How NOT To Make Friends And Influence People

That title is about me.  This could as easily be titled “In Which I Offend Everyone II” (for part I look here.)

First let me piss off at least half of my audience when I say that I am pro-gay-marriage.  Marriage, not civil unions.  The reason for this is that I believe marriage is a stabilizing thing and therefore good for society.  And male/male couples – though the statistics don’t seem to bear me out – lacking whatever is supposed to make women more stable in mating – though again, the statistics don’t seem to bear me out, but I think that’s a wobble of the times – need the stabilizing influence of a ceremony and a public commitment to hold the course.

Yeah, it is a radical departure from the way marriage has been viewed for centuries, but for millennia, before the innovation we’ll call double monogamy, marriage was viewed as the union of a man and several women or, alternately a ceremony whereby a man acquired a woman’s promise of fidelity but in which he, himself, remained free to play the field with no consequences.  In many parts of the world that is what marriage still means.

Yeah, we could just have civil unions, but look here – it’s already happening, where it’s allowed – that IS what will destroy traditional marriage, because younger people will view it as less scary than marriage, and if they can have the legal benefits with the “freight” of tradition of marriage, they’ll do that.  At the end of that, we are France where no one ever gets married.  This is bad for children and bad for society.

Now, some people are afraid gay marriage advocates will force churches to perform these against their doctrine.  I used to snort at this.  I mean, how many Baptists rush into the Catholic church demanding to be married there?  (FYI that would be against Catholic doctrine.  In fact, even just one of the couple not being Catholic means the case has to go through ecclesiastical trial and a dispensation has to be obtrained.)  How many Jewish couples flock to mosques demanding a wedding ceremony then sue when they don’t get it?

That would be insanity, right?  And gay marriage advocates are no crazier than anyone else, right?

This is where I piss off the other half of my readership.  Guys – you’re making it hard for me to believe you shouldn’t all be in straitjackets, or at least shouldn’t all down a good dose of Prozac with your Cheerios every morning.

What’s that you say?  Hater you say?  Well… there you go again.

Look, children – shut up, sit down.  As I tell my teen and early twenties sons, you act like two year olds, you get treated like two year olds – I have TONS of friends who don’t agree with me on gay marriage.  I have tons of friends who don’t agree with me on much of anything.  Hell, I have friends who are communist.  I think they need to learn history, but that doesn’t mean I think they’re bad people AS PEOPLE.

On gay marriage, some of my more violently opposed friends ARE gay.  Some oppose it because they think it will up the ante on getting in other people’s face in a vain attempt at getting the approval mommy and daddy denied.  Some oppose it because they think it will destroy the bohemian aspects of gay life.  And some oppose it because given our common law marriage laws and alimony suits, no gay guy will ever feel comfortable letting an unemployed friend crash on his sofa for a few months.

And yeah, I have a bunch of friends who oppose gay marriage for religious reasons.  It is not my business to get between my friends and their G-d and tell them what they can and can’t believe.  As PEOPLE they’re not bad, and they wouldn’t mistreat a gay person for being gay.  (THOSE people are bad as people.)

I even have friends who believe in gay conversion therapy.  Look – I have friends who believe in crystals, auras and that they’re aliens in human bodies too.  Other than the fact that these quirks have enormous entertainment value (sue me, I’m a writer) they are otherwise sensible people, if you ignore the blind spot.

Do I picket their houses?  Write endlessly about how evil they are?  Tell them they’re not allowed to believe what they do?  WHY?  WHY IN HELL WOULD I?  WHAT WOULD IT GET ME?

So, yeah, you knew it was coming, guys, what the hell is this thing with Chick-fil-A?  No, seriously.  Have you gone off your collective minds?

I confess I have a soft spot for the chain though I’ve never eaten there. (IF we eat fast food we usually go for Carl’s Junior who gives you bunless burgers on request.  Also, they have a positive policy of hiring people with mental disabilities, which I’d like to support.)  The soft spot hinges solely on the dyslexic cows adjuring everyone to eat more chickin.  It’s a clever campaign, and I like clever campaigns.

Then comes this storm in a teacup.

Several things you might not be aware of – first this is a rehash of an attempted storm a few months back.  I know about this because my husband (the world’s least political person) got caught in the crossfire by innocently pointing out that what caused it was a FAKE pamphlet distributed at NYU saying that the company would only hire good Christians or whatever.

Second, this controversy was re-ignited with fake stuff.  Again.  The owner never said he was opposed to gay marriage (go here) – in fact the subject NEVER CAME UP.  The journalist simply decided to insert that because… roses are red?  Journalists are?  Who knows.

“Fine, you say.  But he’s a Christian activist and therefore against gay marriage.  He gives money to anti-gay-marriage causes.”

Oh, no.  Double plus ungood.  How dare he commit a thought crime?

What?  You didn’t realize that’s what you were going after?  Look, in these circumstances it’s always good to turn it around and see what it would be like done by the other side.

People who are against gay marriage are free to boycott my books – I doubt they were reading them before anyway, given the number of gay characters I have (it’s not my fault, it’s what falls in the subconscious.) – In fact everyone is free to boycott – meaning not buy – my books.  Judging by my sales figures any number of them exerts that prerogative.  People who are against gay marriage can even post on facebook about what a poopy-head I am.  Considering I’ve been hit by both sides of the “racist” field for ONE book, that wouldn’t even begin to upset me.

Now imagine the mayors of conservative towns coming out in force to say that trash that Sarah A. Hoyt writes is not allowed in their town because Sarah is a fag-lover.  Doesn’t that make your skin crawl?  Don’t you want to go “Hey, she’s allowed to believe whatever she wants to?  This is America and we have the first amendment.”  “BUT” they’ll say “She gives money to pro-gay-marriage causes,” they’ll say.  (And before you strain trying to figure out which of the current loonies I’m giving money to — I’m not.  For one, I don’t have money now.  But when I was richer (and younger, and stupider) in the late 90s early 2000s, I gave a lot of money to the Libertarian Party who was, then, pushing marriage equality.  Fair enough.)  And all you can answer is “Why shouldn’t she if she believes it’s the best for society?”

Right, now turn it around again.

The owner of Chick-fil-A, who is a Southern Baptist, believes that homosexuality is a sin and gives money to anti-gay-marriage causes.   Uh uh.  Quick, stop the presses!  Let’s make a federal case out of this.

In our democratic republic, a man whose religion opposes gay marriage gives money to prevent… gay marriage?  Yeah. This totally justifies mayors of large cities coming out and grandstanding and saying this man’s business – which, btw, does not provide bits of fried gay person but bits of fried chicken – is not welcome there.  It totally justifies calling the man a Nazi.  Because, of course – Sarah nods sagely – he’s been advocating killing all gay people.

No?  Because that’s what calling him a Nazi implies.  (Mind you, even if he advocated it, it wouldn’t make him the moral equivalent of Hitler – it would just make you the moral equivalent of stupid – because he doesn’t have the armies or police force to enforce it.  Our city has a KKK parade — or used to — which was a great occasion to get out with the anti-KKK signs, that’s all.  And THOSE people believe in killing gays — and Jews and Catholics.  BUT they don’t have the power to enforce it, so they’re just nuts we can make fun of.)  There are places that kill gays – mostly in the Middle East.  Cuba imprisons them (at least if they’re the passive partner, which means a guy who is raped can get imprisoned for life.)

Do I see any of you exert half that much rage and venom against those targets?  No, of course not – because a) that would be politically incorrect and you nerds and geeks want more than anything to be part of the cool “in” crowd.  b) because those are seriously bad dudes and that would be dangerous and you – all of you, girls, guys, gay and straight – are raging wussies who wouldn’t actually take on anyone you think might fight back and fight dirty.

What you should be asking yourself is “why Chick-fil-A”?  The country is filled with businesses owned by Southern Baptists.  I worked for one (small) way back in the day.  It was a nice place to work because it closed on Sundays.  The owners believed in that.  Being where it was and when it was, they also probably believed that both Jews and Catholics were evil evil people.  I still worked for them and didn’t implode in a puff of smoke.  We sold cheap imports from third world countries, and the checks cleared which allowed me to buy groceries.  They could believe whatever the hell they wanted to, I believed in groceries.

To my knowledge none of these businesses has been the target of not one but TWO disinformation campaigns – first the NYU thing, now this.  So, what’s behind this?  How the hell do I know?  I don’t have the time to study the org chart for the company, so at least one of these might be wrong, but several reasons I could put forth would be: someone inside the company wants to oust the current owner; someone outside the company wants to damage it – competitor or disgruntled employee; or this is the equivalent of the “war on women” and someone wants to distract you from the economy and remind you some people out there don’t approve of gay marriage.

Of course, there’s another hypothesis.  It’s Machiavellian, but not out of the question: one of the people who thinks gay marriage is dangerous because gays will become this little thought-enforcing army forcing even religions that disapprove of homosexuality to perform gay marriages has started this campaign to show how hysterical and unstable y’all are.

No?  You don’t think so?  You think this behavior is earning you friends?

Oh, yeah, fine, it’s a lot of fun to post nasty things about a fast food chain which can’t retaliate because businesses don’t do that.  It’s a lot of fun to act all righteous and indignant against people who can’t do anything to you, personally.  And kiss ins?  I’m all for kiss ins.  What the hell do you think that will do except shock some kiddies eating there?  (And not many, not in 21st century America.)

What are you going to do for an encore?  Go after every business in this country that’s owned by a religious person?  Till – what? – everyone in the nation turns against you and buys a roll of duct tape to shut you up?

Guys, when you get to the point of getting on MY nerves, you’ve lost the plot.

Go ahead, shake your little fists, why don’t you?  The people united shall never eat chick-a-filla.  Man, those are logical and convincing arguments!

Never mind those strings moving you around and never, never look up to see who’s making you dance.  Oooh, you’re so hip and cool now.  Just a part of the “in” crowd.

Keep this up and in ten years the only place gays will have a role will be in comedy, as the hysterical, irrational comic relief.

As an heterosexual woman whose grandchild or great grandchild might very well be gay and for whom I would like the benefits of marriage, I’ll be over here crying my eyes out.

UPDATE: welcome Instapundit readers and thank you Glenn Reynolds for the link!

Update, Andrew Klavan is normally more socially conservative than I am (and certainly more vocal about his religion.  While I’m religious and practice my religion and hold myself to my religion’s rules, I don’t think I have the right to argue public positions on that basis.  Let me explain — I saw what religious rule did to Europe in the middle ages.  You don’t want that.  Even a good religion gets corrupted when given secular power) , yet his position is much like mine.
The only caveat would be that I don’t understand how he thinks he’d know if the “good gay people” shunned the nutbars.  It’s not like the media would amplify their voices as they do those of “homosexual leaders” and “gay activists.”  (In an unrelated note, I plan to start calling myself an Heterosexual Leader.  If I were any more heterosexual/not married/NOT actively religious, there would be restraining orders up and down the land.)

560 thoughts on “How NOT To Make Friends And Influence People

  1. The reason for this is that I believe marriage is a stabilizing thing and therefore good for society. And male/male couples – though the statistics don’t seem to bear me out – lacking whatever is supposed to make women more stable in mating – though again, the statistics don’t seem to bear me out, but I think that’s a wobble of the times – need the stabilizing influence of a ceremony and a public commitment to hold the course.

    Already can have these. Been invited to some. Didn’t make the female/female couple last any longer than the prior pairings. Don’t see how putting a Magic State Mark of Approval on them will make it work any better, and will be another blow against stable, child-producing relationships. Having kids doesn’t fix it, either, most of the lesbians I know have children from before they left their husbands.

    A better comparison than Methodists suing to be married in Catholic Churches would be polygamists or divorcees (without annulments) suing to be allowed to use the facilities. We already have cases of people who refuse to sell their services to homosexual weddings being sued; not buying that it will stop there any more than I bought that the drive would stop at civil ceremonies or a sensible person thought it would stop with civil approval of the “lifestyle choices.”

    Don’t expect this to get anything but heat rather than light, so not subscribing to the feed. I really don’t feel the need to roll in ire.

    1. I don’t think marriage should be the business of the state. I simply don’t have any hope of carrying my point. And yeah, some ceremonies won’t help anything. Having to go through divorce, though, might make people think twice. I don’t think it’s a blow against stable child-producing relationships, though — let me put it this way, no matter how legal it is, I have no interest in females, nor am I likely to. I think that goes for most of the population.
      Yep on the already suing. That was my other post on this. It goes under “What the heck is wrong with you?” and “What do you expect this to get you?”

      1. I don’t think it’s a blow against stable child-producing relationships, though.

        Same argument was made about no-fault divorce.

        Who would want to go through all that, and deal with stigma, unless it was important?

        And that worked out…um… into a huge illegitimate birthrate. (Yes, there were other factors– such as women believing they could have sex with as little risk of pregnancy as a man, and welfare making it less scary to leave for silly reasons like “I’m bored” or “you’re not as sexy as when I married you,” bunch of other possible factors.)

        Want fun, say “here’s an idea– will you agree to get rid of no-fault in return for gay marriage?”

        I think the state does have an interest in fostering those unions which result in stable citizens, with the minimum of micromanagement. Male/female not closely related and not already married–simple. Much more simple than all the stuff that would have to be done to allow people to be stay-at-home moms without having to also shoulder even more of a burden than currently.

        I am amused that the post boiled down to “This won’t happen, they’re not crazy– and, hey, you guys! Stop acting crazy!”

        1. It boiled down to it intentionally. A mirror held up, if you wish.

          And yep, I’d agree on the no-fault thing. I’d agree on it with no trade. THAT I think is making marriage into a slot machine. BUT that’s another post.

          1. This makes a total of…. *counts up, adds the carries*

            ….One person. In the several years I’ve seen it asked. -.-

            1. Foxfier,

              I’d like to eliminate no-fault divorce. There are other ways to help spouses in abusive relationships than undermining marriage.

                  1. Considering that it took a no-fault file-the-paperwork divorce for my mom to finally GET a divorce… I was singin’ and dancin’ about that, I was. (When your sire attempts to kill your mom while you’re upstairs trying to call the police, and you have to run down and stand between them, around age 11 or 12… Some marriages can’t be saved and should be put out of everyone’s misery as quickly as possible. Of course, abusers can be very good at OHHHH, HOW THEY’VE CHAAAAAANGED, or gaslighting, or telling you how what you think isn’t what you really think, or how if only you wouldn’t be SO DIFFICULT they wouldn’t HAVE to shout and scream and push you into fireplaces so you need stitches or try to strangle you. Lived with that. Seen how it works. Had him try the emotional/psychological brain***k on me once. Zero stars; would kill it with fire again and again.)

                    (TL:DR: Emotional abusers can be very good at making their victims look crazy. Having to prove abuse when you’re “the crazy one” (and half believe it) is bloody hard. Lower the bar to escape, even if some people abuse the lowered bar, I say. The alternative is worse.)

                    1. Yes, and without getting into it, I KNOW what you’re talking about Beth — but it has encouraged all too many people to treat marriage as a cash register. (Women, mostly) or (women being programmed to marry up) to be always on the lookout for the next best.

                      I’m not going to say there aren’t GOOD cases for no fault, but most of the cases aren’t. (And even with no fault real abuse victims tend to get the short end of the stick, because of what you say.)

                    2. Not good. No one should experience such. No fault has it uses, particularly when society turns a blind eye to the obvious. I am sorry you had to experience that, and I am glad that it came to an end.

                      A friends oft-used observation: Hurt people hurt people. Never makes it right, it just is part of what shouldn’t be creating more of what shouldn’t be.

