..
u can re-arrange them!
That brief passage in the Barone-Robinson convo today where Barone describes the elites choosing to opt their children out of defense of the nation was intensely good analysis, I thought. Actually the whole conversation, but that part in particular.
Any and all beans should be soaked or parboiled before cooking. It’s practically a definition of “bean”.
If you crush them or chop them up after soaking, you can separate out (some of) the skins.
The result sometimes tastes better, but as with many vegetables it wastes a good bit of the nutritional value.
Regards,
Ric
I’ve found presoak unnecessary Ric, under conditions of a pressure-cooker. Twenty or so minutes at as high a temp as possible without getting the burn on and they’re good to go. Sometimes a tiny amount (1/8 tsp or less) of baking soda will help soften them up too.
Here’s another hummus idea, cucumber slices instead of bread for scooping it up.
Cucumbers are God’s way of helping you dodge windsprints.
That’s in the Bible.
On the tedium front, I used to have to roast a case of red-peppers every day, then clean the charred skins off (without using any water), remove all seeds and stems and pack out in garlic, black pepper and olive oil. Gnashing teeth, that one was.
The cucumber bit is in the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, so outside of the aging Armenian community not many know about it.
The Cubans do a garbanzo-chorizo soup, chicken broth, onions, garlic, potato, celery, tomato paste, cumin, paprika, couple of shots of hot sauce, bay leaf, salt, pepper. Anybody had it?
Yes, I believe that’s where I came across that bit of wisdom, Makewi.
In a way, that was a lucky gig, sdferr. The worst tedium is the backbreaking kind.
Mostly, I think it would depend on the conversation available while the work’s being done.
Yeah, true. And the temperature.
sdferr (#706): I could live on that stuff, if I had an occasional bowl of Cajun-style beans and rice for a change of pace. Search it out.
(#701): Many things change when a pressure cooker is available. I lost the little weight that holds the pressure on mine, and in the Texas summertime with no air conditioning in the kitchen the search has not been a high priority.
That said, don’t try it with pintos. Some people are sensitive to the otherwise quite mild nerve poison contained in the skins.
Regards,
Ric
That settles it then. Chorizobeansoupitis.
what’s the best part of waking up?
for me it’s seeing ur two passed out sisters
in the same position and thinking
thank god there wasn’t an earthquake!…
then u look over..
at the third retarded bjork like sister who holds pickles
with a freaky death grip..
well..
i’m just blessed with a large family…
i need another cup of coffee..
Hot pepper lovers, the page for you.
the third or fourth best thing about passed out
sisters is u can shoot someone and then put
the gun in their hand and fire off a shot
and there would be all this dna ee gun residue shit
evidence on their passed out hands
and when they got to court and u were on the stand
being all talked to and shit u coould be
i loved my/boo/hoo/ passed out sister..
she was the..boo..hoo.. best..
and then when she got life in prison
and was never coming back..
then finally u could take a shit in her room/ in peace!
bh – I do not josh about food.
We ought to save ourselves the trouble and just ask Justice Kennedy now.
James Taranto’s already read the tea leaves in this afternoon’s “Best of the Web Today”
“When the Supreme Court takes up Perry v. Schwarzenegger–perhaps under the name Brown v. Perry or Whitman v. Perry—the justices will rule 5-4, in a decision written by Justice Kennedy, that there is a constitutional right to same-sex marriage [emph. add.].”
[….]
“In Perry, … the defendants are unlikely to be able to counter the plaintiffs’ claims by arguing that forcing states to recognize same-sex marriage violates anyone’s individual rights. Their appeals are to tradition, morality and the collective right of the people to self-government–worthy arguments, we would say, but ones Justice Kennedy has already rejected in Romer and Lawrence.
“As to why we think Kennedy will write the decision, that’s easy: The writing of opinions is assigned by the most senior justice in the majority, and Kennedy is now the court’s most senior member outside the conservative bloc.”
I hate the red and green peppers, JD. Never liked them. They’re probably poisonous, too.
This, in particular, should be outlawed.
Speaking of another Romer, she’s boogied.
Whereas these should be celebrated.
Then you shall not get my red bell pepper hummus recipe nor the stuffed red bell peppers one either. Your loss.
A stirring post at Classical Values.
This is what it’s like in the horror movies when the plucky protagonist realizes that everyone in the town where the car broke down is a secret Nazi werewolf.
I thought JD would get a kick out of the Atomic Starfish Pepper anyhow.
Indianapolis got awarded the inaugural Big 10-ish football championship game.
Atomic Starfish Pepper – what a great name.
Mitch Daniels will probably sacrifice a nun to Satan at halftime though.
Then he will rip out her entrails, and use them to strangle a patrially birth aborted baby from a transtesticle.
Giant bubbles
That’s the best case scenario.
Great, now the Superbowl will do what to one up the Big 10-ish bowl, Human sacrifice?
geoffb – the Big 10-ish championship will serve as kind of a test run for the SuperBowl the following year. Human sacrifice is not out of the question for us bitter clingers in cousinfucking hilljack flyover country.
