December 15, 2013

Told you so … [Darleen Click]

When any relationship can be held out as “marriage” then marriage ceases to have any meaning.

Advocacy groups for polygamy and individual liberties on Saturday hailed a federal judge’s ruling that key parts of Utah’s polygamy laws are unconstitutional, saying it will remove the threat of arrest for those families.

U.S. District Judge Clark Waddoups said in the decision handed down Friday that a provision in Utah law forbidding cohabitation with another person violated the First Amendment right of freedom of religion. [...]

Connor Boyack, president of the Libertas Institute, which defends the cause of individual liberty in Utah, issued a statement Saturday saying the ruling represents “a new beginning and an important invalidation of an unjust law.” [...]

Utah’s bigamy law is stricter than the laws in 49 other states — most of the other states prohibit people from having multiple marriage licenses. Utah makes it illegal to even purport to be married to multiple partners or live together.

Under Waddoups’ ruling, bigamy remains illegal in Utah only in the literal sense, such as when someone fraudulently acquires more than one marriage license.

As it stands, this doesn’t affect marriage licenses but only deals with people who live together and declare themselves as married.

But as we’ve seen in the whole domestic partnership v marriage brouhaha, the polyamorous will not see this decriminalization as an end, but as a “new beginning.”

Posted by Darleen @ 2:34pm
163 comments | Trackback

Tags:

Comments (163)

  1. Do you really believe that your marriage only “has meaning” as the result of an imprimatur from the state?

  2. this is about an obscure tribe of trailer trash in utah it has nothing at all to do with gay marriagings

  3. SBP, in a purely secular sense, what else gives meaning to marriage?

    And remember…”marriage” is not a synonym of” love”. Regardless what happyfeet preaches.

  4. “SBP, in a purely secular sense, what else gives meaning to marriage”

    The commitment between the people involved. The state has nothing to do with it.

  5. If you grant this power to the state, don’t be surprised when gay marriages become mandatory.

    It’s not an issue for the state at all, as I see it, other than providing a court system to enforce any contracts that might have been made.

  6. Don’t need marriage for that.

  7. Do you really believe that your marriage only “has meaning” as the result of an imprimatur from the state?

    Of course not. But if the state can force me to accept a fundamental redefinition, including possible jail or fines if I don’t, then what marriage means to me is (criminally) irrelevant.

  8. SBP

    People will shack-up, have babies, acquire property, etc with or without “marriage” … or wills, or any paperwork.

    Do tell me by what foundation does the state begin with, if it no longer recognizes any marriage, to adjudicate disputes or issues with kids/property/inheritance.

    Because having a venue by which citizens can have their issues settled (rather than by using force on each other) is one of the legitimate functions of the state.

  9. That’s what marriage IS, a contract. When the state stopped enforcing it as such, IE no fault divorce, is when it turned into an empty shadow of itself.

    So called gat marriage will never be real, because it doesn’t perform what real marriage does. Unite two bloodlines into one through childbirth.

    It’s the whole concept of family and it’s basic structures (along with it’s corruption by dirty Godless commies) and it’s role in community that has you confused I think.

  10. I gots shit to do, I’ll check in later…

  11. - Pikachu’s should be free to screw lizards if that is their desire, but since they’re a cartoon caracter I’m not sure taking their comments seriously is of any use.

    - I’m guessing it would be less than efficient to try to take the advice of a Pokemon concerning marraige, but maybe I’m just too grown up.

  12. lizards are emotionally unavailable

  13. Marriage is a sacrament. The state is about licensure.

  14. lizards are emotionally unavailable

    If you get too involved with them, you might have to see a herpetologist.

  15. Well anyway…I don’t think the state should start licensing “marriages” between anything other than one (human) adult male and one (human) adult female.

    Anything more is just unhealthy hubris.

  16. …In other “I told you so” news….

    - Common sense and reality always harshes childish emotionalisms mellow. (nee Progressivism.)

  17. Withdraw consent from the government. Disallow them the power to regulate.

    Stop using them to make marriage official. Do it yourself.

    Obviously, this would have to be a social movement that would start small and perhaps fail.

    Might be worth a try, though.

  18. Libertarians have been on that case for years, Merovign.

    And they said we were all nutty.

  19. “Billy Jack reflects on Obamas post racial presidency”

    ….”….the fuck is this?….You’d think by now they would have recognized my genius…seems they’re preoccupied with this half brown dude johnny come lately, and I didn’t snort the white as much as they claimed, no I didn’t, so its all good, but now I have to go do a long dirt nap so you ingrates won’t have me to kick around anymore…..”

  20. “Withdraw consent from the government. Disallow them the power to regulate. Stop using them to make marriage official. Do it yourself.”

    Sooo, you mean shoot the bitch when she catches you cheating and wants the kids and more than half of the wealth accumulated during the marriage to take care of them because you are a stupid man led around by your dick?

    And fuck all the kids maternal aunts and uncles and cousins and grandparents ‘cuz you’re the man and they don’t count for shit when it comes to your money you graciously used to feed and house the little pains in the asses.

    Take care of it yourself like that?

  21. I mean hey, I’m sure you’d do right by your ex and kids, but not everyone is as upright as you. What about them?

  22. Youngbloods to fit my mood in these times.

  23. ” Let me tell you how it’s gonna be America. Reality is about to whop you right in your face with it’s foot, and there ain’t one damned thing you can do about it. “

  24. Billy Jack speaketh the truth.

  25. OT (Old Topic):

    VC posted about the new NRO logo Darleen posted about recently.

    Turns out it’s nothing new.

    On December 5th, The National Reconnaissance Office launched a new spy satellite called NROL-39 from Vandenberg Air Force Base in California. Its logo features a giant octopus engulfing the world with the ominous words “Nothing is Beyond our Reach” underneath. Is there a better way to portray a nightmarish, big-brotherish totalitarian government? No. In fact, this exact imagery was used to portray “evil communists” a few decades ago.

    I like this part…

    Some commented, in a lame attempt to rationalize the sinister aspect of the logo, that the NROL-39 patch aims to “poke fun at conspiracy theorists”. Really? Maybe we should point out that there is no “theory” anymore. All-encompassing governmental surveillance is a known and documented fact. The logo is slapped right on the equipment used to spy on people. There is no joke or “poking fun” going on here.

  26. And by “like”, I mean “am terrified by”…

  27. Oh, and if you happen to visit the Vigilant Citizen, be sure and check out the Kardashian’s Christmas card.

    Very festive!

  28. That card is very telling. I wonder if they see their reflections in the shallowness of it.

    We know which Master they worship, and it isn’t the one whose birth is being celebrated.