                    3. Would that I could think of better ways… But when my mom really couldn’t afford to do more to get divorced than pay less than $100, send papers via certified mail, and get no contesting…

                      It seems that fault-divorces as the only option would be more likely to involve lawyers and legal fees, with reputations on the line, and shaming of the person whose arguments will be rendered down as, basically, “S/he was mean to me all the time.”

                      Can’t really see a better way that doesn’t involve orbital mind control lasers. If someone could provide me with the controls of OMCLs, I promise I’d fix a lot of things…

              1. Foxfier,
                I’d take that deal too. NFD does a lot more damage IMO than GM would, largely because of the vastly larger numbers involved.

                I’d also trade with the libertarians if I could, the war on drugs for abortion. After all, while I’m sympathetic to the junkie, they did make the choice. The babe didn’t choose to get sliced to bits.

                As to the issue of abuse raised by a poster, and not being able to get out, I’d point out the ghettoes filled with drive by shootings, and children forced to sleep in bathtubs to protect against bullets.

                I am a conservative. There is no utopia short of Heaven. Any choice we make, even the best one, will have significant problems.

                1. Funny. I would take that last line and say the same starting with “I am a libertarian. Everything is individual and every individual situation is flawed. There is no utopia short of Heaven. Any choice we make, even the best one, will have significant problems.”
                  “So, tell you what: you take over the conservatives. I er… organize the libertarians” (doubles over with laughter.) “We meet and we parlay. Deal?” Now, let me see, I had an electric cattle prod, a whip and a chair somewhere around here… Oh, yeah, and a metaphorical can of cat food.

              1. (Incidentally, anybody using Chrome– the wordpress addon is wonderful. Good replacement for the “share to RSS feed” feature that Google Reader use to have, and it tracks when folks reply to you.)

          2. RAH says somewhere that the whole point of marriage is children (production and welfare of, 1 ea). It seems to me that the state should agree with that and provide tax breaks etc. to incentivize the production of children into families with 2 adults (or possibly at least 2 but my understanding is that group marriages have generally failed so the incentive should not increae the more people are in the union).

            Now there are other things that we get these days as a result of being married such as the ability to share property, leech off the other person’s medical insurance, widow(er) pension rights etc. There probably should be a way to get some of those things by signing some sort of contract (how about a very simple corporation?) that would not depend on the number or gender of the people in the contract.

            Oh and then there’s the blessing from the big bloke (or blokess) up in the sky bit. Nothing to do with government. See how they do it in most of Europe where the religious wedding ceremony is just an optional thing becuase the critical bit happened the day before in the town hall.

            But all this is far too logical to actually be accomplished…

            1. In a 0PG (Zero Population Growth) society marriage loses that justification. In a society in which the State increasingly takes over the burdens of providing for children, marriage loses that justification. In a society in which the income tax deduction for child care expenses fails to reflect the effects of inflation (had it held constant for inflation, the dependent deduction would be around $25,000 in current dollars), marriage loses its justification. In a society in which a marriage is comprised of two individuals rather than a group entity, marriage loses it justification.

      2. For large part the state justifies its involvement in marriage because property is involved.

          1. In my mind a fee is a one-time levy, in exchange for a specific provided service; a tax is a recurring levy for general services.

      1. Don’t forget that they also own Hardee’s.

        And judging from my time working there, they rapidly promote the developmentally disabled to management… 🙂

          1. That is a reasonable policy, applying the Dilbert Principle of promoting people to positions where their ability to do harm is constrained. When you consider the trouble a business has to go through to fire anyone, however unproductive, the policy is positively enlightened.

        1. Dan and I once tried to get breakfast at McDonald’s in Boulder on the way to a con. They kept repeating our order wrong and adding random stuff, until we were up to fifteen milks, two coffees and… we drove away.

        2. Normally I point it out and ask for the items (actually you could write a joke about your McDonald’s experience); however, they might spit on my food. Since my immune system is suppressed, that action could hurt me. Hubby doesn’t let me yell at them anymore. 😉

  2. Oh wow – I am so against the disinformation campaign against “chick-a-fil”… We have KFC and not that chain here though. I saw the propoganda the other day and thought “not again.” Over and over another business is not “politically correct.” Who cares? Do they employ people? Do they pay their bills on time? Good business.

    As for gay marriage, my hubby is for it because he thinks it will stabilize the gay community. I don’t know… I wobble to and fro even though I have gay friends and gay family members. To be honest, my hubby and I were not married in a church. We went to the JP.

    I think that children need male and female models, which is where I think it gets sticky for marriage and adoption. Of course, (I am going to sound like my grandparents) the heterosexuals are not being good examples to their children either. ARG!

    So I wobble again 😉 … I have known gay couples who have been together for decades. Good people really. They are definitely not the fringe. It’s the bohemians (gay or heterosexual) who make me feel uncomfortable. And it hasn’t helped that I have been propositioned by a few lesbians in my time. It was a shock because I have always liked men… women… I have so few friends of that species. 😉

    1. I don’t much give a @#$ about gay marriage because I think it misses the point on both sides of the argument. This is an argument about icing when the cake is the problem.

      But do count me among those who find appalling the tactics of the pro-gay marriage side. But in truth, that argument is not about marriage; radical queer groups were invading and defiling Catholic churches before the marriage argument ever arose. Given that the Islamic world is far more hostile to gay life, I find it interesting that they don’t disrupt worship services in mosques nor satirize Muslims they way they do Catholicism.

          1. Only in Muslim countries. Now if gays went after mosques in the US or Europe, they’d be gone after as hate criminals. Going after Churches is very safe.

            1. Not only in Muslim countries, Paul. There is a cartoonist hiding for his life. And, as CACS pointed out there is the case of Theo Van Gogh in Holland. Going after Islam is, let’s face it, risky business.

              1. I remember that – I still have friends in Holland who are really unhappy with the Muslims in their country. I think they want to evict many of them. When we were there (my hubby used to work on equipment in Holland), we heard about cases where Muslim boys would rape Dutch girls and then say, “but they were wearing short skirts – they asked for it.”

                Plus there were gathering places and restaurants that didn’t welcome Dutch people – only Muslim people in Holland. It caused a lot of problems. The ones I knew were pretty laid back until you said Muslim.

                  1. I have a good friend from Holland. She and her (female) partner are waiting until their kids are grown and then they are closing their business and moving elsewhere, for precisely that reason. The Muslims.

                    1. John Cleese, one of my all-time favorite entertainers, moved from London out into the English countryside for the same reason, though he was very circumspect with his public reason. Something to the effect of “London no longer feels like an English city”.

                      Congrats, John! The very society you and your buds (of whom I’m also big fans of) lampooned insatiably for decades is no all but gone from the biggest city in your country.

                      Okay…it’s not Monty Python’s fault, I grant you, but they were certainly riding the same wave.

                1. Re the Dutch girls wear such short skirts: the same justification, that the women were being provocative because they were wearing western dress, has been tried by Muslims accused of rape in Australia. (In one case the woman was wearing what was described as a conservative business suit.)

                  I have read that France has police no-go zones after the string of very violent and destructive riots in their Muslim communities. (of course we have some functional no-go zones, but they are not religiously defined.)

                2. “we heard about cases where Muslim boys would rape Dutch girls and then say, “but they were wearing short skirts – they asked for it.”

                  the answer to that one is simple. what’s good for the goose is good for the gander. Take the offender, string him up, slice open his belly and leave him. When your arrested just say “hey he indulged in his cultural vice and raped a woman because to him a woman who wears a short skirt is a whore and has it coming. I indulged in mine. Where I come from we call bastards like him..vulture food. So see…I wasn’t committing murder I was just feeding the birds”

              2. Nod, but I was talking “legal” punishments for “offending” Muslims. Admittedly, my cynical self thinks Christians should start using the “extra-legal” methods of Muslims. [Sad Smile]

      1. My biggest problem with the same-sex marriage side, or SSM’s, for short, is that they’re main complaints are all based on the arbitrary nature of one-man/one-woman. The main problem I have with the SSM crowd is that they are just as arbitrary when it comes to polygamists.

        The SSM proponents want to have the door opened wide for them, but they want to slam it closed right behind them after they pass through. Not once have I heard a SSM advocate argue their case and then give me a good reason why polygamy shouldn’t be legalized right along with SSM.

        1. Offensive as it might be to our modern sensibilities, polygamy at least has some history to point to of stable societies that practice(d) it for centuries. Heck, even Martin Luther recommended it as a last ditch option rather than sanction a divorce for the English king.

          As I mentioned elsewhere in this thread – if they’ve the means and desire to form another contract, and their original contract has no exclusivity clause, then great for them. None of my business.

          1. That’s all well and good and, as a man, I can easily imagine the benefits (and no, it’s not what you think…much). However, I believe there’s a lot of caution against polygamy from the studies that have been done of traditionally polygamist cultures that are stumbling into the developed world. Saudi, for instance. The work shows that over time, the women gravitate toward the more successful men, ie, richer, eventually leaving a huge imbalance of unwed/unlaid men. Unlaid men in those numbers and for that long tend to act…radically.

                1. LOL

                  also from the LOL dept is my initial reaction to your cartoon posted on FB. I was making a Waldo joke without realizing who was in that picture. Her, I recognized from computer games in the 90’s. Him…not at all.

          2. I come from a family that practiced polygamy in the 19th century (yep, Mormons). Not a single woman in my family want to be involved in that process ever. My great-grandmother used to talk about how her husband tried to force her into that type of contract (this was after the revelation against polygamy). She left him. Her mother had been involved in polygamy and then divorced her husband. These women didn’t say anything against the Church, but if you tried to get them into polygamy there would have been a riot. –and this is a church that tries to condition their women into the “joys” of polygamy. (sisterhood if you will)

            My great-great grandmother’s (who was a very strong woman) second husband did not practice polygamy. (or at least she didn’t know). Yes, young girls have been and are being forced into polygamy. I knew a guy who had lived in a polygamist compound. The older men married the younger women… The younger guys were thrown out because there were not enough young women for them.

            I don’t agree with it and it is one of the reasons I have split with the church of my childhood.

            1. Ummm… not the main church… but some of the split-offs of the Mormon church (they call themselves fundamentalists)… are forcing their young girls into polygamy. Some just don’t know any better.

            2. Ah…but if SSM becomes the law of the land, ie, legal and recognized in all fifty states, shouldn’t three men be able to get “married” if they are all in love?

              1. Studies seem to show that group marriages, which this would resemble more than hetero polygamy, are their own punishment. (Though when I said that at the local con I was shouted down and told there were several successful ones in the audience. What do I know? To me it seems like a crazy thing to do.)

                1. I’m sure there are some successful multi-partner groups. I think I know of one or two, via the Internet.

                  I’m also sure they’re a lot harder to manage than just two-people pair-bonding, so you get fewer long-term successful ones, and when one blows up, the drama magnifies exponentially. You think a break-up is bad when it’s just His Friends and Her Friends? (or His and His/Hers and Hers, as applicable.) Add in both another Party’s Friends, factionalizing, and general chaos. *shudder* (And, interestingly, the stable groups I know of, if the topic comes up, acknowledge all this, I think I recall?)

                  Maybe it has to do with whether the people involved are more bonobo-like or more chimp-like. (Guess what gene-seqencing stories I was looking up in the car?)

                  (Personally, I’m fine with group-marriage in theory. It might need some form of education, though, like driver’s ed. Someone to sit down and hash out the social compact so there aren’t as many covered pit traps. >_> )

                  1. Well it could lead to the rejuvenation of the soap opera.

                    Alex, Sam and Joe set up household over five years ago. Joe is happy and thinks everything is hunky-dory. Alex now finds the idiosyncrasies that once were charming in Joe now are a source of every increasing irritation. Alex no longer wishes to live with Joe, but wants to continues to live with Sam. Sam is more attached to the two than the idea of any one. Adding to that Chris has set eyes on making it a foursome. No one is going to be happy…

                    1. Considering that my friend told me about soap operas sending characters down into Ancient UFO Ruin Caves… (Almost sorry I missed that. Almost.) Yeah, more fuel for the mill!

                      (And watch RAH facepalm in his grave if the SyFy channel took up a lunar line marriage as the premise…)

                    2. Actually soap opera vices, with never ending “he’s not really dead” and bizarre sexual attachments seem to be part of how the human mind faces “never ending” story telling. I.e. stories without a definite ending. Like… Greek Mythos. Stuff like Ephigenia in Tauris and such. (My brother calls his wife Ephigenia as a pet name. He might be weirder than I.)

          3. Whereas the only historical stable society where homosexuality was accepted that I can think of is Greece (I don’t consider Sodom and Gomorrah stable), and something the gay rights activists conveniently overlook (not that I blame them) is that the ancient Greek homosexuality that was commonly accepted, was also generally homosexual pedophilia. Because soldiers could take boys with them, where taking women wouldn’t have been acceptable. The vast majority were not truly homosexual per se (as in preferred the same sex) they just used young boys as an acceptable substitute for women.

            1. Sigh. it was more complex than that. It was also accepted in almost every ancient society. The injunctions in the Bible and complaints about it are partly because of local adoption of “fashionable” foreign homosexuality.
              Actually in Macedonia, to believe what I’ve read it was rampant and without stigma. (Shrug.) The thing is while we’re still human we’re not living anywhere near as natural conditions as THEY were. We ARE in uncharted territory. I resent accusations of an older Heinlein being obsessed with sex. He was merely extrapolating on a society where sex and reproduction are/can be completely divorced. THAT’s what’s heading for us at speed, and while culture can maybe willfully keep it at bay a while, physical conditions/techonology will have their say too.
              I would say this won’t end well, but that’s a given. Hopefully it won’t end, and we’ll all adapt.

  3. Politics in America is no longer a bare-knuckles activity, it is becoming a brass-knuckles one. I refuse to point accusatory fingers because the underlying cause is the same thing we have discussed in the publishing world: the paradigm is shifting and people used to crushing their opponents are getting caught under the wheels and don’t much like it, thus they’re striking out in fear and panic. The great lie about the Nazis is that they were monsters, when in fact they were merely all too human.

    1. “The great lie about the Nazis is that they were monsters, when in fact they were merely all too human.”
      Yes. By making the Nazis into some sort of supernatural menace we’ve eliminated our ability to see the signs that we’re doing similar stuff, like… punishing crimes of opinion.

      1. hear! hear! I minored in German history. The world I see today reminds me of some of the things that happened in Germany then. Quite scary stuff imho.

      2. People are allowed their opinions … but if they’s smart, they keeps their opinions to themselves unless they’s the right opinions, if youse knows what I means.

      3. It has become almost impossible to find an opinion site featuring leftists that does not give a soapbox to someone who loudly wishes most of middle America would die, slowly, painfully. And NY City’s Mayor Jerk wants the police all over the US to go on strike till hundreds of thousands of us die and the rest beg to turn over our firearms. (The only really big police strike ever, in Phoenix I think, resulted in the crime rate plummetting, no one wanting to challenge the improvised militias who were patrolling the streets with shotguns.) Was this how the Holocaust began, with nasty comments that Jews should die, die, die?

        1. Charles – the comments about the Jews dying lasted for centuries. You can see the venom against Jews through Shakespeare’s Merchant of Venice.

          1. Shylock’s soliloquy, which along with Portia’s The Quality of Mercy speech was expected to be memorized when I was in school:

            To bait fish withal: if it will feed nothing else, it will feed my revenge. He hath disgraced me, and hindered me half a million; laughed at my losses, mocked at my gains, scorned my nation, thwarted my bargains, cooled my friends, heated mine enemies; and what’s his reason? I am a Jew. Hath not a Jew eyes? hath not a Jew hands, organs, dimensions, senses, affections, passions? fed with the same food, hurt with the same weapons, subject to the same diseases, healed by the same means, warmed and cooled by the same winter and summer, as a Christian is? If you prick us, do we not bleed? if you tickle us, do we not laugh? if you poison us, do we not die? and if you wrong us, shall we not revenge? If we are like you in the rest, we will resemble you in that. If a Jew wrong a Christian, what is his humility? Revenge. If a Christian wrong a Jew, what should his sufferance be by Christian example? Why, revenge. The villany you teach me, I will execute, and it shall go hard but I will better the instruction.