Oh, and fuck William Yelverton.
Superbad is a really funny movie. I cannot believe I have never seen it before.
epic bubbles
if you like that, you’ll love this:
http://mediterraneancuisine.suite101.com/article.cfm/caldo_gallego_galician_stew_or_soup
Who takes Romer’s spot you think bh?
You guys are making me really hungry. I had homemade ceviche for dinner.
The bubbles were cool and all but I don’t know why he had to use the background song voted Most Likely to Inspire Suicide in high school.
Austan Goolsbee was the only name I’ve seen since the news broke, sdferr. No idea myself.
Goolsbee is an even bigger idiot/liar.
bh – I thought The Smiths or Morrissey held that title.
That looks great, George. I’m hereby declare that I’m making that this weekend.
What do you throw in your ceviche, JD?
Louie on FX is a good new comedy.
Sonatine Bureaucratique
I had some whitefish, Ahi tuna, and shrimp, cherry tomatoes, Haas avocados, cilantro, mango, lemon, and lime. Plus some of those uber-hot Asian red chiles.
Ummmmm.
cubicle rage should be much much more common than it is I think they’re putting something in the water
Louie looks good. It is remarkable that the best shows on television all seem to be from the cable channels. The networks should learn a thing or two. But they won’t.
Finally, Embryons desséchés – for the halftime show (translation, dessicated embryos)
Did you hear that 911 call from the guy who shot up the Budweiser plant?
Figured one of you would have it linked by the time I hit refresh.
I’m disappointed.
here’s one from someone what got shot by Omar
“you’re shot where?”
“in my head”
Meanwhile, the Big 12 conference is in decline as it is run by a group of greedy douchebags.
Your link bh.
“I don’t know who he is he’s a tall black guy he’s like the only black guy that works here almost”
It is kind of chilling to listen to, since he had just killed some people, and he was so … calm, and douchey.
Thanks and yikes.
here’s the audio of Omar I think he sounds very pleased with himself
the best part of sibling love
is u can take the ‘take ur passed out sister to work day’
with pride
plus if someone comes in a shooting u can hold up
ur passed out sister to take most of the flak..
and as she’s dieing in your arms u can gently stroke her
and say.. i love ..wait a minute
you…. i really think i do
it’s always poignant when people die in your arms I think or almost always
buttons makes me laugh. Often.
passed out sisters are great when
u contest the will…
cuz if the finally come out of the coma
u can say/here’s ur share…
then flip them a dime and say
call me anytime../ sweetheart
But remember folks, Tea Partiers are the dangerous folk, forget Bishop, Bedell, Stack, and company
Bishop, Bedell, Stack
nobody tells me anything
“…I’m not making a religious argument here?”
Then what is the use of “Furthermore, no religious tradition holds that races ought not intermarry, but they all recognize that same-sex unions are not the equivalent of opposite-sex unions, and simple biology can confirm that.” Why focus on religious tradition if religious tradition plays no part in the argument at hand?
The two quotations come from different comments, and the comments comprise separate arguments; furthermore, you’ve compared them in reverse chronological order.
In 479, I was constesting the equal-rights argument, and then segued into refuting the idea that there’s an equivalence between abolishing miscegenation laws and retooling “marriage” such that biological sex is irrelevant.
One of my proofs was that anti-miscegenation laws were a historical anomaly, as evidenced by the fact that religious traditions don’t have a problem with interracial marriage whereas none of them honor same-sex couplings. I was not asserting that the existence of the religious traditions were themselves proof of the wrongness of same-sex marriage.
In 527, I presented the argument that it’s not about the adults’ living arrangements, it’s about the children’s need for a father and a mother. That is not a religious argument; it’s a social one.
I don’t argue against same-sex marriage based a religious belief that homosexual acts are sinful. My religion doesn’t sanction adultery or fornication, but I’m not agitating for those laws to be enforced where they exist and enacted where they don’t.
I also covenanted with God to never partake of coffee or tea (among other things); however, I see no reason to suggest that those beverages ought to be restricted or even socially condemned, because there is no social cost to their consumption. (Unless arable land begins to disappear, and then we could certainly use the land now dedicated to vinyards, tobacco, coffee, and tea, which have no nutritional value, but I don’t anticipate such an occasion arising.)
Yes, some Christians base their objection solely on scripture, others on the “ick” factor. I do neither: I worry about what will happen if we further tinker with society’s bedrock institution, the value of which I have learned through my religion.
And that’s where the element of religion affects my position. Please note that valuing marriage as constituted does not require belief in God.
the worst thing about a passed out sister
is not turning her
what am i? a fucking nurse?..
it’s cleaning the cum stains off of her..
i think she’d want that..
i’m a good brother…
The first shot up a faculty lounge in Alabama, avoided a conviction for killing her brother back in Mass 20 years back, the second shot up the Arlington subway station, the third flew a plane into the Federal Building in Austin, all far left, or anarchist types
got it thank you
what are mirrors for?
cutting ur nose hairs..check
checking if ur passed out sister is still breathing.. double check
trying to shine a reflection from the sun in bjorks eyes…?
not!
ur all gonna die!
here is where I first met bjork
Clearly racist bitter clingy teabaggers are a threat to commit acts of violence.
here is a comment from here
I see your Bjork, raise you a Candy Dulpher
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RRpZb3XPrXw
that’s the sax lady
767: While true, you can bet in the mind of progressives every one of those people has been transformed into a “tea bagger.”