  29. - LB, the Left is totally mind fucked over the way Bumblefuck has acted since taking office in terms of servaliance (CIA/NSA), war mongering/drones/Afghanistan/Gitmo that makes Bush/Cheney look like sunday schoold teachers, and immigrant deportation at a record pace.

    - They simply don’t know how the fuck to react. They can’t complain, beyound a small number of protesters that camp outside the WH gates on a daily basis, or a few La Raza peeps that show up at Bumblefuck events, without painting “:hipocrite” 15 feet high in read across the administration and Democrats. So they’re adding complex disconnect anxiety to willful ignorance and reality denial as a part of theit cult collective neurosis bag of issues.

    - Three more years of this and things could get really interesting for those that keep backing this moronic movement, and to their credit the youth (mellenials mostely) are starting to wander off, much of which is due to ObamaCares obvious screw job on that demographic in spades. (racial illiteration intended)

  30. baal is happy

  31. Bruce Jenner is in a glass box that reads Cashier. Unintended messaging?

  32. “baal is happy”

    Nah this is more of a Mammon(avarice) on contract with Belial(fatuous senseless indolence) sort of deal.

  33. ok a ‘gay’ marriage

  34. As long as they’re paying their fair share™ it doesn’t matter.

    I want Kanye to go to jail for tax evasion. All the hipsters are doing it.

  35. So called gat marriage will never be real, because it doesn’t perform what real marriage does. Unite two bloodlines into one through childbirth. – See more at: http://proteinwisdom.com/?p=52222#comments

    I guess when someone infertile marries, it’s not a real marriage either.

  36. Why do you say “guess” when you really mean “put words in someone’s mouth”?

  37. >I guess when someone infertile marries, it’s not a real marriage either.<

    the definition of a 'gay' marriage slapphead

  38. slapphead remember that the woman or dude has the theoretical potential to due it unlike a male cock in a male ass antidarwin asshat

  39. slapphead you do know about the birds & bees or 9th grade biology?

  40. I guess when someone infertile marries, it’s not a real marriage either.

    Rules are made for majority, not the rare outliers.

    Give us one good reason to allow marriage for same-sex couples, but not for polygamists, pedophiles and zoophiles. Take your time.

  41. some havel for slappheaded

    It would appear that the traditional parliamentary democracies
    can offer no fundamental opposition to the automatism of technological
    civilization and the industrial-consumer society, for they, too,
    are being dragged helplessly along by it. People are manipulated in
    ways that are infinitely more subtle and refined than the brutal
    methods used in the post-totalitarian societies. But this static complex
    of rigid, conceptually sloppy and politically pragmatic mass
    political parties run by professional apparatuses and releasing the
    citizen from all forms of concrete and personal responsibility; and
    those complex foci of capital accumulation engaged in secret manipulations
    and expansion; the omnipresent dictatorship of consumption,
    production, advertising, commerce, consumer culture, and all
    that flood of information: all of it, so often analysed and described,
    can only with great difficulty be imagined as the source of humanity’s
    rediscovery of itself. In his June 1978 Harvard lecture, * Solzhenitsyn
    describes the illusory nature of freedoms not based on personal responsibility
    and the chronic inability of the traditional democracies, as
    a result, to oppose violence and totalitarianism. In a democracy,
    human beings may enjoy many personal freedoms and securities that
    are unknown to us, but in the end they do them no good, for they too
    are ultimately victims of the same automatism, and are incapable of
    defending their concerns about their own identity or preventing their
    superficialization or transcending concerns about their own personal
    survival to become proud and responsible members of the polis,
    making a genuine contribution to the creation of its destiny.
    Because all our prospects for a significant change for the better
    are very long range indeed, we are obliged to take note of this deep
    crisis of traditional democracy.

  42. Do you really believe that your marriage only “has meaning” as the result of an imprimatur from the state? The commitment between the people involved [gives marriage its meaning]. The state has nothing to do with it.

    If marriage was merely or solely a private matter, you might have a point.

  43. Marriage IS a private matter. It’s when you are asking for something granted by the State ONLY to married couples (tax benefits, presumptions regarding inheritance, protections involving spousal communications, et alia) that you start running into issues.

  44. But not MERELY or SOLELY.

  45. “Why do you say “guess” when you really mean “put words in someone’s mouth”?

    It’s a combination of a habitual disingenuous resort to generation of “pseudo-hypotheses” and a certain stupid narcissistic self righteous bigotry on his part. He has no capacity to debate or understand, only to vainly lecture us on those topics on which he has a child-like, simplistic, ‘saturday morning cartoon plot’ level of comprehension, and that comprehnsion necessitates a conviction that any out come is fore ordained in his favor such that even if he farts and his opponent blows him out of the water on several levels he still wins merely because he likes his own assumptions. He’s very open minded totally right and everyone else is wrong so they should shut the fuck up because feelings, intentions, fads, and tropes.

  46. I didn’t mean to upset our resident Dweeb-cicle with my comments concerning their Proggie pyschosis.

    (I lied. Yes I did)

  47. Slappy’s prevaricating again? Must be a day ending in “y”.

  48. “Do tell me by what foundation does the state begin with, if it no longer recognizes any marriage, to adjudicate disputes or issues with kids/property/inheritance.”

    What in the world are you talking about?

    The state adjudicates disputes about child support, inheritance, etc. for unmarried couples and their children ALL THE TIME.

    You’re not seriously arguing that failing to marry your baby mama makes you immune to child support, are you? There are plenty of men who would beg to differ on that score.

    My marriage had meaning on many, many levels. None of which had anything to do with paying a bureaucrat 50 bucks to put a form in a filing cabinet.

  49. Y’all have conceded the power to define marriage to the state (and we now have attempts to make that a power of the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT), then whine when the almighty state changes that definition to something that doesn’t suit you.

    I don’t accept that the state has that power in the first place, much less at the FEDERAL LEVEL. Oy.

  50. Do you really believe that your marriage only “has meaning” as the result of an imprimatur from the state?

    The opposite, actually. My marriage “has meaning” independent of the existence of said state.

  51. Rules are made for majority, not the rare outliers.

    Being one of those rare outliers, I have my own opinions in the matter. I might have asked the same question steve did. But unlike steve, my intent would not be to grab the wheel and steer the vehicle of marriage in a different direction.

  52. When a personal circumstance constitutes an exception to the rule, the wise contemplate the meaning of the word “exception.”

  53. Mrs. B. and I have a gay marriage – we are often ‘lighthearted and carefree’ [OED] and we always attempt to make ‘merry’ and are ‘given to social pleasures’.