        2. Charles *shrug* most of my solutions to the worlds problems would make those same leftist turn pale and crap their pants. Hell they ought meet CF…they’d probably take their own lives on the spot in self defense. Which would make CF irrtitable since he’d then have to clean up the mess. *VERY Evil Grin*

  4. I don’t know whether the problem is society has forgotten how to make arguments or has no interest in making arguments, but this trend is far broader than marriage. When people fabricate “racist” attacks (e.g., “incidents” where the “victim” turns out to be the instigator, hanging the noose on their office door or staging an assault, writing n-word lover on themselves) there is a hysteria present that is merely a different form of the type of attack which accompanied the recent Dark Knight screening.

    The demands for acceptance, the vicious attacks on ideological opponents, the aping of institutions all bespeak a lack of maturity, the same lack of maturity which contributes to the deterioration of marriage as an institution. It is merely another part of the elephant in the room, a part we use to distract attention from the elephant.

    As for the scurrilous slanders of Chik-fil-A, it is not much different from the long-standing rumours of Procter & Gamble having satanic connections, or tales of foreign objects found in bottles of Coca~Cola (tales generally traced back to Pepsi vendors, coincidentally, although maybe the attribution to Pepsi vendors is the real slander.)

    1. Um… I’ve long pondered that we’ve become too rich — hence we suffer from the prolonged/endless adolescence that used to strike children of rich families.
      No, I know we’re not “rich-rich” but even I have only managed to go hungry a few days in my adult life.
      Again, I look at Heinlein, a mere sixty some years ago, when he hit rock bottom, living in a converted horse trailer in the wilds of New Mexico. How many people have gone through that now? How many have missed a meal not because they were dieting?
      I don’t want to reverse the trend towards wealth and stability, but we must deal with the prolonged adolescence thing.

      1. we must deal with the prolonged adolescence thing
        This is what I have been saying since we came back to the US. I have lived w/o water and electricity. I have lived with very little food. (We used to gnaw on bushes because we were so hungry.) Plus when we worked at a restaurant, part of the benefits was that we divided up the left-over foot to take home to our families. We ate well then.

        I know what its like to be hungry and no way to buy food. I ended up buying ramen at 3 cents a pop (when ramen was cheap).

        Back to the prolonged adolescence, sons and daughters who are living off their parents in their 30s and 40s should be ashamed.

            1. some old recipes should be ummm…. how should I put this … 🙂 be forgotten lol

              We have a mountain oyster festival in Virginia City (near Reno) every year. I think that recipe should be forgotten also. 😉

            2. I’ve eaten a lot of stewed pig’s feet, but never calves feet. Mom and Dad used to stew them with dry beans. Pretty good “poor-folk” eating. 9^)

          1. Walkie-talkies (chicken heads and feet) were a ‘popular’ poor people’s food back in Africa. Really. Bags would be sold at the supermarkets

  5. I think the thing that is getting up peoples’ noses over gay marriage/civil unions is that the shriller gay advocates have gone way past demanding toleration, and are now insisting on fulsome approval and even encouragement. One may peacefully and civilly tolerate … but being hectored into agreement/approval/encouragement by loud displays of what would otherwise be called bullying – that is very likely going to lead to the blow-back that Sarah is worried about. I have no problem with legal civil unions – go to town, LBGTers – you might as well be as happy or unhappy as the rest of us straights. I do differ, in holding that ‘marriage per se is a religious rite and blessing upon a couple … and as such the various denominations (and devout believers who make up their congregations) have a perfect right to define marriage as being between a man and a woman. And to live up to those beliefs, too. Why the existence of such principles among the devout sends the gays into such hissy fits, I can’t imagine. I thought that toleration was a two-way street. Obviously I have been misinformed.

    1. I should explain here that civil marriage is afaic still marriage. In Portugal a religious marriage requires two ceremonies, one civil, usually a week or so before, and then — if the person chooses — a religious one. When I say marriage I don’t mean religious. I mean “marriage” with the weight of tradition and the mess of divorcing that hangs thereon. This is just a clarification. I don’t think ANY church should be required to perform ANY ceremonies against their will. Yes, I agree this is the shrill people — not just gay. What prompted this is what my straight colleagues (so desperately trying to be hip) have been posting — who muddy the waters. I’m willing to admit the people anti-gay marriage might be right. I don’t think they are. OTOH this has never been tried on a grand scale, and I’ve been wrong before.

      1. The Portugese system sounds like what I’ve been advocating, requiring a civil marriage and then, if desired, a religious one as well. That way you don’t have people forcing churches to perform weddings that are against their beliefs (and somebody will sue for that right, you just know it).

          1. I was going to say that here we have freedom of religion. Then I thought of some recent developments. I’m just going back to the corner, shall I?

            1. No, we do have freedom of religion … so long as nobody is inconvenienced by hate speech* from any religion.

              *By which I mean speech that does not totally recognize how wonderful and marvelous I am, or tries to tell me that what I want to do (such as playing with sparklers while pumping gas into my car) might be potentially dangerous.

              1. AND provided that the religion isn’t in the habit of severing necks. Because if it IS in the habit of severing necks, then we totally let it do whatever it wants and it’s totally cool and possibly downtrodden and yay for exotic religions that drop walls on people who do things they don’t approve of. Three cheers. Because we don’t want our necks severed. PFUI. Cowardice and moral bankruptcy.

                1. Well, it depends on what necks get severed and where. Some time ago Florida was having a problem with the carcases of sacrificed animals being abandoned in public places. They passed a law under the public health codes which did not allow such be left in that manner. It was challenged under the 1st Amendment. The courts found that in the interest of public health those who cared to sacrifice animals had to either do so on private property or completely clean up after themselves. So,when it come to neck cutting there are some limits.

                  1. Blink.
                    I have this novel series that depends heavily on blood sacrifice and part of what has held me back from writing it is the fear idiots will try to replicate the sacrifices.

                    1. ” the fear idiots will try to replicate the sacrifices”

                      Uh, Sarah, that ship has already sailed, a _long_ time ago. There’s this book, called the Bible. Perhaps you’ve heard of it. 😉

    2. Redefining words is a political tactic. Tolerance, live and let live is a good. The Thomas Jefferson quote about what matter it if my neighbor believes in one or twenty gods so long as he is a good neighbor is considered a back bone of our American way. (OK, occasionally we have gotten very off track. We’re people. I would say, ‘so sue,’ but someone might. ;-)) As a society we have accepted that tolerance is an essential good.

      But there are those who are presently using demands of tolerance to no longer mean we should live and let live, but now argue that you are not tolerant unless you actively affirm and embrace their way of thinking.

    3. I agree – I think so much of the demand for marriage is really a demand for public approval. I have gay friends, and I do understand that deep longing.

      But you can’t demand approval, you have to earn it. And shrieking, throwing glitter bombs, attacking churches and all that other nonsense isn’t going to earn anything but contempt and disgust.

      If the gay community wants marriage and wants to earn it, each individual couple needs to get the legal paperwork done, throw a wedding, invite all their friends and loved ones, have their own ceremony and then live as married people. (And anyone who says he/she doesn’t want to do all that until it’s legal is just using that as an excuse not to get married at all.)

      1. But you can’t demand approval, you have to earn it.
        Even if you earn approval, sometimes you still won’t get it.

        The real hard line is making people pay (benefits) for something they seriously disapprove.

        1. [i]Even if you earn approval, sometimes you still won’t get it. [/i]
          Yup – but that’s true for everyone, on just about anything you can name.

          I completely agree that no one should be made to pay for benefits they don’t approve of, even if I approve of them myself. I can open my own pockets and pay if I feel that strongly.

  6. First reactions:

    Essentially any state marriage of couples, be they heterosexual or homosexual, is a civil union — a government overseen contract. At present having a marriage licence does not seem to be doing much to keep couples together, the divorce rates indicate this. Of course, those who have experienced multiple divorces do set the numbers askew. Further, once having experienced multiple divorces, you are considered more likely to divorce again. If this it is because it indicates a poor ability to choose a mate or having developed a bad habit of escaping rather than dealing — I don’t know.

    I am not sure why Chic-fil-a is being targeted right now, either. Righteous outrage has long been used as a means to manipulate politics. It is used for fundraising all the time. You can use, as you have observed, the outrage as a distraction. You can also use it to indicate to others what will happen to you if you don’t tow the party line. That intimidation can be a powerful tool to get what you want, if you don’t overplay it. As you noted, used ham handedly it can backfire spectacularly. (And others can usurp perfectly good causes for their own gain, consider Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals.)

    There are some people who just do not like Christians. For some time now no one has, in recent history, gotten in trouble for pointing out that there are hypocrites among the religious. (Well, yes, there are some hypocrites, but we are talking about people.) It is even acceptable to tell Christian conservatives that their religion is their own business, but to keep it private, to themselves, at church or home — therefore setting them up for the further accusations of hypocrisy.

    1. I saw a column about one restaurant that offered discounts for meals if you brought in a recent church Bulletin. An atheist was planning to sue the restaurant. Definitely fit’s Sarah’s subject. [Frown]

    2. “I am not sure why Chic-fil-a is being targeted right now, either. Righteous outrage has long been used as a means to manipulate politics. It is used for fundraising all the time. You can use, as you have observed, the outrage as a distraction. You can also use it to indicate to others what will happen to you if you don’t tow the party line.”


      It’s an election year, and the party faithful are beginning to waver. Time to whip up the mob.

      Now I’m curious. I need to see if there’s a positive correlation between these manufactured outrages and political maneuverings. I wonder how far back I should go? Just to the beginning of email alerts?

      1. If you are referring to the correlation between the opening of the “gay money tap” in this current presidential campaign and the Administration’s voicing support for gay marriage and ending “don’t ask, don’t tell” I can assure you that it is purely coincidental and only a racist homophobic Christianist could say otherwise!

  7. Isn’t it absurd, the amount of out-and-out hatred that is levelled toward Christians? And nearly all of it from these self-proclaimed “tolerant” and “open-minded” individuals? It’s beyond absurd; it’s disgusting. I am not even a Christian, and it disgusts me. As far as I know, Christians aren’t out there stoning, beheading, torturing, or setting fire to people who don’t suit them. Where is the hatred and the outrage toward those religions who do? It is cowardice, plain and simple, that makes them turn on Christians, who are easy targets. It’s easy to harrass and hate on people who don’t fight back. They are bullies and cowards to the core.

    As far as gay marriage goes, I don’t care about it one way or the other, any more than I care about non-gay marriage, outside of believing that it should only be allowed between consenting adults who are not closely related. Perhaps my views arise out of my own experience, as my mom was married when I was born, but not to my biological father. None of my nieces or nephews are legitimate children. Aunts, uncles, and cousins have mostly all been married and divorced multiple times. My wife and I are common-law married, having had neither a church service nor a license from the JP, yet we are totally monogamous and totally commited to one another. To me, a strong commitment and a willingness to work at keeping the relationship in good shape are the keys to marital success. The license or church service doesn’t lend any weight to marriage, these days. If the couple aren’t truly commited to one another and don’t care about or lack knowledge of how to make a relationship work (they are ALL work, too; nothing is automatic), or if the pairing is based merely on sex/looks/convenience/money, then the marriage/partnership won’t last. A legal or religious paper won’t change that. The attitude toward commitment is what is in a wreck, today, and laws can’t change attitudes. If they could, things like racism and intolerance would be extinct.

    1. “Isn’t it absurd, the amount of out-and-out hatred that is levelled toward Christians? And nearly all of it from these self-proclaimed “tolerant” and “open-minded” individuals? It’s beyond absurd; it’s disgusting. I am not even a Christian, and it disgusts me. As far as I know, Christians aren’t out there stoning, beheading, torturing, or setting fire to people who don’t suit them. Where is the hatred and the outrage toward those religions who do? It is cowardice, plain and simple, that makes them turn on Christians, who are easy targets. It’s easy to harrass and hate on people who don’t fight back. They are bullies and cowards to the core.”

      I’m reminded of an Internet meme that’s been going around for a couple months now.

      1. This. I have had so-called “Christians” come after me as being radically and offensively anti-Christian (or so they say–I see it quite differently) but I have also come out quite strongly against the hatred and bile spewed against Christians in the name of “tolerance.” How their heads don’t explode from the doublespeak escapes me.

    2. The attitude toward commitment is what is in a wreck, today, and laws can’t change attitudes. If they could, things like racism and intolerance would be extinct.


  8. Can I just mention once again that WordPress needs to be drawn, quartered, burned, dissolved in lye, and fed to hogs for not allowing one to follow comments to a blog like a civilized blog? What is this? The Internet Dark Ages (also known as 1994-1995)?

      1. What have you got against perfectly good butter? Dip WP in hot oil, the kind used to make Krispy Kreme doughnuts.

  9. Exactly, CACS – it’s the being hectored and harrassed into expressing approval that has annoyed me – and the fact that the militant gays are being so very, very selective in hectoring and harrassing those who aren’t much inclined to respond in kind. They are not going after mosques, or (ahem) the black mega-churches.
    It’s been a long time since I gave a rat’s ass about what consenting adults did in private. But ganging up on Chick-a-Fila as an example to the others is a step over the line. The daughter and I intend to go and have lunch at the only Chick-a-Fila outlet we know of on August 1. We used to go pretty often, when we lived in Utah – the sandwiches were good. And the Chick-a-Fila cows are pretty funny as an advertising gag.

    1. The cows are genius. Again, while I haven’t ever — to my memory — eaten there, the cows have made me smile a dozen times while driving down the road on a rainy day.

      1. You should definitely try it out – IIRC, the sandwiches were pretty good. And even if they aren’t as good as I remember them being, I’ll choke it down anyway.

        1. For the carb conscious, I recommend their chicken strips salad — a very nicely composed tossed salad (including three fresh broccoli florets) with three crisply fried (broiled is available) strips of chicken breast. I prefer the honey-mustard dressing but they’ve excellent alternatives.

          For the carb unconscious, the waffle-fries are wonderful!!!!

      2. Along US I-40, around about Icard, NC, one Chic-fil-a had an inflatable cow that sat on its roof. It made me smile…

      3. The few times I took Marshall and Robert to the mall when they were little, for an animatronic dinosaur exhibit, for instance, Chick-fillet was my default for “Marshall (then Eric) will eat this for sure.” Robert would eat anything, loved the most exotic stuff at the Greek stand.

        1. sigh. We didn’t change #2 son’s name. HE prefers his middle name. That’s all. And you should have told us. They had chick-a-fila certificates from winning coloring contests. Never used them. Found them the other day.

          1. When Daughtorial Unit was of an age to win such there was a reading promotion which gave certificates for reading various numbers of books — 10 comes to mind as a likely number. Had Beloved Spouse & I been willing, we could have eaten at Pizza Hut several times a week, DU eating free, although we doubted they would credit so much reading by so small a child.

          2. LOL! My wife and my mother-in-law had the same first name, so Jean used her middle name. It’s caused all kinds of havoc along the way. We survived — so will Marshall. 8^)

      4. I went today for the first time in years. I was pleasantly surprised that I had a non-fried choice. I was expecting to make a purchase to show my support to be less tasty than it was. I’ll go back on August 1.