The guy in Scott Pilgrim was in Superbad.
what to make of >a href=”http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=129011474″>this?
the article makes very little sense
this I mean
oh I didn’t know that I need to see both
bjork is that scene in deliverance
where she’s the fucking freaky banjo player..
and ur this lawyer asshole big city dude just stoppping
in for directiouns or sump…
and u pull ur guitar oatta the trunk/ cuz? u brought it on a raaft trip?..
and u try to play a song with bjork
and u try and keep up but..
bjorks just playing with u!
then she picky wicks all retarded and and rocks
and ur all like.. fuck me
yup.. fuck you!
my sincere advice is to put coconuts on ur elbows..
bjorks the clown
who didn;t make it out of the tiny car/ but is standing beside you
bjorks taught alll them cirqui solei freaks to be all
twisted and freaked up/ just to watch ur expression
bjork invented band aids just so u’d rip them off in pain/ cuz u suck!
bjork killed curly so youd have to suffer thru shemp..
and faggy joe
when bjork takes a lefts/ than everybot takes
three lefts.. if u know.. u want to live..
but i pray for the peeps that take four lefts.. cuz like ur a circle
and a motherfucking retarda rine
easy pickings..
bjork don’t like retards
not saying i know curly bjork or anybot
we are all gonna die painfully..
but i might/ might be able to seat u at
her less mean ankle..
for a million space dollars!
Yep.
In other non-news, ICE chiefs slammed with “no confidence” vote from agents
two bjorks saunter into a bar…
hey.. the fat mofo barkeep sayeth/ free drinnks for everyone!except big asians.. cuz they drink alot/
tiny asians can drink their weight
and so said all of bjork
annd so said all of bjork..
are u a happy jollly good fellow?
ur gonna die a painful death/ fyi
hey /remember the time bjork fell off the wagon?
Liar!
bjork never falls/ or stumbles..
u can’t teach grace…
Green beans? Parboiled before cooking, or soaked? Are you on drugs, man?
No, the only time you do anything like that is blanching them prior to sauteeing with some basil leaves. Any other manner of soaking or parboiling is rank heresy.
Ham hocks are permitted; even encouraged.
If you amend to exclude the fleshy-podded kind (as in: dried or fresh bean seeds) then I forgive you. Otherwise: HOLY WAR!
Oh. Hummus. This is the best way to make hummus, if you like it smooth. First, cook the garbanzos until soft, at which point (as has been pointed out upthread) their skins will slide right off, with little encouragement. Next, get out your Champion juicer, put in the homogenizing blank, and start processing those chickpeas just as fast as you can without burning the thing up. What will emit from the business end is something that looks a bit like beige peanut butter, only drier. Then you just need to add the requisite amount of tahini, olive oil and other goodies and you’re set.
It’s best if you roast your own garlic and/or red peppers.
Oh, and I made some soup once where the recipe was, almost literally: a handful of dried chickpeas, cooked; a handful of chopped, cooked chicken; a handful of roasted green chili peppers (skins removed of course) and some amount of chicken broth that I can’t recall. If you let it sit in your fridge a few days, the pepper’s heat will increase (somehow; I really don’t understand how that works but it does) to the point where it’ll turn your head into a volcano. Consume with some flour tortillas and lots of cerveza.
buttons, I liked Bjork best when she was with The Sugar Cubes. She was just a girl, then; not this wispy demigoddess.
(a) He opposes same-sex marriage and (b) believes that states should be able to set their own marriage rules, but (c) if a state decides to set its own rules by adopting his position, then, according to a White House spokesman, it’s “divisive and discriminatory.” (Fun footnote to that last point: During the campaign, The One told Jake Tapper that he had no problem with what California was doing.) If he thinks restricting gay marriage is perniciously discriminatory, why on earth would he support letting California do it? And if, as Axelrod says, he thinks it was “mean-spirited” to pass Prop 8, where does that leave us vis-a-vis O’s continuing opposition to gay marriage? Barack Obama — hateful hyper-federalist?”
Allahpundit does a pretty good job with this one.
I have the sense dicentra, that you have near entirely mistaken the thrust of the questions I have advanced here, therefore undertake to defend yourself where there is no need to do so in the first place. I’ll attribute your mistaking to my own fault, in my failure to articulate those questions with sufficient distinction as to prevent the possibility. But the time has moved on so perhaps it’s best to leave them lay.
[…] that the state’s gay marriage ban has been overturned by a federal judge, what happens next?”; All hail the philosopher kings! …. (instapundit, […]