    As a man of The West, who believes it the greatest civilization the world has ever known, and a someone who delights in the wonders of the English Language: I WANT THE WORD ‘GAY’ BACK!

  54. Errata: The last two definitions ['merry' and 'given to social pleasure'] are from The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition.

  55. Y’all have conceded the power to define marriage to the state (and we now have attempts to make that a power of the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT), then whine when the almighty state changes that definition to something that doesn’t suit you.

    I don’t accept that the state has that power in the first place

    It isn’t the marriage, but the official licensing of that marriage, that the State has the sole authority to decide, and therefore define. I have repeatedly pointed this out, and because progressives see the State as all, they refuse to accept that the State has that authority, and no other independent agency has the authority to define it differently, since licensing comes solely from the State.

    If you want to become a lawyer, a doctor, a plumber, drive a car, hunt or fish, or open a hair styling salon — anything which requires a license from the State — you must meet the requirements set by the State to receive such official permission in the form of that license. When it comes to marriage, the State has an overriding interest in defining that form of the marriage that best advances the goals of the State, including under what circumstances the dissolution of that relationship can occur legally.

    Same-Sex marriage advocates keep arguing that they should be allowed to marry whoever they wish, regardless of the State’s interests, yet fail to explain why those who are advocating multiple/group marriages, marriages to children or even barnyard animals, should not be allowed to use exactly the same arguments to marry who/what they wish. “The heart loves who it loves”, after all.

    Yet they also fail to note that there is no State in the union that has “love”, “sexual attraction”, or “desire” in any of the minimal requirements to receive that license. A common retort is that Tom Cruise could marry Rosie O’Donnell, and no one would raise any eyebrows. (Other than for common sense, I mean.)

    If same-sex couples wish to get married, there is nothing that prevents them from buying rings, hiring a hall, inviting guests, locating an officiant, exchanging vows, and taking a vacation to the resort of their choice. It is when they expect the State to approve of those actions and grant any benefits reserved for married couples that the legal issues arise. Trying to argue that the State has no right to limit marriage licensing because they are an exception to the rule is like arguing that anyone who wants to claim to be a doctor can do so, and the State has no right to deny them that right, medical school and board exams be damned.

    And it also ignores the ongoing slippery slope that is already beginning.

  56. Give us one good reason to allow marriage for same-sex couples, but not for polygamists, pedophiles and zoophiles. Take your time. – See more at: http://proteinwisdom.com/?p=52222#comments

    You have so little faith in your fellow Americans. Marriage is a human invention. It has always meant whatever people of the time said it meant. Polygamy is a very “traditional” marriage. Pedophilia is very “traditional” as well, if you count the high number of child brides worldwide. What you seem to miss is that educated, liberal, western civilizations have been moving away from these, (and conservative fundamentalists have been clinging to them in their respective countries) for a variety of reasons:

    Polygamists – Very traditional, and biblically prescribed, but you end up with wealthy older men taking a disproportionate number of available women, leaving many young men with no one to marry. As a result, it’s socially destabilizing. Other “traditional” marriages include such gems as being forced to marry your rapist.

    Child Brides – It’s understood that it’s abuse to force children into “marriage”, much less before they are of an age to make their own informed decision. Thankfully it’s declining world-wide, but it’s still too common.

    Zoophiles – Again, you would need a significant percentage of your fellow Americans to go along with that, and I just don’t see that happening. Besides, the animal can’t really be considered a consenting adult.

    Next!

    Trying to argue that the State has no right to limit marriage licensing because they are an exception to the rule is like arguing that anyone who wants to claim to be a doctor can do so, and the State has no right to deny them that right, medical school and board exams be damned. – See more at: http://proteinwisdom.com/?p=52222#comments

    And as the population increasingly supports gay marriage, state laws are changing. States used to forbid interracial marriages also. Letting white people marry black people somehow didn’t lead to people marrying barnyard animals. How do you explain that Drum? Take your time.

  57. It has always meant whatever people of the time said it meant.

    Tell it to California (Prop 8) and the Federal Government (DOMA). The People don’t have a say in it. Each and every time it had actually come up for a vote of the People (prior to 2012), same-sex marriage has overwhelmingly lost. And those recent exceptions are being touted as “the voice of the people”, while the hundreds of opposing decisions of “the voice of the people” were ignored or downplayed as “bigoted/racist/homophobic/H8RXTIANIST” with the H8 unilaterally being spewed by the bigots demanding that the laws be changed to fit the minority. If those two States put it up for a vote in a few years, and same-sex marriage is made illegal again, will it still be “the voice of the people”, or will lawsuits to block the result be immediately filed? Yeah, I didn’t think so.

    Try again.

    You still haven’t managed to come up with a reason that doesn’t also apply to those other groups. Straw men arguments that fail to answer the question are amusing, if only to show that you ignore the reality.

    And as the population increasingly supports gay marriage, state laws are changing.

    Only if “the population” is defined as “unelected cretins wearing black robes”. Case in point is Massachusetts, where a judge found that the Constitution — written by John Adams — was wrong by barring something that never existed when it was written. What’s next, demanding that it be legal in the UK by bitching about the Magna Carta?

    Still waiting for any argument that applies to same-sex that doesn’t also apply to group marriages, pedophiles and zoophiles…

    Take your time.

    Letting white people marry black people somehow didn’t lead to people marrying barnyard animals. How do you explain that Drum?

    As long as it was one man-one woman, who cares what religion they are? Why do you hate human couples?

  58. I did give you an answer Drum. You just didn’t understand it. Try harder.

    BTW, why do you hate gay marriage.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_opinion_of_same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_States

    And the thing that makes the slippery slope argument so lame is that it can be ginned up at any time, to say any thing – and it absolves the debater from discussing *the thing that’s actually in front of us*.

  59. I think he hates the religious, Drum.

    Marriage is one of the sacraments of the Church and is not to be entered into like a trip to the Elvis Chapel at Las Vegas. Pre-Cana counseling is required, as is a reading of the banns weeks to months prior to undertaking ones vows. The Church, through the pastor, may find the couple wanting and refuse them the sacrament. The Church will not marry homosexuals nor bless their unions. Members are charged to resist the glamour of evil during baptism and reminded often throughout the calendar year, that like rust, evil never sleeps.

    It’s awfully judge-y and hypocritical to try to force one’s ersatz views of “Christianity” on Christians. We are charged to love the sinner and hate the sin, not to embrace and celebrate the sin.