          1. They also have some rather tasty wraps with broiled chicken. I went there frequently when they were one of the few low-carb lunch options near my workplace and I was cutting blood glucose from 350 down to 85.

    2. You mean like the way they went after the Mormon Church in California for its position on Prop 8 but completely ignored the vast outpouring of Bla … Americans of African desc … Persons of Color in opposition to legal recognition of gay marriage?

  10. The whole thing with Chick-fil-a is another attack by the Left on religion. It’s all right to believe, and to go to Church on Sunday, but don’t DARE live your belief – that’s “bigoted”. The same is true with the stupidity by Health and Human Services demanding that everyone not a CHURCH provide abortificants, birth-control pills, and similar, regardless of personal belief. It’s a freedom that the Left doesn’t sanction, therefore it has to go, regardless of what the majority want. They won’t be satisfied until religious beliefs are crushed by the State, just like they were under Communism. Religion is a power the Left can’t control, so it has to be eliminated.

    1. “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator…”

      Religion supports not just a competing power, but a higher power than the state. Hence the need to marginalize and beat back religion from all organizations and aspects of life except within the confines of the church.

      I would prefer that people just be free to do what they want. The only reason I have mixed feelings about same-sex marriage is because it opens the door for polygamy and because it will be used by activists and the state to harass churches, businesses, organizations (like the Boy Scouts), and religious individuals who do not openly embrace it. It’s been a short ride from “I just want to be able to marry my true love like everyone else” to “if you don’t embrace it, you are a bigot and you want to deny basic human-rights” to people. Does anyone think that evangelical Christians and others not fully on board with SSM will be treated BETTER after SSM become legal in most states?

      1. No, they probably won’t – and that’s the reason that I am upset about all this – what another commenter on PJ Media called “l’affaire du poulet filet” – which might not be correct French but sounds a heck of a lot more dignified.
        More dignified than the various mayors and city councilmen talking big by trying to use local government to shut out a business whose owners have not bowed down and kissed the politically correct ring.
        As long as we are throwing around Biblical quotations, maybe I should throw in one of my favorites, concerning those who stand against popular opinion: 1 Kings 19:18.
        “Yet I have left me seven thousand in Israel, all the knees which have not bowed unto Baal, and every mouth which hath not kissed him.”

    2. *ponder*

      It occurs to me that those who do not believe in contraceptives should, logically, be more than happy to provide them to the ones who do, in order to prevent the non-believers from breeding.

      Ah, logic. Where are Vulcans when you want them? 😦

      1. Vulcans might logically conclude that contraceptives don’t eliminate the “non-believers” quickly enough and decide to “provide” something else.

        1. The problem is that religious people believe eliminating people — pre or post existence is wrong. I’ve waffled a lot over my lifetime, but I’m coming to believe that they might be right. You see, I like people. Even the most annoying of them have saving graces and often come through when you least expect them.

          1. I have two quibbles here. “Religious People” is overly broad. And few of them have real objection to eliminating people, so long as there is good cause — they just vary very widely as to what constitutes good cause. Somebody could probably write a very interesting novel exploring those different values of good.

              1. The commandment proscribes murder, not killing. Big difference. The Romans recognized three defenses against a charge of murder, a recognition which survived in the American West as:
                1) I didn’t do it
                2) It was self-defense
                3) He needed killin’

                Killing is not something taken casually around the religious, and they tend to take a dim view of those who do.

      2. The Daughter is not one to be patient with those with who she disagrees. Her solution to those who believe that the world population must be reduced is to aggressively suggest that they immediately do what they can do to reduce the surplus population – eliminate themselves.

  11. Civil unions are different from civil marriages. There are a whole bunch of rights conferred on people who are married pursuant to their state’s civil marriage laws that are not conferred on gay people whose states allow civil unions but not civil marriages for same-sex couples.

    Civil marriage — whether the civil marriage is between a man and woman or a same-sex couple — is a civil right conferred by state law upon citizens of that state. The denial of that right to one segment of its population solely upon gender preference when that segment would otherwise qualify for that right due to proper age, mental capacity, citizenship in the state, etc., is a civil rights issue. (Religious marriage is a whole other ballgame; I’m just talking U.S. civil rights here.)

    In the U.S., citizens are guaranteed equal protection under the law. However, separate (civil unions for gays, civil marriage for hetero couples; different drinking fountains and bathrooms based upon skin color) is not equal. The Chick Fil-A guy is entitled to the same equal protection under the law as the gay couple who’d like to have the same civil rights as a hetero couple when it comes to marriage. If a gay couple can open a fast-food restaurant in Boston, the Chick Fil-A guy should be able to as well.

    The problem as I see it comes when one side of the issue tries to impose its beliefs on the other side to the point of denying the other side’s civil rights. For instance, extending civil marriage laws to same-sex couples, thereby making the law apply equally to all citizens no matter gender preference, would not result in anyone forcing the Chick Fil-A guy to marry another man against his personal beliefs. Similarly, the Chick Fil-A guy’s personal beliefs should not be a basis to negate the civil rights of a same-sex couple who’d like to have a civil marriage.

    If the Chick Fil-A guy wants to use his money to support causes which match his personal beliefs–causes that operate for the express purpose of lobbying to deny civil rights to U.S. citizens merely because of gender preference–that’s certainly his right, but people have the option not to spend their money at his restaurants because they don’t want to increase his ability to donate to causes they don’t believe in. That’s a consumer voting with their money, and it happens all the time over all sorts of issues. It’s a way different thing than Boston saying “we don’t want your business here.”

    All that said, it’s no surprise to me that this whole dust-up is happening during a presidential election year. Every stage magician knows the value of misdirection.

    1. Properly expressed, gay or straight have the exact same civil right: to marry one person of the opposite sex.

      Yes, this may be equivalent to saying men and women equally have the right to pee while standing.

      1. This would be less sad if you had seen the new ladies rooms at the expanded municipal coliseum — which are designed to force women to do their business while standing. The design does not work well if you wear anything more on your bottom half than skirts and go commando.

    2. I admit part of my “Whoa, there, big fella” reaction is the resort to bullying tactics rather than respect for the rights of a democratic polity to determine their social norms. Putting the matter up for a vote is one thing, employing courts and legislatures to redefine the meaning of marriage seems fundamentally antithetical to principles of self-government.

      1. So the basis of your “whoa there, big fella” reaction is the contention that courts should not enforce the Equal Protection clause of the U.S. Constitution? That legislatures shouldn’t pass laws that conform with their state (or the federal) Constitution? Isn’t that what the legal and legislative branches of the government are supposed to do?

        Besides, we have a representative form of government. We elect representatives to represent our interests. If they don’t, the recourse of the people is to vote the suckers out of office. If the people don’t like a law, the recourse is for the voters to repeal it. If the law is a portion of the state (or federal) Constitution, the law can still be repealed, it’s just a slightly longer process requiring more than one voting period. The Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution is currently the law of the land. Don’t like it? Repeal it, but be careful what you wish for. Without the Equal Protection Clause, it would be legal for a bank to refuse to loan money to people with big noses or people who fart too much. But until the Equal Protection Clause is repealed, courts are required to enforce it whether or not a segment of the population wants to discriminate against another segment of the population in violation of that law.

        1. The Equal Protection Clause recognizes the right of every citizen to marry one person of the opposite sex. Promiscuous reinterpretation of terms destroys the legitimacy of the court, the legislature and the Constitution.

          Court decisions are remarkably immune to electoral revision, as supporters of California’s Prop 8 constitutional amendment discovered.

          Legislative decisions of so profound a nature should require a delay in implementation sufficient to permit such throwing out of rascals and election of responsible representatives, should that be the people’s will. Laws enacted which create (near) irreversible facts on the ground (such as selling a state’s women into Arab whorehouses, or inducing people to enter into contracts, such as marriage, in the expectation they will be permanent.)

          I also find rather off-putting people who choose an interpretation of the Constitution to suits a rhetorical purpose and then demand others accept that interpretation or be deemed un-American. It makes me think the person is trying to win an argument by pounding on the table because they don’t trust their ability to reason.

          1. And in a previous generation the courts recognized the right of an individual to marry one person of the same race. That argument simply doesn’t fly. That one can marry some arbitrary person and give that other person the legal contract relationship that is usually intended for ones “life partner” is not “equal protection.”

            1. Sorry – your argument is incomprehensible and relies on a peculiar interpretation of the history of the Equal Protection Clause that was never intended by it enactors. The 14th Amendment was written to preclude racial discrimination.

            2. I am not sure that the government should be in the marriage business. I believe that the reason the word game is being played is to get people who are recalcitrant about accepting a legal status for same sex couples. To dissolve either requires the same legal process.

          2. California’s Prop 8 is a good example of the *dangers* of using the Courts to go against the wishes of the people. California had “civil unions” for gays and a law that stated that marriage was only between a man and a woman. The California Supreme Court decided that the law was unconstitutional (according to the California Constitution). Now this decision happened after some pretty stupid actions by pro-gay marriage people, including one California county that decided that “gay marriage” was legal. So people reacted to the California Supreme Court’s decision by pushing Prop 8 which would add the “traditional” definition of marriage to the California Constitution. Fortunately (or unfortunately) the California pro-gay marriage folks (and their out-of-state) supporters showed the same level of “making” friends as the anti-Chick-fil-A folks have done. IE they “pissed off” enough Californians to get Prop 8 passed. The sad thing is if any state in the US could be said to be open to changing the law to allow gay marriage, it would have been California but the actions of the pro-gay marriage folks had been “pissing off” the average Californian for years prior to the California Supreme Court decision. They were their own worse enemies. [Sad Smile]

    3. civil right conferred by state law upon citizens of that state

      This country was founded on the concept that our rights are inherent to our being, not something which are given us by the state or the federal government. (If rights can be given they can be equally taken away.) Our assertion that our rebellion against the throne was legal was based on this proposition.

      The debate over the ratification of The Constitution was largely powered by the attitude that the citizens of the nation, who are the government, were surrendering too much power to a centralized government. (See the Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers)

      Civil marriage and unions both require the same process to dissolve. As one person I know has observed the real winner of this movement, with present attitudes towards commitment, is the divorce lawyers.

  12. “People who are against gay marriage are free to boycott my books – I doubt they were reading them before anyway, given the number of gay characters I have”

    The Oyster Wife and I are adamantly opposed to the redefinition of marriage, and we adore your books. I don’t see it elsewhere, but your comment here seems to conflate opposition to gay marriage with rejection of gay people. I can’t speak for anyone else, but that is not our case at all! People should be able to form whatever contracts they wish, and someone else’s sexual preferences are of no interest to me on a legal level. I simply draw the line at changing the meaning of the word. As we’ve all mentioned here at some time or other: words mean things. Of course, having grown up in the land of fruits and nuts, I have what I see as a very valid fear of the slippery slope and the overthrow of any conscience clause. My tolerance has rarely been returned in kind.

    I have a spiritual disagreement with sexual activity outside of marriage, but that has nothing to do with my duty and pleasure to show love to another child of God. They simply sin differently than I do. I will try to lead them to the right with love and persuasion, but I abhor the suggestion of trying to force them to anything. “For this eternal truth is given, That God will force no man to heaven.”

    1. Sorry — I didn’t make myself clear. IF you thought that the fact that my supporting gay marriage demanded you not read me, I’d be okay with that. (I’m glad it doesn’t, btw.) BUT if mayors started going on about how horrible I was and how my books couldn’t be sold in their towns, a line would have been crossed.

      1. For example: some cities are reportedly withholding licensure of Chick-fil-A restaurants solely because the franchiser’s opposition to gay marriage. That seems a requirement too far, although certainly the citizens of the town are free to vote for a mayor who does not demand such conformity.

  13. I don’t think anyone has mentioned lawyers. You know that lawyers are just waiting to pounce on the new legal nightmares that will result from gay divorce and custody.

    1. Charles…you realize that’s just another argument in favor of “first thing we do is kill all the lawyers”, right? LOL

  14. Two points. The first is that common law marriage is only in ten states now. The other is that male-male partnerships are more stable then woman-woman ones.

    My opposition to Gay marriage was that I felt that marriage was a stabilizing influence on the family unit, and thus the special benefits were applied. In making that argument on the Bar many years a go a Gay friend there said “you guy’s get divorced at the 50% rate…the benefit is?”. So I became kinda “meh” on the subject.

    Until the Mayor of Boston shoved his big fat face into it. Now I’m pretty hot about it. This, people, is what fascism looks like. I hate Nazis, I hate every thing they stand for; but I think SCOTUS was absolutely correct in sending the Skokie case back down to the Illinois Supreme Court with instructions to reverse their decision.

    I’ve actually seen supporters of Gay Marriage say that since Gay marriage is legal in Mass that the mere opposition to it is equivalent to breaking the law. Really? Really!! I oppose marijuana laws in a state that is tough on them…does that make me a law breaker? No, it does not. What it makes _you_ is a person for whom the Bill of Rights is a selective option.

    The very first thing you can do to make me oppose you tooth and nail is for you to assault the Bill of Rights. Good job Gay activists, you’ve enraged a lot of people who were simply “meh” on the whole subject.

    1. yes, male-male unions are statistically more stable, against lore. I don’t know. personally I THINK it’s just American women of the younger generations skewing the odds. Not their fault. they’ve been raised to believe they’re both invincible and fragile flowers. It’s a miracle they’re not all in straight jackets.

      I’m not going to oppose gay marriage, but I can see how this will make a lot of people do it. I have too many gay friends who are just as disturbed at this insanity as I am to turn on them. BUT mark my words, this is the effect that this nonsense will have. People will turn against it in droves.
      (As for common law, my friend who has an issue with it lives in such a state.)

  15. “Now, some people are afraid gay marriage advocates will force churches to perform these against their doctrine. I used to snort at this. I mean, how many Baptists rush into the Catholic church demanding to be married there? (FYI that would be against Catholic doctrine. In fact, even just one of the couple not being Catholic means the case has to go through ecclesiastical trial and a dispensation has to be obtrained.) How many Jewish couples flock to mosques demanding a wedding ceremony then sue when they don’t get it?

    That would be insanity, right? And gay marriage advocates are no crazier than anyone else, right?”

    All it takes is one person who wants to force the issue via a court case doing something they would otherwise have no reason to do.

  16. Yeah, I’m fairly conservative but I support gay marriage. I’m pretty much turned off by both sides of the “debate” right now. Neither side is trying to persuade the other, but instead they’re both just trying to win by whatever means possible. What ever happened to persuasion? This is something that reasonable people can talk about; even if we can’t reach agreement, we can at least address each others’ concerns about it and know where everyone stands. The lack of conversation leads to the easy conclusion that the other side must be motivated by “evil” or some hidden agenda. I’m just tired of it. Heck, I had a debate about this with my parents last year; I didn’t manage to convince them, but I definitely made them think about it in different ways. I didn’t call them nazis and they didn’t call me a fag-lover– imagine that!

  17. So here’s the thing, I understand the whole distrust of civil unions and them becoming more popular than marriage. I also understand that many centuries ago marriage was a sacrament of the church (Jewish, Catholic, before that Romans, Greeks) The government was not involved and only became involves (as one poster noted) when they figured out they could make money at it. The problem is once you allow the government to “redefine” something they can not stop. They will abuse and restrict and expand and retract until it no longer resembles what it was originally. Government is a necessary evil because people can’t be trusted to do the right things consistently. Most people need a keeper (lest one think I exempt myself from this, oh contrare, I probably need one more than most.)

    1. Dear sir,
      I write these before coffee and don’t get paid for them. I aimed in the general direction. Yay me 😉
      (grumble, I don’t feel like going in and fixing it. Grumble.)

    2. If it makes you feel any better, when I first saw a Chick-Fil-A, I thought it was pronounced “Chick Filla”.

      1. Hey, they have dyslexic cows. They can’t complain if their name gets misspelled.
        Actually being mildly dyslexic this is one of those names designed to drive me bonkers. All the dashes and random capitalization.
        They’re clearly dyslexic hating. I’m going to stage a spell-in.

      1. Look, I did a search on it, and that’s what came up. I was led astray by other bad spellers. (Cries.) Oh, fine, I’ll go correct the damn thing.

        1. So, you inherited the spelling from the previous Administration. Your efforts to fix the problem are hampered by partisanship and something or other … sorry, I stopped listening a few years ago.

              1. Stop it. You’re trying to bring fuzzy math into fuzzy spelling. The only thing that’s going to happen is we’re all going to end up with hair on our palms.

  18. Being for “gay marriage” is no different than being for flying unicorns. It’s simply a way of announcing to the world that you’re a gullible fool. Just because one (and only one) class of sexual deviant has political power doesn’t mean the rest of us are going to be compelled to suspend reality and go along with the idiotic farce that two men who fornicate with one another could ever be “married” or a “family”. Beyond being a vulgar notion, it’s a logical absurdity. Marriage is what it is. A gang of filthy government goons with guns telling everyone they have to play make believe about this Orwellian bullshit won’t change that. It simply renders the word marriage meaningless…which is the whole point of this retarded movement.

    1. You’re entitled to your opinion. I’m entitled to telling you that your perspective is sadly lacking historically.

      “Pardon him. Theodotus: he is a barbarian, and thinks that the customs of his tribe and island are the laws of nature.” George Bernard Shaw

      1. And you double down on stupid with your idiotic implication that the real definition of marriage is barbaric. What a horrible corner you weak minded fools have painted yourselves into. And for what? Why is this one particular sexual fetish the only one you people want government to sanction? There are plenty of sexual aberrations out there. Why choose this one. I know why you have, and it has nothing to do with principle. You’re simply doing what you’re told. Thinking what you’ve been ordered to think.

        1. Oh dear; the cogency of your argument and the persuasiveness of your rhetoric, along with the coherence of your logic have completely convinced me of something or other.

          1. I choose the simple way to end all arguments. It’s called a 10-gauge double-barrel with #1 buckshot (Winchester super-x, only ones you can get for that gauge). The half-choke barrel throws a six-foot pattern at 20 feet. The full-choke barrel puts wadding and all in a nice, 1″ circle. If Dan ever wants to borrow it, let me know and I’ll have my brother bring it up to me.

            1. Ending an argument is not the same thing as winning an argument, but as the Roman … debate … with Carthage demonstrated, the end result is much the same. Rendering the opposition mute or moot, the effect is very similar.

        2. I giggle foolishly over the idea of our hostess “thinking what she is told to think”. Oh dear. Oh dear. I may have to go lay down now.

            1. One of my best college friends is a Southern girl and showed us the proper way to simper. LOL She couldn’t keep it up long either.

              1. The true Southern lady knows how to smile sweetly while she sticks the knife ever so genteelly into your back.

        3. Blatant ignorance of the character of the hostess. Irrelevant and disproportionate ad hominems. Inappropriate invocation of Orwell. Contemptuous attitude in someone else’s virtual parlor. Generally abysmal drivel masquerading as rhetoric. On behalf of all of us with brains who oppose redefining marriage, ccoffer:

          Shut up. The adults are talking.

  19. With an attitude like that (BAWWWW GAYS ARE BEING MEAN TO PEOPLE THAT HATE THEM) you’re not actually an ally at all. Go stuff yourself with your hateful fried chicken, and stop pretending you’re on our side.

        1. Which is a real shame, because she has written one of the most charming toddlers I have ever read.

            1. You mean quiet and sedate, as opposed to roaring around on electric mini-motorcycles, scaring the cat, and sticky with raspberry gunk? 😉

    1. ARE you going to go after everyone who disapproves of gay marriage? There are more of them than of you. This is called being STUPID. Didn’t anyone ever tell you about vinegar and flies. BTW disapproving of gay marriage and hating gays are two different things. If you don’t get that you must be about fourteen. ALSO incidentally it doesn’t disturb you at all that two campaigns have been made up against this restaurant for no reason anyone can discern?
      I tell you what, you write a sharp article about mullahs putting gays to death. EVEN BETTER draw a cartoon of it. And then I’ll admit you’re being mean to people who HATE gays. (Or at least want to kill them.) Until then you’re an idiot and a coward and NO I”m not on YOUR side. I’m on the side of sane people. YOU march to the tune of a different kettle of fish.

      1. Um, sorry. The Daughter has informed me that flies are more attracted to vinegar.

        I recall when Mamoud Ahmadinejad told the American press that there were no Homosexuals in Iran. I though, yes, at least none that had publicly admitted it and lived.

        1. Now if he had said there are considerably less homosexuals in Iran than America, I would have believed him. It is extremely hard to exterminate a nonvisible aspect of a species. Deplete yes, exterminate no.

    2. You realize, of course, that with comments like that, you’re just making the case for those who think that it’s more about bullying people than it is about equality, right?

        1. A self-defeating total dumb ass. It isn’t as if the cause has a surplus of support and benefits from turning away those who refuse to goose in step.

          1. “goose in step” Please don’t give the pride parades any new ideas. They’re odd enough as it is. 😉

            1. Speaking of “A self-defeating total dumb ass”, someone tell me to quit playing Civ V and go work on my MS. I came up with a great scene today complete with a call-back in act 3, yet here I sit, wedged in between the Turks, the Maya and the Netherlands, shelling them into dust..

              1. Just. One. More. Turn!

                I’ve been good and not touched Civ in about 6 months but the new expansion is tempting me to dive back in… so far I’m holding it off by waiting for a Steam Sale.

                1. I had also stopped playing for a while, but re-installed for the expansion. It was one of those very rare gaming moments in which I went to the official site to see what was up, found out there was going to be a previously unheard of (by me) expansion, and it was coming out the following Tuesday. I still think the religion and espionage tack-ons are lite, but they are a step in the right direction.

                  One thing that I did do with Civ V directly to do with writing; construct a world map. I had an entire world to populate, a society to craft, and references to history make it all believable. Doing it entirely from whole cloth was just a Tolkien too far, so I fired up Civ V, set the planet and civ parameters like I wanted, and then kept a running journal of a full game in a role-playing sort of way, naming the topography, keeping track of antagonisms and battles, falling of cities and capitals, etc. It was both fun and effective.

          1. So…maybe the CEO doesn’t really have an opinion on the matter. Maybe he just bet Randolph and Mortimer one dollar that he could double retails sales within a week.

        1. The local restaurant was packed today during the lunch hour. It is always a busy restaurant, but I do believe that it was even busier than usual.

    3. After due consideration I have concluded this is a false flag comment. It strains belief that anybody could make so off-putting an argument except in an effort to discredit the side of the debate he is apparently representing.

      It is akin to putting a bumper sticker on your car and then driving in so obnoxious a manner as to ensure anybody caught behind you for more than a minute or two would develop an animus against all representatives of the position espoused on the bumper.

    4. I see this a lot nowadays. People saying, “You don’t think exactly the way I think, therefore, since you are not agreeing with every point of thought in my list, the points you do agree with don’t matter. You’re not an ally, go away.” Well, you don’t represent every person on that side of the debate either. So, you’re not an ally to them and stop speaking for them.

  20. The Gays and their supporters going bonkers over Chick-fil-a are part of the radical Left. The “send them to the gulag” mentality they employ over anyone who dares disagree with them is what ALL Socialists/Communists do. Sadly, what most of the gays don’t realize is they are mere tools for the true believer Leftists who use gay rights, feminism, environmentalism, social justice, one world, and other causes to achieve the holy grail of Leftism–the breakdown of Western Civilization and the destruction of capitalism.

      1. By the way, Sarah, brilliant article; you really slice and dice down to the core of the matter. Of course, laying bare the truth–the embarrassing truth–about others actions definitely brings out the worst in the ones so exposed.

    1. Because people apparently need frequent reminding:

      William Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!
      Sir Thomas More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
      William Roper: Yes, I’d cut down every law in England to do that!
      Sir Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned ’round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man’s laws, not God’s! And if you cut them down, and you’re just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I’d give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety’s sake!
      A Man For All Seasons, By Robert Bolt
      [ ]

  21. Sorry Sarah, but you’ve got it bass-ackward.

    I don’t hate you for being stupid, i.e., ignorant and proud of it. Rather I feel sorry for you. And, I suspect, that makes you hate me much more than I could ever hate you.



    1. Why on Earth would I hate you? If I hated anyone it would have to be someone who has done me harm. You haven’t. Is this a form of insanity? “You disagree with me, therefore you hate me?”
      The fact that you had to say it twice only makes it sound more like a form of touretes. I HATE communism, and I have communist friends. Why would I hate a stranger who can’t even make sense?

      1. Don’t feel like the lone-ranger regarding typing and keyboards and such…

        Why would you hate someone? Or rather why would I suspect you of hating?

        Probably because in the first paragraph of this article you’re trying to piss people off.

        Most people who hate attempt such.

        Hence my ‘suspicion’. But then again, if that avatar is a picture of you, I’ve spent a bit more time on this ball-o-dirt and am likely a tad more experienced.

        Hope that helps……

        1. No, she’s admitting that her stance will piss off people on both sides, just as any principled stance tends to do.

          You’re reading what you really really really want it to be rather than what it is so you can justify your own intolerance.

          1. TO: RD Meyer
            RE: Sorry to disappoint, BUT….

            [1] I’m not reading what I want to read into this.
            [2] I’m hardly “intolerant” because I can recognize someone who is trying to ‘piss off’ people.
            [3] She can piss off any and everyone she wants to piss off.
            [4] Your ‘intolerance’ of freedom of expression vis-a-vis ‘projection’ is showing. But it won’t work. after 27 years in the infantry and being an airborne-ranger of ‘mustang’ orientation, I’ve been abused by the best. And that’s never stopped me from speaking my mind.

            Hope that helps…..


            [If you can keep your head while all those about you are losing theirs and blaming it on you….. — Kipling]

            1. TO: RD Meyer RE: Sorry to disappoint, BUT…. [1] I’m not reading what I want to read into this. [2] I’m hardly “intolerant” because I can recognize someone who is trying to ‘piss off’ people.

              [1] Of course you are, we all do that when we read. Deconstructionists may be crazed but they start from a kernel of truth.

              [2] No, you’re mistaken if you think Sarah Hoyt is “trying to ‘piss off’ people” because of this post. This post is Sarah trying to avoid pissing off people while still expressing some fundamental thoughts about how Life works. Believe you me, Chuck, if she were “trying to ‘piss off’ people” you would know from the smoke rising from the razed encampments.

            2. Chuck,

              1. Bullshit. Everyone reads what they want to see. You’re no exception.
              2. You recognize falsely. There’s a difference between “This will piss people off but it has to be said” and “let’s raise hell for the sake of it”. Sarah is blunt, but she’s not trying to piss anyone off. Sarah rarely tries to piss people off, usually because anything that escalates that far is going to leave bodies. If you could overcome your own sense of importance enough to dig a bit further, you’d find that Sarah’s history has rather more danger than you’ve been exposed to. You were trained and armed when/if you had people shooting at you. She wasn’t.
              3. So?
              4. Er. What? Intolerance of freedom of expression? You haven’t been banned for your first post. THAT would be intolerance of freedom of expression.

              And yes, your little “explanation” helps a lot. It tells me you’re either a paid troll being wound up and set running to make the religious side look bad, or your time in the military destroyed whatever brains you might have had. Right now I’m leaning to the former, based on the evidence.

            3. Chuckie – nice resume. I’ve got 17 years in the Infantry, and three tours of combat in Iraq. Do you really think our dick measuring contest is relevant here?

              You’re projecting so you can refute what doesn’t exist. nice try.

      2. Oh, god. I know Chuckie. It’s best to just ignore him, or perhaps mock him without addressing his idiotic ranting.

    2. Let’s see, ‘Jane you ignorant slut’ — No, this is not the best Dan Akroyd imitation ever.

  22. I’m angry because you repeatedly spelled “Chick-fil-a” wrongly. And “straitjacket”.

      1. I blame dyslexia and having learned seven languages, which further confused my brain. Seriously, though, having read other writers, those typos in that long an essay aren’t bad. I can’t get a copyeditor every time. Also, I had severe concussion six years ago. (Actually true.)

        1. ouch on the concussion – and that could be a very good reason. Since I have been on chemo I can look at the word and it will still look right to me. Then later I see the mistakes. ugh.

        2. Had an Anthropology professor who knew at least 5 languages, apparently fluently, because he apparently kept his notes in all 5 of them, whichever fit the subject matter best. He could be a little vague on spelling sometimes, too.

          1. I’m not bad if I’m writing fiction. The blogs are written REALLY early though — because I’m in CO I usually roll out of bed at 5 to 6 am and write as soon as I can see the keyboard. Depending on the day this might or might not involve caffeine. I’ve tried to do them ahead of time, doesn’t work. I have to sneak up on my subconscious for non-fiction. So, typos happen. There are also words that I THINK I know how to spell and no matter how many times I’m proven wrong I go back to them.
            I USED to lapse into other languages for whole paragraphs. Dan used to draw a puzzled face on the side of the text and put “This week, I still don’t understand”: Portuguese, Italian, Spanish, Swedish, German, French. I don’t think I ever wrote in Dutch. I could read it, but not write in it.

              1. Whoops, now I KNOW you think I’m someone else (we haven’t met in person). I’m changing my WordPress profile now to reflect my full name. Sorry for the confusion.

                1. Except it doesn’t change my name for comments already posted. Oh, well…

                  1. Heh. That’s ok, I was going to change it anyway, because of the “wannabe” similarity, if you recall.

            1. This may have been mentioned ere now, but Charles Krauthammer has told of his father, a WWII Displaced Person who was fluent in seven languages. In his dotage the senior Krauthammer’s intellect devolved, resulting in his still speaking seven languages, but doing so simultaneously. In the end, Charles was the only one able to understand him.

  23. Why would you hate someone? Or rather why would I suspect you of hating?

    Probably because in the first paragraph of this article you’re trying to piss people off.

    Most people who hate attempt such.

    Hence my ‘suspicion’. But then again, if that avatar is a picture of you, I’ve spent a bit more time on this ball-o-dirt and am likely a tad more experienced.

    Hope that helos……

    1. I simply admit that my opinion will piss off both sides. So far if you page through the comments, you’ll see I was right. It was a prediction, not a declaration of intent. Reading comprehension is something one should endeavor to have.

          1. Hate requires an aspect of wanting to destroy the object in question. Paper hates scissors. Paper is just fine with rocks in most cases, as long as they stay safely covered up.

          2. I could probably whip up something about three mafioso/hitman types with nicknames, but there’s absolutely no way that’s not been done before.

            1. “I could probably whip up something about three mafioso/hitman types with nicknames, but there’s absolutely no way that’s not been done before.”

              Try. I used to read a lot of mafia novels growing up. I don’t ever recall a group of Guido assasins with the names or nick names of Rock, Paper, Scissors..don’t forget their black sheep cousin whose an indiscriminate killer. Goes by the name of Lava.

                1. (if we can fit it in between replying to the blog posts). BTW just for the record, I suggest that marriage should be available to anyone prepared to sign up for the huge responsibilities that such a thing implies. Oddly that doesn’t appeal to a lot of people. They want what they see as the perks, the other side – the responsibilities, to each other, to fidelity, to children and to the society they live in… are invisible. The point is the perks actually come from living up to the responsibilities. And it’s actually quite hard, if worth while (heading for 32 years now).