  60. The strawman argument about miscegenation is apples and razor blades to gay marriage.

  61. I did give you an answer Drum. You just didn’t understand it. Try harder.

    If the question had been “what is the sum of two plus five?” and you had answered “The Grand Canyon”, that would also have been an answer, but it does not answer the question asked. Try harder.

    And the thing that makes the slippery slope argument so lame is that it can be ginned up at any time, to say any thing – and it absolves the debater from discussing *the thing that’s actually in front of us

    You mean like the courts now allowing for group marriages, exactly as was predicted? Nope, no slippery slope there, nosirree…

    (Are you ALWAYS this stupid, or only when you open your mouth?)

    I don’t hate gay marriage, I just don’t think that the State should recognize it, any more than I would want them to recognize some yabbo wielding a butcher’s knife in an abandoned building as a surgeon. The State has the right to advance its own interests.

    When you eliminate the words “man” and “woman” from the recognized “one man, one woman” definition, why not eliminate the word “one”? Or the adult status? Or even the requirement that they even be human? (Animals have rights, too, don’t they?) Try and stick with the topic.

    Assuming you have the intelligence to understand it.

  62. Marriage is one of the sacraments of the Church and is not to be entered into like a trip to the Elvis Chapel at Las Vegas. Pre-Cana counseling is required, as is a reading of the banns weeks to months prior to undertaking ones vows. The Church, through the pastor, may find the couple wanting and refuse them the sacrament. The Church will not marry homosexuals nor bless their unions. Members are charged to resist the glamour of evil during baptism and reminded often throughout the calendar year, that like rust, evil never sleeps. – See more at: http://proteinwisdom.com/?p=52222#comment-1041774

    And if this was a theocracy, *everyone* would need to care about that. But it isn’t, so not everyone does.

    If you don’t want to marry someone of the same sex, than don’t marry someone of the same sex. Fair enough?

    You mean like the courts now allowing for group marriages, exactly as was predicted? – See more at: http://proteinwisdom.com/?p=52222#comment-1041774

    Please show cause and effect between gay marriage legalization and the court ruling in Utah.

    I don’t hate gay marriage, I just don’t think that the State should recognize it – See more at: http://proteinwisdom.com/?p=52222#comment-1041774

    Why not?

    When you eliminate the words “man” and “woman” from the recognized “one man, one woman” definition, why not eliminate the word “one”? Or the adult status? Or even the requirement that they even be human? (Animals have rights, too, don’t they?) Try and stick with the topic. – See more at: http://proteinwisdom.com/?p=52222#comment-1041774

    Asked and answered. But here it is again:

    Polygamists – Very traditional, and biblically prescribed, but you end up with wealthy older men taking a disproportionate number of available women, leaving many young men with no one to marry. As a result, it’s socially destabilizing. Other “traditional” marriages include such gems as being forced to marry your rapist.

    Child Brides – It’s understood that it’s abuse to force children into “marriage”, much less before they are of an age to make their own informed decision. Thankfully it’s declining world-wide, but it’s still too common.

    Zoophiles – Again, you would need a significant percentage of your fellow Americans to go along with that, and I just don’t see that happening. Besides, the animal can’t really be considered a consenting adult.
    - See more at: http://proteinwisdom.com/?p=52222#comment-1041774

  63. Please show cause and effect between gay marriage legalization and the court ruling in Utah.

    There need be no direct cause-and-effect (i.e. apply lit match to paper, ergo paper starts burning) for the slippery slope argument to apply, simply because the slope involves the weakening of standards and group identities, and the destruction of the nuclear family unit, all of which ARE a result of eliminating the very definition of an institution that has existed for more millennia than the SSM has years. When you eliminate the words identifying gender from the definition, it is easier to eliminate the words specifying numbers or age or mental status or even species.

    Sow the wind, reap the whirlwind.

    Asked and answered. But here it is again

    “The Grand Canyon”? Is that your final answer?

    Why not?

    Because it is not in the State’s best interests to eliminate the relationship that is responsible for both the creation, and the continuation, of civilization. Even States have a right to want a next generation come along, and same-sex couples simply cannot provide for that next generation, since homosexuality is, by evolutionary definition, a lethal mutation.

    If the State offered same-sex couples all the legal recognition granted to married couples (civil unions), but without redefining the word “marriage”, why shouldn’t that be sufficient?

  64. Steve, “slippery slope” was one of your earlier incarnations, right? Just asking.

  65. Hypocrisy, thy name is steve.

  66. In all matters pertaining to marriage, the State can go fuck itself, and then enjoy a postcoital pack of cigarettes while they are still legal in the privacy of one’s domicile.

  67. Smoking is a pre-existing condition that will jack up your Obamarama-care rates.

    But AIDS won’t. Unless the AIDS patient is also a smoker.

  68. There need be no direct cause-and-effect (i.e. apply lit match to paper, ergo paper starts burning) for the slippery slope argument to apply, simply because the slope involves the weakening of standards and group identities, and the destruction of the nuclear family unit, all of which ARE a result of eliminating the very definition of an institution that has existed for more millennia than the SSM has years. When you eliminate the words identifying gender from the definition, it is easier to eliminate the words specifying numbers or age or mental status or even species. – See more at: http://proteinwisdom.com/?p=52222#comment-1041780

    Polygamy is a traditional marriage. It’s history goes back much farther than gay marriage. Utah, being a place where it was legal. Utah outlawed it, and went farther than any state, making cohabitation illegal. This last part has been overturned – but Utah still does not issue Polygamy licenses. This is completely independent of gay marriage. Show otherwise or admit that you got nothing.

    And why is this ruling so troubling to you. Do you want the state regulating cohabitation? You’re cool with fascism so long as it’s your flavor of fascism?

    And as to an institution existing for more than a millennia – modern marriages (not arranged by parents, between one adult man and one adult woman) are not traditional. Look it up marriage a millennia ago.

    Because it is not in the State’s best interests to eliminate the relationship that is responsible for both the creation, and the continuation, of civilization. Even States have a right to want a next generation come along, and same-sex couples simply cannot provide for that next generation, since homosexuality is, by evolutionary definition, a lethal mutation. – See more at: http://proteinwisdom.com/?p=52222#comment-1041780

    How does gay marriage, in any way, effect the birth rate? How does it keep one straight couple from getting married? The state is, in no way, eliminating straight marriage. And, on a technical note, marriage isn’t required for procreation (although I agree that it’s the best environment for upbringing).

    Finally, if eliminating marriage between individuals that cannot procreate is your criteria, then you must be opposed to infertile people getting married, right?