                  1. Yes. Today is the 27th anniversary of our civil ceremony. (We had to have that FIRST and in the US for reasons of green card. So we have two anniversaries, one in summer, then the “real” one in winter.) It has often been difficult (well, life is) and I bless the times when it’s been dull (times are all too often interesting) but the rewards far, far outweigh the duties. And I agree with you.

                  1. Neither can I. Bad knees, bad back, too much in the middle; I have to sit in a rocking chair for it.

                1. Perhaps of those you know, but I know there’s a real backlash against it on Reddit.

                  Their position seems to be it’s a show about geeks written by people who aren’t actually geeks, don’t grok what makes us/them “them” and essentially just write about how weird they are and how they need to assimilate with normal people more. (Something like that, anyway.)

                  The counter to that is that that is basically the definition of a sitcom: making fun of how dysfunctional the characters are because, y’know, a situation comedy involves a situation where comedy is had, and it’s easier to do that with dysfunctional people than normal people.

                  I currently have a leaning towards liking the show, but I admit that I haven’t watched much of it.

                  1. ALL sitcom characters would be locked up if they existed in real life. I have a post somewhere around here about that. Characters on the page or on screen appear smaller than they are, so you need to make them MASSIVE. Including the insanity.

                    1. I don’t know Sarah, with some groups the sit-com writers may believe the characters are “true to life”. [Frown]

                    2. For Lorre, after working with Charlie Sheen??!!! And Roseanne Barr? He probably was toning them down.

                  2. I have kinda felt they are a bit loving of the quirks.

                    Certainly loving as a contrast to the very public nasty collaspe of the relationship Lorre had with one of the stars of one of his more mainstream set sit-coms.

  24. Ignore this one. I intended to reply to your reply to my initial missive…..keyboards and cognition of where the reply link is to be found…..

      1. Yes, sometimes very weird. I have found a way around a few of them, but I’m not telling, because I suspect they will ‘fix’ them…

        1. I’m going kicking and screaming into using Chrome instead of Firefox. One of the nudges that’s working is the WordPress extension for Chrome. It puts a little W thingy on your toolbar that shows people replying to you…with the added functionality of in-tool replies back. Very nice.

  25. Heah Sarah, ever thing that the hold on CF is an attempt at extortion by Alderman Moreno? I bet if a representative of the company sat down for a talk and slipped him an envelope with 50 large everything would just work itself out. Moreno’s constituency is largely Hispanic. What do you think their stand on gay marriage is?

  26. Whew, 100 comments before I get started, so if I’m repeating someone else’s comments, I apologize in advance.

    I have to disagree with you, Sarah, for what I believe are sane reasons, ones which are based on both some evidence, and some consideration of the eventual effects of this. And frankly, if it were not for the stated desire of many gay couples to raise families, I would not care, either.

    Oops, already got the hate-filled goons to stop reading, and will get hateful comments from them without them reading any further. Oh, well.

    A gay couple, BY ITSELF, is no threat to society as a whole, just because of their sexual preference. However, some studies indicate that the children of gay couples are much more likely to identify as gay when they grow up. That article does not suggest a reason, but my suspicion is that, because sexuality tends to be on a sliding scale, those whose inherent leanings are more towards the middle will be influenced by their parents, and thus tend to move towards the homosexual end of the scale, because of their role models. Now, granted, there are other studies which suggest differently, but I have not seen any which were not tied to gay advocacy groups.

    If this is an accurate representation, the number of homosexual couples would increase at a geometrical rate. What’s the harm in that? Well, the evidence that I am seeing is that for many gay couples, children are a status symbol. Since there is not much difference between one child and more children status-wise, families would be smaller. You have already said that you believe that the population is falling. I believe that this would cause the fall to accelerate. I think it would correct itself, but things could get very ugly in the meantime.

    Sorry about the length of this, but I wanted to be clear why I disagreed.

  27. If you listen to the media, you’d think that (according to a recent poll) upwards of 25% of Americans are Gay…the reality is that less than 3% are. You’d not know that if you watch TV here…as every third or forth HGTV (to grab a random ‘victim’) show has a Gay couple looking for a place to live…

    Get over it people. Marriage isn’t a right…it’s a responsibility.

  28. Wishing you were right about not forcing ministers to perform ceremonies in which they don’t believe (or lose their preaching license). However, it was slipped into the law in Vermont and caught by the governor who demanded it be removed. Just like being against “in vitro” keeps creeping into pro-life pledges.

  29. it’s like the gay activists who were invited as special guests to the white house. what do they do? take pictures of themselves flipping off reagan. as if he caused aids, not their risky behaviors. which tells me that once gay marriage is legal, they’ll just spread hate about something else.

    1. I dunno. From my experience, hateful people are just hateful — though people who feel they’ve been wronged and oppressed are more likely to go through a stage of screaming about it and going out of their way to kick what bugged them.

      I mean, it took years — and some lovely, very spiritual people — to get me to calm down about Christians. Something about one’s own grandfather strongly implying one was going to Hell, plus the constant attempts at conversion from random folk around campus… It takes time and good examples to erase early irritants.

      Now I hardly care what religion people are; I just wish all the fanatics (mine, thine, that other person’s) would siddown and shaddup and figure out how to make their lives an example of the good and gracious parts of their beliefs.

  30. Sarah

    You make the distinction between marriage and civil union, but I think you have the distinction wrong.

    In the UK the civil union has had very little opposition at all. A large part of the reason is that they do not try to call it a marriage; now that gay marriage is mooted there is more concern, even though the change is in reality only in the word.

    Most people equate civil union with marriage. I have been to a civil union reception, and everyone I spoke to called it a gay wedding. It looked like a wedding, everyone treated it like a wedding. The grooms get all the benefits and responsibilities of a married couple.

    But those that see marriage as a religious concept can still feel it is not a wedding. That marriage is still the religious ceremony it has traditionally been.

    In fact I would rather be in civil union with my wife. We are both atheist; in fact I am an atheist Christian and she an atheist Muslim; the marriage traditions of our two cultures are completely incompatible (in mine the wife’s parents pay, in hers the husband’s; we had to pay!). We had a civil ceremony, but it was a marriage. To me marriage is a religious ceremony, one I enjoy as a tradition but one that does not apply to me, the godless.

    I still would call her my wife; I would still be her husband. I think David and Jim call one another husband. The word marriage is just that – a word – but an important word to those for whom religion is important.

  31. TO: Sarah Hoyt
    RE: Gay ‘Marriage’

    In the first place, marriage is from God—if you believe in such an Entity—not from man.

    Governments try to control such—setting themselves up to license such activities in order to preside over their destruction and then fomenting such destruction—but it’s just mere jealousy. Marriage has been and always will be something from God. No matter how men try to corrupt it. As the saying goes “What God has joined together…..” And any man or woman who tries to split it asunder has to answer to God… we all will, eventually.

    Homosexuality is an aberration. Every culture on Earth has recognized it as such, despite its become ‘acceptable’ to men now and again.

    Case in point, if thriving homosexual cultures actually worked, they’d have been around for ages. But such cultures are not thriving. Let alone around, except in the shadow-world.

    As for who is harmed?

    Think of the children, growing up in an abnormal household.

    What was it He said?

    And if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to be thrown into the sea with a large millstone tied around his neck.

    No victims?


    [Think of the children.]

    1. “Think of the children” Chuck?

      Every single time some authoritarian from either side of the political fence wants to restrict the right of adults to be adults, they exhort everyone to “think of the children”. So, judging from your post, you plan to be the bible-bashing authoritarian who goes poking your nose into everyone’s bedroom to make sure nothing you disapprove of is happening there.

      How is this different than poking your nose into everyone’s kitchen?

      And no, don’t quote the Bible at me. You’re selectively quoting and I can selectively quote just as much to rebut you, starting with “judge not lest you be judged in turn and found wanting”.

      As for these children you want me to think of, perhaps you could explain how children who are physically abused by their heterosexual parents are better off than children raised by a loving and stable homosexual couple. I’ll wait. I haven’t seen anyone answer this one yet. They usually just rant about how immoral I am.

      Oh, and you are completely wrong about marriage. Marriage exists and existed in places that had never HEARD of the Christian God. China had marriage for centuries before Europeans knew how to get there. So did India. So did the Australian and New Guinean tribes. What it involved was usually a property transaction. You pay this much for a wife, or you get this much to take the woman off her family’s hands. To put it crudely, every culture has tried to control access to the pussy by marriage rules – and the supposedly holy guidelines in the Bible are no different, not in how they were applied.

      At least the Bible actually tried to put limits on how much the man could abuse his property.

      1. Aaaawwww…..

        …what’s the matter.

        Did the “Think of the Children” business touch a nerve?

        I guess so, considering the amount of verbiage you just spewed.

        Goes along with the observation I made below about your mental state, i.e., ‘bitter’.


        P.S. Please point out where in China, India, Australia, New Guinea or anywhere else a homosexual culture thrived.

        1. Unless standards have slipped far more than I can believe, an apprentice troll, at best, and still in first year.

          1. Yeah, I’ve decided there’s no point. Following this blog’s policy, if ALL you’re coming back for is to pick fights and act all self righteous, no matter what side you’re from after a while you get killfiled. This is my living room, not a public utility.

          2. Nah, I’ve been seeing that tagline for several years, across several blogs. Sometimes I think his only purpose in life is to start trouble.

        2. Oh, well. That’s what I get for giving someone the benefit of the doubt and starting from the presumption that they were prepared to think.

          As for homosexual culture, we can start with the Spartans, go to the New Guinea tribes where homosexual relations between teenage boys and younger boys are considered not merely normal but utterly essential to protect them from evil. Then there’s the many, many places where homosexuality was and is perfectly acceptable so long as you’re “on top”.

          Including for a good long time the Christian church (that was the Greek and Roman influence, of course.)

          1. I believe it was always officially disapproved of. But in many Latin countries, you’re not “gay” if you’re a top. Arab countries too. And of course, there’s the transparent boys who supplement the houris. So, it varies.

        3. In the back of my head I hear:

          Don’t know much about history
          Don’t know much biology
          Don’t know much about a science book
          Don’t know much about the french I took

          Sam Cooke’s What a Wonderful World

      2. Kate, he forgot to mention not scaring the horses. The character has already poked from two sides. I am beginning to think that this one, when in need of housing, bought the Brooklyn Bridge … and is looking for a fire sale to keep warm.

  32. Reading all of this i can’t help but recall recent polling that showed a majority of Americans thinking that homosexuals made up 25 percent of the population. I see this as a result of years of what amounts to propaganda being used to convince everyone that homosexuals were a much larger part of the population and it was no big deal. I can’t help but wonder if it’s this same false perception that helps drive opposition to gay marriage.

    I wonder if everyone understood what a tiny minority of the population homosexuals were, that maybe no one would really care if they could get married. Has the gay community given legitimacy to the fears of many anti-ssm groups by pretending to be a much larger portion of the population than they are. Would all of the anti-ssm groups still exist if they realized that this issue effects probably less than one percent of the population and certainly no more than 5 percent?

    My question is not what effect allowing ssm would have on the country but would anyone even really notice? And has the pro-ssm community unwittingly been it’s own worst enemy by making this issue seem to effect more people than it actually does?

    1. I’ve wondered about that myself, since what I have noticed in my own real life apparently tracks with the generally accepted statistic of 1-2% of the population being gay.
      All I can think of to account for this overestimation is that – while there may not actually be all that many gays … they are (channeling Anna Russell here) the NOISIEST!!
      Funny to to think, though – that by inflating numbers and so radically affecting public perceptions, they actually might have screwed the pooch on this issue.

      1. No, no, they’re not into bestiality, here. That’s a whole different subject.


  33. first time on site, on instapundit so I took a look.Last time on since you really do not make a lot of common sense and what is not needed on the web is another androgynous commentator. Have a good life.

    1. well, you’ve certainly not spent much time on this site, or else you’re not as familiar with the word “androgynous” as you should be. As for the common sense of someone leaving a comment JUST to say they won’t be back, well you REALLY must think we’re all entitled to the benefit of your opinion on what the web needs and doesn’t.

      1. Actually….

        ….(1) I think he does and (2) isn’t he entitled to his opinion of your opinion?

            1. You’re awfully fond of this “projecting” thing… Definitely paid. Hmmm…

              1. Maybe I’m cynical, but the pattern of comments doesn’t seem to fit a paid person. I believe Mr./Mrs./Ms./etc Pelto is serious. Just … well, finding things to be indignant about. Slights that were unintended. It happens. Goodman/woman Pelto isn’t looking to argue pros and cons at this point, having self-identified as a good Christian who is, of course, correct in their chosen interpretation of God’s will.

                My own disagreement with her/him is simple. The idea that the laws must be based on Pelto’s interpretation of the Bible is one I reject out of hand, because I know for damn sure he/she wouldn’t like to follow my religious interpretation. And Pelto would absolutely hate to have to follow the rulings as expressed in the “Oldest Known Version” of the Old Testament, the one that was as close as they could get it to a direct English translation of the ur-Aramaic legends from whence the Bible came. Many Christians who believe in Bible-as-proper-source-of-law — likely Pelto included — are only interested in that particular version of the Old Testament until they get as far as “In the beginning, God [female, plural] created…”

                So I seriously doubt this is a paid effort. Just someone who isn’t thinking on the same wavelengths. No doubt she/he would be interesting to exchange fudge recipes with, but on this issue she/he comes off as seeing slights where they don’t exist.

                … I’m sure I’m going to get burned for saying this, but eh. Not that I disagree with you, Kate, that Pelto is being reasonable. Just that accusing people of being paid to hold their stated opinions is demeaning. Come on, Kate, if I say something completely stupid, at least throw me the bone of having come up with that stupid opinion on my own terms, rather than supposing I have so little self-respect as to have turned over my opinions to someone else for mere money.

                1. Chuck Pelto has been around for a good long bit – he used to comment on the Daily Brief blog ( I always thought he was about in range as a milblog commenter, and military vet. YMMV, though.

                2. Susan — actually I started that accusation and I think Kate was echoing me, not because we believed it, but because I was hoping he (Chuck is an ODD name for a woman) would see he was behaving like a false flag operation to his own beliefs. Apparently it was too much to hope for.

                3. I do try to give people a chance to demonstrate reasonableness. When they start acting like their espoused enemy’s accusations, well…

                  I also tend to get a little snarky (oh damn, there goes the bloody sarcasm alarm again) when people start shifting goal posts as soon as I challenge their facts.

            2. Pathetic variation on “I know you are, but what am I?” If Chuck is a paid moveon troll that explains their financial collapse.

      2. Ummm – androgynous??? I could think of a better insult that that.. lol and it would be true *snort…

        You can’t get rid of me yet – and that is a threat ROFL

        1. Cyn, I certainly wouldn’t want to get rid of you. Then I would be stuck with all the kitchen duty…

          1. ARG ARG – Someone wants me to do kitchen duty? I run screaming.

            hey, being the oldest of nine, I knew what kitchen duty meant even before I had “hell week” in boot camp.

            1. Don’t blame me, it was Sarah’s dream that had us doing mammoth duty. I was just glad to get such good company. 😉

            1. You know what’s funnier? If you met me in person, you would find that I am a true introvert. I had my landlady tell me that “still waters run deep.” At least I’m not stagnant. 😉

              1. Eh. You sound like you think I’m NOT. Though it’s unlikely you’d know that if you met me at a con. I have the con-persona I put on like I put on makeup. In fact makeup is part of putting on the con persona. But I’m very happy in the era of computers, chatting away at my friends via email, thank you. Sometimes I worry our family has too little social life.