  69. the Grand Canyon is like the ocean

    year after year the number of people what walk into the Grand Canyon does not equal the number of people who walk out of the Grand Canyon

    I think the Grand Canyon might could be a pre-existing condition

  70. Finally, if eliminating marriage between individuals that cannot procreate is your criteria, then you must be opposed to infertile people getting married, right?

    Rules are made for the majority, not the rare outliers. “One man, one woman” as the general rule is INFINITELY more likely to be able to produce the next generation than any number of men without a woman, or any number of women without a male.

    This last part has been overturned – but Utah still does not issue Polygamy licenses.

    It was overturned because of the inclusion of cohabitation, not because the definition of marriage was too restrictive. I realize that stupidity makes it hard for you to follow simple logic, but you could at least pretend to know what you are discussing.

    You’re cool with fascism so long as it’s your flavor of fascism

    You seem to be… why do you hate the State being allowed to define its own rules?

  71. That would be because he is a Statist.

  72. And the funny thing is that he will allow a minority to decide for the majority, but that will NEVER happen to him and his.

  73. We’ve been over this ad nauseum. Steve. Go hit the archives and get up to speed on the subject.
    Start here.
    The term “marriage” has a definition in law.

  74. - Its all fairly simple. The gays are trying to force public approbation of the twisted life style. People with self control find some things unconfortable in polite society and therefore do not support those things.

    - Steve-dolt and his fellow bullshit artists want to do whatever the fuck they want without others finding them dumb, immoral, or misguided and that makes them feel uncomfortable. so they back any kind of abborant behavior so their own forms of outlier behavior can pass muster.

    - Everything else Steve-dolt says is to support that ploy.

    - Not working.

  75. - Steve-dolt wants the benefits of societal organization without the conformity of laws and public moors.

    - Just another run-of-the-mill non-comformist with different angles on the old I want my cake and eat it too gambit.

  76. And the funny thing is that he will allow a minority to decide for the majority, but that will NEVER happen to him and his.

    He’s in for a shock when the Dems aren’t in the majority in the Senate in the future.

  77. “Marriage is one of the sacraments of the Church and is not to be entered into like a trip to the Elvis Chapel at Las Vegas.”

    A “sacrament of the Church” that you somehow think the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT has a legitimate power to define and enforce.

    Okay, then.

    Are there any other exceptions to the nonestablishment clause that you like?

  78. - The Gheys, and their handmaidens like Steve-dolt, have civil Unions that can be papered up to match all the legal recrocites of marraige, so that there is no probational/property/legal difference.

    - The fact that they refuse to accept this fact shows ita really about the emotion of the situation, not the legal aspects, and therefore total bullshit.

  79. recrosites = *requsites*

  80. “The Gheys, and their handmaidens like Steve-dolt, have civil Unions that can be papered up to match all the legal recrocites of marraige”

    My position is, and always has been, that everyone (not just gays) should have civil unions. Enforcement of contract law is a legitimate function of the state.

    Whether you call it a “marriage” or not is up to you, your minister (if any) and your conscience (if any). The state has no business meddling in that. At all.

    Why shouldn’t I be able to sign a civil union contract with my friend (or multiple friends, for that matter) that would allow them to inherit without a bunch of legal folderol, or make medical decisions for me, or own joint property? That’s an entirely different issue from who (if anyone) is rubbing slippery bits together.

    The big problem here is that contracts, sex, and religion are all thrown into one big pile called “marriage”. They don’t need to be, and they shouldn’t be. Only the first is a legitimate function of the state.

  81. Y’all have conceded the power to define marriage to the state (and we now have attempts to make that a power of the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT), then whine when the almighty state changes that definition to something that doesn’t suit you.

    Yeah, me opposing the efforts of the moral and intellectual heirs of stonewall , Haight-Ashbury, the summer of love and woodstock to use the state to redefine marriage is me conceding the power of the state to define marriage in the first place. What, am I supposed to be too proud to fight here?

    And since we’re on the subject, it was the generation of stonewall, Haight-Ashbury, the summer of love and woodstock that proposed the needlessness of getting The Man’s unneccessary piece of paper to prove their kind(s) of love had Meaning.

    So frankly, I don’t see much hope in traditionalists adopting a position their foes have abandodned.

  82. A “sacrament of the Church” that you somehow think the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT has a legitimate power to define and enforce.

    If there are benefits or status granted to married couples not granted to single individuals (as I pointed out, these can include, but are not limited to, taxation status, legal protections regarding testimony, default inheritance status, and the like), then the Government granting those benefits not only has the authority to define that condition, it has the requirement to do so, if the laws are to be equally and fairly enforced.

    Otherwise, those benefits can be claimed by anyone, with the Government having no means of determining whether that necessary condition has been met.

    Who else would you prefer to define those legal statuses? Leave it up to the individual? A Board of Determination (using what standards)? The idiot sitting in the Octagon Office at the moment?

    If you want to prevent the Federal Government from granting those benefits or statuses at any point, then you might have an argument, but as long as they exist, then the requirements stand, and must be defined.

  83. And the funny thing is that he will allow a minority to decide for the majority, but that will NEVER happen to him and his.
    He’s in for a shock when the Dems aren’t in the majority in the Senate in the future.

    A lot of people are under the impression that that future is closer to the here and now than to the twelfth of never. That’s a mistaken impression in my opinion.

  84. that you somehow think the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT has a legitimate power to define and enforce.

    You misread me, Spies. I think the federal government has no place in marriage. I have said so many times.

  85. And the funny thing is that he will allow a minority to decide for the majority, but that will NEVER happen to him and his.

    Except for when the minority doesn’t want the government up its ass with a sigmoidoscope. In that case, he’s a-ok with the minority being overrruled by the majority.

  86. The gays are trying to force public approbation of the twisted life style. People with self control find some things unconfortable in polite society and therefore do not support those things. – See more at: http://proteinwisdom.com/?p=52222#comment-1041798

    …but don’t call him homophobic…

    He’s in for a shock when the Dems aren’t in the majority in the Senate in the future. – See more at: http://proteinwisdom.com/?p=52222#comment-1041798

    It won’t be a shock at all. I know exactly the swath of destruction you’ll leave. Luckily, your policies will end up being so painful and unpopular they’ll likely be pretty short lived – assuming you can win national elections any more.

    My position is, and always has been, that everyone (not just gays) should have civil unions. Enforcement of contract law is a legitimate function of the state.
    Whether you call it a “marriage” or not is up to you, your minister (if any) and your conscience (if any). The state has no business meddling in that. At all.
    - See more at: http://proteinwisdom.com/?p=52222#comment-1041798

    We agree! What? How did that happen?

    If there are benefits or status granted to married couples not granted to single individuals (as I pointed out, these can include, but are not limited to, taxation status, legal protections regarding testimony, default inheritance status, and the like), then the Government granting those benefits not only has the authority to define that condition, it has the requirement to do so, if the laws are to be equally and fairly enforced. – See more at: http://proteinwisdom.com/?p=52222#comment-1041798

    Which is exactly why Teh Geyhs want to be included – and the state receives exactly the same benefit in extending that contract to gays as it has with straights. And there is no harm to straights or the state. They have lost nothing.

  87. And the funny thing is that he will allow a minority to decide for the majority, but that will NEVER happen to him and his. – See more at: http://proteinwisdom.com/?p=52222#comment-1041829

    Not a minority any more. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_opinion_of_same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_States

  88. Which is exactly why Teh Geyhs want to be included – and the state receives exactly the same benefit in extending that contract to gays as it has with straights

    And then why aren’t civil unions sufficient? Why attack marriage if they were never going to participate in it?

    Take your time.

  89. I don’t speak italics.

  90. I know exactly the swath of destruction you’ll leave.

    Give us some examples. Show your work.

  91. And then why aren’t civil unions sufficient? Why attack marriage if they were never going to participate in it? – See more at: http://proteinwisdom.com/?p=52222#comment-1041830

    Why create a whole new thing (civil union) that does exactly what an existing thing (marriage) does? And in what way are gay married couples not participating in marriage?

  92. gay marriage is the same as regular marriage except for both people are of the same sex – there is still cake involved and also tax consequences

    also if you get gay married you should write the date down somewhere so you can remember your anniversary

  93. Why create a whole new thing (civil union) that does exactly what an existing thing (marriage) does? And in what way are gay married couples not participating in marriage? – See more at: http://proteinwisdom.com/?p=52222#comments

    The law.

  94. Why create a whole new thing (civil union) that does exactly what an existing thing (marriage) does? And in what way are gay married couples not participating in marriage? – See more at: http://proteinwisdom.com/?p=52222#comments

    The law. – See more at: http://proteinwisdom.com/?p=52222#comment-1041840

    So if the law allows it, you’re cool with it?

  95. “f there are benefits or status granted to married couples not granted to single individuals”

    Those benefits and statuses are unconstitutional on their face, IMO, so this argument is…unpersuasive.

    We don’t have classes of citizens in this country, least of all based on whether they’ve gone through a quasi-religious ceremony.

  96. “You misread me, Spies. I think the federal government has no place in marriage. I have said so many times.”

    Okay, great. Sorry. :-)

  97. S’all right. Happens to me quite often. ; )

  98. Let’s look at it this way:

    Suppose a future Congress and President decide that anyone who’s gone through through a voodoo ceremony and been baptized in the name of Satan, should get tax breaks, while those who haven’t done those things(and had the fact duly witnessed and registered with the state) don’t.

    Y’all are okay with that?

    Take your time.

  99. “So if the law allows it, you’re cool with it?”

    Remember all that “law of the land “hit steve?

  100. Suppose a future Congress and President decide that anyone who’s gone through through a voodoo ceremony and been baptized in the name of Satan, should get tax breaks, while those who haven’t done those things(and had the fact duly witnessed and registered with the state) don’t. – See more at: http://proteinwisdom.com/?p=52222#comment-1041844

    I don’t know. Has this voodoo ceremony been empirically shown to have great benefits to the participants, their young, and society overall? ’cause then I might be interested.

    Being married is not a benign activity.

  101. Suppose a future Congress and President decide that anyone who’s gone through through a voodoo ceremony and been baptized in the name of Satan, should get tax breaks, while those who haven’t done those things(and had the fact duly witnessed and registered with the state) don’t.

    If and when the IRS starts auditing people who check the “Married, Filing Jointly” box on their 1040, and treats couples married differently based on whether the marriage license was signed by a civil officer (e.g. justice of the peace) or a religious officer (e.g. Presbyterian minister), then you’ll have a point worth considering

    And the present tax break for being married isn’t worth talking about, unless we want to debate whether or not we as a society are, or are not, better off promoting a traditional (q. v.) family structure, or whether we should continue down the present path of outsourcing child rearing responsibilities to third parties.

    Which, of course, is a different discussion. But then again, maybe that’s the discussion to have, since it get’s to what marriage has traditionally been understood to be. Rather than this modern notion that we’re negotiating a contract for sexual services, division of housekeeping duties, and financial support

    –with a childrearing option exercisable after 3 to 5 years.

  102. “then you’ll have a point worth considering”

    Translation: y0u’re going to refuse to address the point.

    The certificate of baptism in the name of Satan wouldn’t necessarily have to be signed by an actual voodoo priest. A civil servant would do.

    You’re okay with that?

  103. “Has this voodoo ceremony been empirically shown to have great benefits to the participants”

    Sure it would. Given the hypothetical, all the Best People would have done it, so it would certainly be of tangible benefit to follow suit.

  104. I’m still waiting for examples of havoc to be wrecked by the republicans in the world according to steve.

  105. I’ll also add that it’s my underconsidered opinion* that this notion that marriage is just another civil contract with the option of a religious ceremony is a major part of the marriage crisis (q.v. –again).

    *let’s just call it a hunch.

  106. Translation: y0u’re going to refuse to address the point.
    The certificate of baptism in the name of Satan wouldn’t necessarily have to be signed by an actual voodoo priest. A civil servant would do.
    You’re okay with that?

    Because the point isn’t worth addressing.

    And what’s with the shift to baptism? I thought we were talking about marriage.

    And tax breaks.

  107. “Has this voodoo ceremony been empirically shown to have great benefits to the participants”
    Sure it would. Given the hypothetical, all the Best People would have done it, so it would certainly be of tangible benefit to follow suit.

    The bold is what I mean by the point not being worth addressing. The hypothetical is nonsense, in that the tax break you speak of isn’t attached to the sanction of a recognized religious institution.

    I had a sociology professor pull that bullshit on me once. He was a fucking idiot and stoner burnout, which even his colleagues recognized (but hey, tenure, so whaddya gonna do?).

    I’m pretty sure you’re smarter than that.

  108. Sure it would. Given the hypothetical, all the Best People would have done it, so it would certainly be of tangible benefit to follow suit. – See more at: http://proteinwisdom.com/?p=52222#comment-1041859

    Sure, when all the Best People are doing it, and there’s good empirical evidence to support significant societal benefit, then why wouldn’t the state want to encourage it?