                1. What is a social life? How do you define it? lol I get most of my socializing through the internet. If I didn’t I wouldn’t talk to anyone for days, weeks, months at a time.

                  1. Discovering a social life is what caused me to bomb out of college. I kept hanging out with my new-found friends instead of going to classes.

                    1. OH geez – 🙂 well, I do spend more time here than I should and don’t write as much as I should… means I am socializing I guess.

                    2. Yeah – I had never had such a thing before. Massively introverted as a youth, hypersensitive emotionally, and a nerd in a redneck high school (they proudly wore the name Pig Farmers, which is what the rival school called us), I didn’t have many friends I actually wanted to spend any time with. Meeting people who I really got along with in college was like being in a whole new world.

                      Sigh. I found out much later that I was actually rather popular with a lot of people who were not actively picking on me. What a waste of time, feeling sorry for myself all that time. Pfui.

                    3. Wayne – I was introverted and shy as a teenager(in the Meyer’s Briggs Introverted means that you have a colorful inner life). I have overcome it somewhat (the shyness); however, I am quiet when I don’t know you. I found that my humor and inner life branded me as more than odd. I kept it to myself… I still do although now I do share it with the hubby.

                      I was never popular. There were very few girls my age that were interesting. The boys didn’t find me interesting. I was marching to a different drummer and when I left my little town, I was happy to see the last of its dust.

                      Now I live in a city that has more or less 50,000 people I like it. It is easy to hide in, but not too overwhelming.

                    4. Shy? Introverted? I dunno. After a bit you start recognizing when people’s eyes begin to glaze over when conversing with you. Or you start noticing the way they seem to be slowly backing away and edging toward the door during conversations. And then there are the large crowds, gesticulating wildly, waving their pitchforks and torches …

                  2. Other than my grandfather (who died in 1994), my hubby was the first man to ever really see me. I mean he saw me…

                    People don’t see me… it is strange because I can walk down a crowded sidewalk or mall and people will see the hubby, but they will run through me. It is like I am invisible. When I was more aggressive, I would ask them if they were blind or dumb. Now I just walk behind the hubby because I know that people don’t see me. It can be quite disconcerting.

                    I see them though.

      1. Mostly, I think, to demonstrate the fact he has androgynous confused with ambivalent, which I’m not, but you know, since I’m not piling on on one side he thinks I am.

        Yep. He commented to demonstrate his lack of familiarity with the English Language. It’s a cry for help. Kind of like my misspelling chickafillthingy and “Ilovemejacket”

    2. OH PLEASE, leave us NOT get into what is or is not needed on the Web!!!!!

      Although calling Sarah “androgynous” is really striking below the belt.

    3. Good grief man. Did you look at the pictures? I don’t think the word “androgynous” means what you think it means.

      I’m not that sure about what you think is common sense, and we won’t go into what passes for your grammar.

      I’m sure there’s a point in there somewhere, but I don’t really feel like inverting the rules of sentence parsing to figure it out, so sure, have a good life. Don’t let anything you don’t like disturb you.

      1. “I’m not sure about what you think is common sense,…”

        In my experience “common sense” is merely shorthand for “agrees with ones own prejudices.”

  34. Is it just me or has anybody else noticed that those posted about how “Sarah has pissed them off” are mostly the pro-gay marriage types? [Very Big Evil Grin]

    1. I’d say it’s actually pretty balanced. I’m not counting the ones who DISAGREE with me like Wayne, who G-d knows, has earned the right of disagreeing with me. I think he’s wrong, PARTLY because all the children of gay couples I know are if anything aggressively hetero, so … the studies might be right but I’d like to look at the QUESTION. (Is more likely to identify might mean ‘if he were’ as in, “wouldn’t be ashamed.” But if he’s right, it’s a point to consider), But the ones who are really upset and feel they must put down my intelligence, character or — yes, that’s a new one — sexual definition are about even.
      Meh. Dumbasses come in all sorts of opinion brackets. (Shrug.)

      1. The accuracy of the studies is something I”d question, simply because the topic is so… explosive. Right now anyone who actually studies what happens with the kids of homosexual couples vs the kids of heterosexual couples is almost certainly doing so with an agenda.

        In short, need more data.

          1. We’re in the post-modern era. If you asked certain parties, they’d tell you a word means what you want it to mean. Just ask Mr “we don’t need more androgynous commentator” up thread.

            1. a word means what you want it to mean

              Only if you pay it extra. I am a poor accountant and must restrict myself to commonly understood meanings.

              Umm, I am a good accountant, albeit fiscally embarrassed (Beloved Spouse and the Daughtorial Unit assure me I am embarrassing in a variety of other ways, as well.

              1. if it is what “they want it to mean,” chaos – anarchy – …what about the dictionary? We could start miscommunicating. The horrors.

                Oh well RES welcome to the club – I am definitely an odd. Plus my sisters once told me that I embarrassed them. It is the theme of my life. Thank goodness my hubby finds me humorous. I find him humorous too so we have a great time.

                1. It does rather make a body think all that time spent browsing the dictionary was wasted; how dismaying. I wonder: shall I ever be able to tackle another crossword.

                  It is good to learn you and your Beloved Spouse are in such good humour.

                  I suddenly have an inexplicable urge for an ice cream bar.

                2. Considering that I was on the way to being a bitter woman, I believe that the hubby saved me from that fate. Plus without him I probably wouldn’t be here to harass (mischievously – not maliciously) people on this blog. He kept me together during my disease. It takes a special person.

                  Enjoy your crosswords and ice cream bars.

            2. This is not a new phenomena:

              “And only one for birthday presents, you know. There’s glory for you!”

              “I don’t know what you mean by ‘glory,'” Alice said.

              Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. “Of course you don’t — till I tell you. I meant ‘there’s a nice knock-down argument for you!'”

              “But ‘glory’ doesn’t mean ‘a nice knock-down argument,'” Alice objected.

              “When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.”

              “The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so may different things.”

              “The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to master — that’s all.”

              Alice was too much puzzled to say anything, so after a minuet Humpty Dumpty began again, “They’ve a temper, some of them — particularly verbs, they’re the proudest — adjectives you can do anything with, but not verbs — however, I can manage the whole lot of them! Impenetrability! That’s what I say!”

              Through the Looking Glass and What Alice Found There by Lewis Carroll (The passage delightfully continues in the same vein.)

      2. I know the study (or, rather, one of them) that he might be referencing. It found that the children of homosexual couples were more willing to explore their sexuality — that is, in their teenage years, they were more willing to say “I might be bisexual / gay” instead of insisting they must be straight before they’d even experienced true feelings of sexual attraction. They were also more willing to actually date someone of the same gender. However, past the age of nineteen, the percentage of those kids who actually identified themselves as gay, lesbian, or otherwise queer was exactly the same as the rate found in the general population.

        In other words, if you’re the kid of a gay couple, you’re more likely to think “being gay” is an acceptable option. But it doesn’t seem to increase the likelihood of actually being gay as an adult.

        Which supports my thinking, which is that sexuality is influenced to a fair degree by genetics, whereas whether or not someone acts upon those desires is at least in part a question of what is socially acceptable / punished by law.

        That’s actually why I’m torn. I’m definitely pro civil union. I don’t like to change the definition of words, but I want gay couples to be able to (for example) visit their partner on their deathbed in the hospital. (In many places ITC policy restricts visitors to relatives, such as blood relatives or married partners.)

        I’m also, personally, pro gay marriage. But I can understand why a religious person might opine that “marriage” is, in our society and our religious history, something men and women (one each) do. And the mere fact that I can see where the other side comes from has caused several of my pro-gay-marriage acquaintances to declare me a horrible rightwing Christian religious nutter, which confuses me.

        Yes, I think that someone who is firmly gay can, if they wish, be celibate (for example) instead of marrying. I don’t prefer this, or consider it desirable. I simply believe that mature human beings are capable of being celibate. But this belief is somehow mutated by others into “Oh, you think gay people should just never have sexual partners!” which isn’t what I said, or meant, or think.

        In my opinion, if your ally agrees with 95% of what you want and then you insult them, you’ve turned an ally into someone who will no longer speak so publicly for your cause. You’ve worsened your position. And for what?

          1. Oops. Took me maybe four minutes to write, so my brain said it was short. Sorry about the wall of text, folks.

      3. Um, I’m flattered that you would say I have earned the right of disagreeing with you (in such a forceful way), but are you sure you’re talking about the right Wayne? Of course, I’m sure I have bumped into you on other sites when you were out there under a pseudonym, but I’ve only been visiting your site for a few months. Wouldn’t want to benefit from someone else’s built-up goodwill.

        1. Didn’t mean disagreeing in a forceful way, meant your comment of “…who G-d knows, has earned the right of disagreeing with me.”, which was kind of a forceful declaration.

          Don’t mind me, I’m tired, going to bed.

  35. Long down the pile of comments, let me write something that will never get read: I never thought that being gay was a big deal but I will fight as well as I can against anything that gay activists are for, because they are the meanest, most hateful bigots in all the world.

    1. TO: Alan, et al
      RE: Indeed

      I don’t think I’ve ever met a ‘gay’, i.e., homosexual of either bent, who is actually ‘happy’. And most of those I’ve met and recognized as such tend to be rather ‘bitter’ and some are opposed to ANYTHING that is ‘good’.


      [Gay is a one-word oxymoron.]

      1. Funny that. I’m sure that you provide a shining example of all that is good that any gay person you meet would recognize…

        Ah, crap. I can’t keep this up without gagging. Being surrounded by sanctimonious bigots who keep telling you that you’re evil, deviant and going to Hell because of something you fought all your damn life is guaranteed to make people happy, right? Sure it is. And that’s a fine herd of prize porkers flapping past my window right now.

        1. Heh….

          ….speak of the ‘devil’….


          But not to worry. Your ‘abuse’ can’t hold a candle to that I received at the hands of Colonel ‘No-Slack’ Stack. And that was professionally speaking. Not mere life-style.

          Thanks for providing the confirmational information.


          [If you can’t laugh at yourself, you can’t laugh at anyone else.]

          P.S. Since when is telling someone what they are doing is ‘wrong’ EVIL?

          Our court system does it EVERY DAY. And they’re about to do it to James Holmes for his little bit of ‘target practice’ last Friday.

          Or do you suggest that it is ‘wrong’ to say that what Holmes did is ‘wrong’?

          Or how about Sandusky?

          Or how about a drunk staggering out of a bar fumbling for his car keys?

          1. You do realize like the gay gentleman down the thread you could be a poster caricature conservative as the other side sees conservatives. I’ve often wondered, bumping into you around the web, whether you draw a paycheck from

          2. cbpelto – you are equating murder with homosexuality? Now I am offended. Geez – murder is more than a sin – (taking of an innocent life)… It is like comparing apples with oranges.

            1. it’s what pays him for. To be a caricature conservative, so they can talk about the eevil people on the other side. And he does a d*mn good job. BUT he doesn’t amuse me anymore, and has nothing new to say.

              1. I think you’re wrong here, Sarah. Surely not even moveon will pay for such shoddy craftsmanship? An intern, maybe, but I think it is a freelance operation, a try-out for an internship?

                1. Oh hell man…if you want real fun go to an anti gun/anti 2nd amendment site and try and interject actual FACTS into their emotionally overwrought bullshit.. I got all my posts deleted on ones fb page and have been blocked from posting on the same idiots twitter accounts. I suspect if they read my last couple posts over on my blog, their heads would all explode.

          3. Oh, you do the narrow-minded bigot trolling so well.

            No sane person would equate something that happens between consenting adults with killing a bunch of people who never asked to be shot at, and didn’t want to die.

            No sane person would equate something that happens between consenting adults with rape.

            The drunk… meh. He can fumble for the keys all he pleases. Even if he finds them and drives home, he hasn’t done more than be stupid unless he causes damage. Actual physical damage, not anything metaphysical or spiritual.

      2. to cbpelto – Oh I have met some happy ones and I have met some bitter ones. It all depends on how they roll with the punches, just like everyone else. 😉

        1. Thank you, Cyn, I was about to say that he needed to broaden his circle of acquaintance, but was afraid of getting half the Bible quoted at me again apropos nothing.

        2. You’re more fortunate than I. I’ve met some that aren’t particularly bitter. But they weren’t really happy either.

          Then again we have Kate (above)…..

            1. And happy. And who really likes playing with the trolls.

              (p.s. thanks for letting me play.)

              1. Apologies to you, Kate. I hadn’t realized this fellow does this a lot. (Re: upthread comment about not assuming people are paid to hold the opinions they hold.) I believe that no longer applies once a track record is known.

                Also, it’s popcorn and soda here; having fun watching the troll-baiting.

                1. Again, I don’t think she thought he was paid, I think she picked up on my hint that this man SERIOUSLY needed to realize he was like his very own worst enemy. He’s done this at Classical Values and Mad Genius Club, and we’ve had enough. Which now I think about it is what this post is about. If your civil discourse isn’t, people won’t listen to you.

                  In that vein, the lovely gentleman who starting calling persons undefined “turds” and seemed to be ranting about abortion (?) has got killfiled. I tried to make sense of his comment, but I couldn’t, and at any rate, it’s not my job. Calling people names is hitting. Bringing in abortion is stupid. (IF I want to get in trouble with THAT I’ll do my own post, which trust me, would get me in enough trouble. It has nothing to do with this post, and if you want to rant on a street corner, do so but not in my living room. So.)

                  People killfiled will be killfied in the future too as soon as they poke their little heads up, if I still remember their names, because I can’t be having with that.

                  And of course this is NOT directed at you, Susan, I’m just explaining occasional disappearing comments.

                  1. Which would explain the really confusing replies upthread, that seemed to be argueing against one thing, while replying to the exact opposite.

                    By the way, why would abortion have anything to do with gay marriage? I would assume very few gays need to make a decision on whether to have one or not.

                    1. I have NO idea. NONE. Someone brought it up, though. Someone always brings it up when a thread goes long. As for stuff getting attached to another comment — WORDPRESS!

                    2. Abortion made it into the thread? Sounds like the thread only needs a kitchen sink. CACS got me on kitchen duty (or was it the mammoth). Going nuts. lol

            2. Umm… if I am a woman that enjoys men, does that make me a transexual … or is that only if I have had a sex change.?

              Just asking – have I been batting at a troll? Bat. bat…


              1. It may make you a gay man trapped in a woman’s body.

                WARNING: most potential jokes employed to determine this would involve invidious and stereotypical assumptions.

      3. I’ve met a bunch of gay gays and jolly lesbians and many others who are neither particularly glad or sad. I’m even friends with some.

        They don’t for the most part jump up and down demanding the right to be married, respected whatever and throwing paint on people who disagree. They just live their life and do their own thing.

        The miserable ones are the activists in my experience

        1. Misery loves miserable company? [/wry] (Although righteous wrath is probably valuable for beating one’s head against the same walls over and over again, and if you start out with ideals and get frustrated enough…)

  36. I LOVE this so much…it’s EXACTLY what I’ve been trying to say for the past several days…it is so, so good to find a coherent person who “gets it”…THANK-YOU Sarah!!

  37. “In fact, even just one of the couple not being Catholic means the case has to go through ecclesiastical trial and a dispensation has to be obtained.”

    This is no longer true. When we engaged, my wife was nominally Lutheran (she has since converted). The Church only requires the promise to raise children as Catholic.

    1. Clearly my information is outdated. Or possibly just Portuguese.
      BUT you still can’t marry in the Church if you’re divorced and haven’t sought an annulment. Or if both of you are another religion. Of course in that case, you’re also both probably very odd to want to marry in the Catholic church.

      1. RES,
        I like you. I really like you. Don’t use bad words like “living constitution” on my site. Now I have to go rinse my eyeballs with acid again.