  109. Define “Best People”.

  110. I dunno – SBP said it. It just had a nice ring to it. You could even drop the best people part, and you still have a statement that’s every bit as valid.

  111. SBP, when the troll likes your hypothetical better than your friends do…

  112. you still have a statement that’s every bit as valid.

    As valid as any tautology can be.


  113. The Final Cut (Waters)

    Through the fish-eyed lens of tear stained eyes
    I can barely define the shape of this moment in time
    And far from flying high in clear blue skies
    I’m spiraling down to the hole in the ground where I hide.

    If you negotiate the minefield in the drive
    And beat the dogs and cheat the cold electronic eyes
    And if you make it past the shotgun in the hall,
    Dial the combination, open the priesthole
    And if I’m in I’ll tell you what’s behind the wall.

    There’s a kid who had a big hallucination
    Making love to girls in magazines.
    He wonders if you’re sleeping with your new found faith.
    Could anybody love him
    Or is it just a crazy dream?

    And if I show you my dark side
    Will you still hold me tonight?
    And if I open my heart to you
    And show you my weak side
    What would you do?
    Would you sell your story to Rolling Stone?
    Would you take the children away
    And leave me alone?
    And smile in reassurance
    As you whisper down the phone?
    Would you send me packing?
    Or would you take me home?

    Thought I oughta bare my naked feelings,
    Thought I oughta tear the curtain down.
    I held the blade in trembling hands
    Prepared to make it but just then the phone rang
    I never had the nerve to make the final cut.

    Then Pink Floyd went off to do their own thing and Rogers did stuff like Ms. Body Goes Walking and Radio Kaos. And he sued them because HE was really Pink Floyd ’cause he said so, and lost. Then the Berlin Wall came down so they all got together with a lot of other celebrities and used that as a marketing event. The end.

  114. Oh, and the Body stuff all sounded kind of like the first Gorillaz CD (a stoner messing around with riffs and an 8 track recorder).

  115. “Define “Best People”.”

    Well, given that in the hypothetical the Congress and President had implemented this law…

    “tax break you speak of isn’t attached to the sanction of a recognized religious institution.”

    Nonsense.

  116. “Sure, when all the Best People are doing it, and there’s good empirical evidence to support significant societal benefit, then why wouldn’t the state want to encourage it? ”

    Because that is not the function of the state. It may be the function of your parents. It may be the function of your pastor. It may even be the function of your peer group or social set.

    The state isn’t your Mommy or Daddy, Slaphead, no matter how much you might want that to be the case.

  117. Nonsense.

    So you’re going with “let’s assume the assumption that a tax break for being married baptized in the Coven of the Unholy Baphomet passes Constitutional muster?”

    I apologize for my misreading of your initial comment. Obviously because I was thinking marriage I read “baptism” as “marriage.” I regret the error. Nevertheless, I still think my larger point stands,

    to whit, your hypothetical is nonsense, and thus not worth addressing, even as a demonstrando absurdam.

  118. Sure, when all the Best People are doing it, and there’s good empirical evidence to support significant societal benefit, then why wouldn’t the state want to encourage it?

    H8RHOMOPHOBEXTIANIST

    (Which is the typical response when this argument is used to support traditional marriage…)

  119. Steve, my earlier query was not rhetorical (nor confrontational): your earlier handle here was “slippery slope”, right?

  120. So if the law allows it, you’re cool with it?

    I know it’s difficult for you, but try to concentrate. If you change the law to allow for a different definition of marriage to a man and a woman, a man and a man, or a woman and a woman, what’s to stop the law from allowing ever more and less savory combinations?
    You can’t say convention because convention is being overturned right now. The only solution would be to remove the institution from the law entirely.

  121. Careful, Mueller, or he’ll haul out his “Grand Canyon” answer again…

  122. What do you call an institution that exists outside of law?

  123. the Presidency?

  124. Well played.

    Besides the Presidency.

  125. naked wedding cakes is a thing

    nobody tells me anything

  126. Would anomic suit, Ernse? Or is that too general? Want something like anarchic instead? Or are there unseen or unenumerated laws (like laws of nature, say, gravity or heat transfer) that nevertheless are critical to the mere recognition of such a case?

  127. naked wedding cakes is a thing

    Pushed by bakers who either can’t decorate or make a deadline.

  128. what’s to stop the law from allowing ever more and less savory combinations?

    BECAUSE WE SAY SO.

    You wouldn’t let us limit marriage to one man and one woman on just our say so, why should yours do any better?

    BECAUSE WE SAY SO.

  129. Would anomic suit, Ernse? Or is that too general? Want something like anarchic instead? Or are there unseen or unenumerated laws (like laws of nature, say, gravity or heat transfer) that nevertheless are critical to the mere recognition of such a case?

    I was thinking along the lines that an institution that exists outside of law is one that is customary; and that another word for custom is convention .

    And thus Mueller’s no doubt well-intentioned solution fails in fact to solve anything.

  130. >What do you call an institution that exists outside of law? <

    with 100,000 pages of fed gov't regs is that possible?

  131. I’m perhaps idiosyncratically confounded by nomos, since it stands in translation as both law in the formal sense of “a law”, and custom, in the sense of a social rule of thumb. But sure, we have (and can’t seem to help having) all manner of customary institutions.

    In this regard, it’s a happy thing to re-read Montesquieu, without any need to specify between The Spirit of Laws or in the alternative, The Persian Letters.

  132. I think what you are referring to are those institutions that existed as far back as the tribal-family grouping, where the father is both head of the family and shaman, but in modern times, there are words such as “extralegal”, where it exists not so much “outside” the law, but is instead “not mentioned by” the Law.

    Same-Sex Marriage would have been considered extralegal, in that the ceremony could be performed in front of guests, officiant of choice and Deity of Desire, but without the licensure and approval of The State. The issue would only arise when demanding those benefits and legal protections offered to those who are licensed, but not to those who do not meet the definitions set by that State.

    But it has never been about the legal protections and benefits, or Civil Unions would be sufficient. It is about the destruction of the nuclear family (one father + one mother + one or more children), and the replacement by various arms of the State. To this end, we have no-fault divorce, welfare programs specifically designed for unmarried mothers, and the erasure of the very definition of marriage itself.

    We will continue to pay the price for generations to come, and the worst of it has not even woken, much less pulled its stompy boots on…

  133. I’m perhaps idiosyncratically confounded by nomos, since it stands in translation as both law in the formal sense of “a law”, and custom, in the sense of a social rule of thumb. But sure, we have (and can’t seem to help having) all manner of customary institutions.

    I would say we that have all manner of customs, but that, once customs become formalized into institutions, it isn’t long before we regularize them into law. Or at least that has been our practice (I was tempted to say “custom”) since the Enlightenment.

    Maybe I’m completely off base. As far as Montesquieu goes, you have the advantage of me.

    I think it’s worth noting though, that here we seem to see another instance in which the Left was able to utilize the space between custom and law to first flout the custom, then to weaken the law, and now it seeks to change the law. And instead of fighting to uphold the law as it is, we’re being advised to retreat to custom.

    I doubt the left will leave us any safe harbor between custom and law in which to do that.

  134. I don’t know if that’s what I was referring to or not drumwaster, but I like the way you put it.

  135. Those benefits and statuses are unconstitutional on their face, IMO, so this argument is…unpersuasive.

    We don’t have classes of citizens in this country, least of all based on whether they’ve gone through a quasi-religious ceremony.

    Then I guess we should shut off all the benefits that accrue to the limited amount of people who are veterans …something not everyone can qualify for.

    Marriage is an institution as much as the military is.

    And, again, just what standards are the courts to use as a foundation if no relationship is to be “privileged” over another? Mary has been in a [platonic] room-mate relationship with Julia for 3 years and Julia also has, Jim, a lover who lives part-time at the home and Susie a same-sex lover who Julia sees a few times a year when she travels out-of-state. Julia also has an adult bio son and one ex-stepdaughter who lives across the country.

    Julia dies suddenly with no will. Each adult claims a “special” relationship with Julia and, therefore, the right to have at least 50% of Julia’s assets.

    Since “marriage” means nothing anymore and any sexual or non-sexual relationship also holds no privilege … who (or how many) “spouses” does Julia have? And children?

  136. But it has never been about the legal protections and benefits, or Civil Unions would be sufficient. It is about the destruction of the nuclear family (one father + one mother + one or more children), and the replacement by various arms of the State. To this end, we have no-fault divorce, welfare programs specifically designed for unmarried mothers, and the erasure of the very definition of marriage itself.

    This.

    Plus we now have “scientific proof” to substantiate when common sense has always held.

    Children of divorce & singles, especially boys, are more at risk and do more poorly than their peers raised with mom & dad married to each other in the home.

  137. I’m having real problems caring about much of anything along these lines any more. Kinda like waking up to realize a majority of my countrymen are Godless commies, I’ve woken to the realization a majority of my countrymen no longer understand (or maybe being Godless commies don’t care) the role of family in a nation of free men.

    The outcome of the vision SBP, Slarti, and Dog Vomit share is already manifest. Give them what they want, and all of the US will look like the American intercity black community. Not a father in sight, and all the youth in crisis. Generating generations incapable of being freemen.

    What is ironic is the state doesn’t want to recognize marriage anymore than SBP thinks they should. The state is busy trying to put the final nail in coffin of the whole institution, so they can institutionalize the population their way.

    It’s all part of the transformation…

  138. Lee

    I despair also. But I have got to keep going for my grandkids, especially the boys.

  139. gay marriage is the future it’s like nanobots and liquified natural gas terminals

  140. A poor dumb busted out trainwreck with an ivory tower in the middle circled by vikings is the only future I see.

  141. No it isn’t, happy.

  142. >gay marriage is the future<

    biology 101 fail

  143. People who take marriage seriously will continue to do so. Those who don’t will continue a life of serial marriage and divorce or lots of relationships with or without off-spring.

    That horse has left the barn.

  144. small like miniscule w/big bucks minorities using the system to abuse majorities

    see:

    The Redistribution of Freedom

  145. I don’t know what anybody’s worried about. In a few generations the crushing burden of public debt will lead our Beltway overlords to require double reproduction just to ensure there are enough serfs laboring in the tax mines to keep from defaulting on the debt service.

    “Gay marriage? Comrade, how can you hate my great grandchildren so much that you would force them to suffer the cost of our utopia without the help of great grandchildren of your own? You’ll marry a woman and knock her up, pronto — at least four times, as required by law.”

  146. I can’t see the future, but I can see trajectory and momentum.

    We’re fucked.

  147. Well, I don’t intend to stand around pissing in my boots about it.

    Let’s get busy and take the country back. Those who don’t want to help can go sit over there.

  148. Why do progressives keep trying to equate social changes with technological development? They aren’t the same. If anything, the technological developments are easier with fewer pitfalls.

    (It’s not new. See: “If we can put a man on the Moon…” arguments used as an excuse for having any sort of social program ever since… we put a man on the Moon.)

  149. >Gay marriage? Comrade, how can you hate my great grandchildren<

    see: putin, vlad

  150. What have we done lately, Pat? We have to hitch rides with the Russkies to get to the space station now.

    And the Chinese landed a monkey on the Moon.

  151. >small like miniscule w/big bucks minorities using the system to abuse majorities <

    used to be called apartheid

  152. Yeah when I saw Gravity my first impression was to wonder “why do a movie about the manned space program just after we bailed on our manned space program and can’t live up to the movie?”

    Not very long ago, Gravity would have been a quasi-realistic movie (apart from the ring of death chain reaction stuff scouring near orbit space clean of satellites and stations). Now it’s just a sadly nostalgic bit of dick waving. Hey, remember back when we still sent shuttles up and stuff? That was really cool. Good times. Thanks Obama.

  153. Well, if alien invaders show up we can always play pop music at them.

  154. Why do progressives keep trying to equate social changes with technological development? They aren’t the same.

    Because of a little thing called the Industrial Revolution.

    The bigger problem is the tendency to believe that all change is Good.

  155. And the Chinese landed a monkey on the Moon.

    They did? Did they return it safely to earth, or is it busy building the clean room for Apple’s iPad 6 production line?

  156. “Out of every hundred new ideas, ninety-nine or more will probably be inferior to the traditional responses which they propose to replace. No one man, however brilliant or well-informed, can come in one lifetime to such fullness of understanding as to safely judge and dismiss the customs or institutions of his society, for those are the wisdom of generations after centuries of experiment in the laboratory of history.” — Thomas Sowell

  157. I can’t see the future, but I can see trajectory and momentum.
    We’re fucked.

    Here Lee, this will cheer you up.

    (via Creative Minority Report)

  158. One of these days Imma check these posts after I comment. One of these days.

    AKA “That escalated pretty substantially.”

  159. Thanks Ernst. That looks like a great blog at first blush.

  160. - On secomd thought if we boot ‘em then posting things like this that harshes his mellpow won’t be half the fun.

  161. Didn’t read all the comments but this would also eventually open the door if a brother and sister wanted to “marry”.

Leave a Reply