        1. …I’ve been earwormed with “I’m just a Bill, yes I’m only a Bill, and I’m sitting here on Capitol Hill”…

        1. The Constitution is merely a contract by which the American People delegate a portion of their sovereignty to the government in order to authorize them to act as agents on our behalf.

          The law of agency is an area of commercial law dealing with a set of contractual, quasi-contractual and non-contractual relationships that involve a person, called the agent, that is authorized to act on behalf of another (called the principal) to create a legal relationship with a third party.[1] Succinctly, it may be referred to as the relationship between a principal and an agent whereby the principal, expressly or implicitly, authorizes the agent to work under his control and on his behalf. The agent is, thus, required to negotiate on behalf of the principal or bring him and third parties into contractual relationship.

          It is the duty of a Principal to rein in agents who exceed granted authority, lest by failure to do so the agents be granted such authority in fact.

          One of my dreams is to some day sign a contract with one of those advocates of the Doctrine of (what in deference to Sarah’s acid-washed eyes I will refer to as) the Undead Constitution, and then arbitrarily change the understood meanings of words and clauses in the name of a “living contract.” I DO NOT encourage Sarah to attempt to live this dream with any of her publishers.

  38. Just followed the link over from Prof. Reynolds’. (yay Instalanches!)

    I found your post blunt, factual and well thought out. I suspect I’m going to be sharing this link with some of my ‘but if you don’t support it you’re a haaaaater’ friends soon. Thank you for saying what needed to be said!

  39. To the larger scope of this post: I would like to point out that amongst my friends on Facebook (where this issue will not go away), it’s not the gay ones who are losing their minds over Chik-Fil-A. It’s the hetero supporters of gay marriage. It’s almost pitiable, the way they re-post the muppet picture, as though they’re actually excited that Miss Piggy shares their political views.

    I sometimes wonder if half the support for gay marriage among heteros comes from nothing deeper than the wish to be percieved as Not-Homophobic.

    Since I regard homosexuality as merely a sin, and not necessarily a worse one than any of my own, I long ago stopped looking upon gayness and gay people as a plague o’er the land. So I’m quite confident that I am not a homophobe, and can thus without self-suspicion believe that gay marriage will turn out to be just one more step on the road to Gommorrah.

    Just one step, mind. The insanity of our divorce laws, the perversion of our liberty, the downward spiral of our popular culture to ever-more-Roman celebrations of sex and violence, these have all contributed to the slouch. But this will not help. I can’t understand why anyone would think that we can say “This far, and no farther” and make it stick. If you believe that a man and another man make a marriage, why on earth would you denounce a man and two women?

    It’s been less than fifty years since the Stonewall riots begat the modern gay rights movement. The polygamists are already at work making themselves “normal.” How many decades will it take?

    And what will the word “marriage” even mean at the end of them?

    1. Er. Our opinions obviously differ. I think we’ve always been slouching towards Gomorrah and yet we always manage to stay this side of it. HOWEVER my experience on facebook is the same as yours and that’s what pushed me over the top. I THINK most people are just trying to be “in the cool crowd.” I think they’re insane.

      1. It is the habit of civilizations to slouch towards Gomorrah. Perhaps you’ll be right and we’ll avoid a repeat of the 5th century.

        I enjoy your blog and envy you your literary success. Cheers.

        1. It’s mission creep that gets us there. I was thinking the other day how much the project of the “state” resembles the tower of babel. Higher and higher till it all collapses.

              1. Poor Nero. The guy spent the night leading the effort to put the fires out, and when he proposed building the Domus Aurea, the rumor-mongers covered him with calumny. I almost don’t begrudge him scapegoating the Christians.

                  1. All the good propagandists still held the torch for the Republic. Unfortunately that’s about all they held for the Republic.

                    1. Orgies did not really come into vogue until Elagabulus, I think. But I can’t remember when the Metamorphosis came out, so it’s possible I’m dissembling.

                    2. pfui – torch jokes are for amateurs and fans of Alvin Maker.

                      And orgies have struck me as one of those things that sounds titillating but is exceedingly tedious in actuality. Tiresome, repetitive, sweaty and unhygienic — the epitome of dullness. I’d rather read.

                      At my age, with my knees and back, I am more than ever convinced that some activities represent proof you are failing at something quite fundamental in intercourse. Somewhere I once read some lovely doggerel about “[something] delightful, position absurd” which I think must be attributable to Oscar Wilde or Dorothy Parker and deplore my inability to find it through Google, Bing or other search engine.

                    3. He isn’t a good sport – he’s just so slow to get when he’s the butt of a joke that he has learned to not make a big deal out of it.

                  1. Considering all the good it did him when the time came, it’s hard to argue. Perhaps that’s why Machiavelli advocated hunting as the blood sport for princes.

                    1. IOW: I’m armed, stand back! Actually I’ve often wondered if Nero was that much worse than the normal run of the mill Emperor or if he just made the mistake of p*ssing off Petronius the Arbiter who… was a talented writer. You know, leaders should be careful when they cross our path.

                    2. It is not unusual for a new regime to spread defamatory tales about the predecessor administration, nor to blame current economic problems on the predecessor’s infamous policies, nor to employ public intellectuals to disparage the prior ruler.

                      Can’t think of it having happened recently, of course.

                    3. Hard to say. But It seems to me that there were two kinds of emperors who got themselves dispatched early: one who ran afoul of the soldiers and ones who ran afoul of everybody. If anything written about Nero was true, he was of the latter half.

                      But your point stands. It’s not Nero’s account that I’m consulting right now, it’s Suetonius’.

      2. I think there’s a tendency to slouch toward Gomorrah, and then to be violently shoved away from it. Witness the 1920’s, and then the Great Depression. I think there may have been something similar in the mid-1800s, at least in the cities. The draft riots in the Civil War were a case in point.

        It’s kind of like diet vs. exercise. Virtuous behavior is like dieting: slightly yet unrelentingly unpleasant and boring. Violent upheavals are more like exercise: more unpleasant in the short run, but easier to get used to since you’re at least doing something.

        1. Kate and I have talked about this in terms of believing in G-d. I believe anyway, she’s kind of agnostic so we have these great discussions where we square the circle, but SOMETIMES the “big thumb on the scales” is hard to ignore.

        2. I think it is more related to a fundamental American libertarian approach. Think of it as allowing the car to drift slightly then have to jerk it back into the lane. We don’t correct until it is clear there is a serious need.

    2. Agree. My question is always this–if, as so many of these “forward thinkers” who favor same-sex marriage believe, we “evolved”–ie, better characteristics and traits survived while others did not–why is it so hard to believe that what we now consider traditional marriage evolved from all the other forms prior to it, proving the most stable and strongest form? It’s not like people haven’t tried all the other stuff at some point in history–including same-sex, recorded in Ancient Greece and Rome.

      I think we need to “listen” to the wisdom of the thousands of years of history prior to our brief lifetimes on this earth and try to realize that we may not know it all and that there are some things that are the way they for a reason besides “being mean” to people who want to try the already-failed stuff again.

      1. Actually, no. Evolution doesn’t work like that. What survives is what the environment of the time can’t kill. Better has nothing to do with it. Just like short-sightedness is getting more common because decent quality glasses are widely available so short-sighted people aren’t nearly as likely to end up prematurely dead (and therefore have more kids, passing on the genetic tendency to short-sightedness).

        Marriage has certainly evolved. The current thinking in this part of the world involves love and free choice. That’s a relatively new development. For most of history and prehistory, it was a financial/ownership transaction. In a lot of places, it still is. So which variant currently extant did you have in mind?

        Arguably the current ideas in this part of the world are not the most stable or strongest. There’s this rather high divorce rate and a whole lot of people choosing to avoid marriage altogether. When I see Hollyweird tartlets with their 24 hour publicity stunt marriages, I’ve got to wonder why people think gay marriage would do more damage than happens every day already.

        If that gets boring, let’s just demonize heterosexuals. After all, every homosexual is the child of two people having heterosexual sex (or technological substitutes thereof)

        1. 3’44” to 4’35”

          Gus Grissom: Wait a minute, wait a minute!
          [turns Glenn toward him]
          Gus Grissom: You’ve got it all wrong, the issue here ain’t pussy. The issue here is monkey.
          John Glenn: What?
          Gus Grissom: Us. We are the monkey.
          Deke Slayton: What Gus is saying is that we’re missing the point. What Gus is saying is that we all heard the rumors that they want to send a monkey up first. Well, none of us wants to think that they’re gonna send a monkey up to do a man’s work. But what Gus is saying is that what they’re trying to do to us is send a man up to do a monkey’s work. Us, a bunch of college-trained chimpanzees!
          Gus Grissom: Fuckin’ A, bubba.
          Deke Slayton: Alright, so what Gus is saying is that we’ve got to change things around here. He’s saying that we are pilots. And we know more about what we need to fly this thing than anybody else. So what we have to do is to alter the experiment. And what that comes down to is who is gonna control this thing from here on out.
          Gordon Cooper: What Gus is saying here is that we’ve got to stick together on this deal.

    3. ” It’s almost pitiable, the way they re-post the muppet picture, as though they’re actually excited that Miss Piggy shares their political views.”

      As much as I like Miss Piggy..I always preferred [in order] Animal, The grumpy old farts,Statler and I can’t remember the other ones name right now, Fozzie Bear and Gonzo.

      Have you pointed out these self same people that Miss Piggy is a figment of someones, hell at this point EVERYONE’s imagination?

      1. love the grumpy farts especially when they are reviewing everyone’s performance… 😉 Henson’s imagination —going strong after his death.

        1. Oops – slow this evening: Statler & Waldorf.

          I think my favorite might have been Rowlf — I used to watch the Jimmy Dean Show just for his appearances.

      2. Don’t overlook the recent hullabaloo over the idea that Sesame Street residents Bert & Ernie might be gay. (In fairness, we are talking about two guys who spend their days with somebody’s fist up their …)

        1. Might that parenthetical explain why BS and DU sometimes find that taking RES out in public a bit embarrassing?

          (Apologies, he in fact does know how to behave very well. It is a wonder what a couple years of military school can do. They believe in and practice consequences, like the punishment walk he received for playing Sunshine of Your Love for morning revelry.)

          1. *hem* Morning reveille, not revelry. More different than their spellings would indicate. I think a keyboard needs cleaning. Or somebody’s autospell wants disabling.

  40. I’m strongly pro-same sex marriage and have been vocal about it for quite some time, but I agree with pretty much every word here. Nicely done.

  41. Sarah, well said. Thank you. I apologize if someone else has pointed this out (I don’t want to slog thru all the comments): You are correct that a dispensation is needed for a Catholic to marry a non-Catholic, but there’s no ecclesiastical trial involved. Usually, the priest marrying them arranges is after meeting with the couple. Cheers!

  42. Consider that to many who find the concept of “gay rights” to be an affront, state-issued licenses to gays qua gays is a cloud with a very silver lining: we get them on the public record as being gay, along with their home addresses. For whatever future purposes that might be in the offing.

    1. This has been a concern express by some who know that acceptability of various groups in society has been known to fluctuate.

      1. Oh c’mon – where’s the risk?? Surely society will only grow more enlightened as we progress?

        Y’know what would be a real good idea? To save them the annoyance of straights hitting on them (or worse, trying to “straighten” them out) they could wear some sort of identifying emblem, like a lapel pin or armband. Pink, because that goes with everything. Maybe put an icon on it, to break up the monotony, something symbolizing their harmony with the Earth, sky and water; perhaps a triangle?

  43. Your article was an immense breath of fresh air that there is still some moderation left on this issue. I have had reservations on gay mariage, not necessarily because I think it is actually bad, but that I dont think the country is quite ready for it. But if more of your community was as sensible as you, I would have already moved your way, and might still.

    I agree with you completely that people who want gay marriage are mostly not evil, and people who oppose it are mostly not evil, and both beleifs have reasonable arguments to make. I think the trend is going your way. For example, if you look closely you might notice that the Tea Party, due to its libertarian component, is much more open to gay issues than the rest of the repub party.

    Another thing to remember is patience and concensus building, applied patiently over a long time, can really move the political debate. Just look what the NRA did on gun control. Twenty years ago, most of the country favored gun control, now nobody will touch it. You can do the same thing on gay issues, and already have if you look at the attitudes of younger people. But you dont build concensus by looking like intolerant raving maniacs, forcibly imposing your beleifs on others, as you correctly recognize.

    And you wont win over the long term by trying wierd tricks with the courts, you will do it by building a working majority and passing legislation. Another tip there is to try federalsim. While many conservatives would not want gay mariage in their conservative state, they might not care what some leftist state does, as long as its not forced on their state. And once people see working gay marriages in various states, it becomes less threatening.

    It will also help if you work both ends of the spectrum, and not just dems. I realize you may not get far with repub socons, but as I mentioned, there are many Tea Partiers that might be willing, and even eager, to listen, but not if you are a ravng leftist on everything else.

  44. I don’t eat there because their food sucks. As a proud southern progressive, I deal with my neighbors and relatives, but seriously, the chicken is overbreaded and underseasoned, and the biscuits are glue balls. Ick. Plus I do tend to spend with those who do not insult me and mine. What I don’t get is why is this news now? We’ve known this for years.

    Cathy (sorry, 4th grade giggle escaping), drew a line in the sand. I just sorta get off on kicking it in his eye.

    1. I don’t eat there because their food sucks. As a proud southern progressive, I deal with my neighbors and relatives …

      You’re bragging about being inbred????? As to the quality of their food, it is a matter of opinion, nicht wahr?

      The issue here is not what Chick-fil-A’s owner believes (note: the chain does not discriminate.) The issue is CNN falsely attributing a quote to the company president, and the issue is mayors in Chicago and Boston refusing to allow the restaurant into their cities solely because of their thought crimes, their refusal to bend the knee and kiss the politically correct ring.

      Eat where you like, but denying others that right is downright rude; you’ve endorsed discrimination and can now only quibble over who gets to discriminate against whom, and on what basis.

      1. Didn’t reckon it to be. You have long since demonstrated understanding the difference between “It’s not to my taste” and “It sucks.”

  45. Yeah, we could just have civil unions, but look here – it’s already happening, where it’s allowed – that IS what will destroy traditional marriage, because younger people will view it as less scary than marriage, and if they can have the legal benefits with the “freight” of tradition of marriage, they’ll do that.

    HOLY CATFISH! YOU’RE RIGHT! I mean, there was a time when I had an honest-to-goodness phobia about getting married — though I was with someone I wanted to spend the rest of forever with. I got some counseling of a form that was helpful, got over the phobia, and got married (over 20 years now), but if there had been a Civil Union… It probably wouldn’t have triggered my phobia so much, so why push it and get maaaaaaaaaried? YOU ARE TOTALLY RIGHT. O_O

    Also, thank you for the details on the Chick-fil-a thingie. I don’t even know if we have any local ones, and I wouldn’t have gone in them anyway because… I don’t eat chicken or cows. (Or fish. Or insects if I can avoid it; get out of my water glass, you stupid ant!) And places that have “MEAT!” as part of their restaurant chain name tend to be places where I go hungry. 🙂

  46. I love it when people say that The State (capitalized for a reason) shouldn’t be involved in marriage. Epecially since every State currently existing does so. As has every State since the existence of States.

    Funny thing about that also. Until very recently, every state recognized marriage in one of two forms- either one man-one woman, or one man-multiple women. This includes all the non-Christian states such as China and Japan. All the officially atheistic and communist states. Including the ones where homosexuality itself is still a crime. (What? Atheist non-Christian state would criminalize homosexuality? How can that be?!)

    And, from existing evidence, it appears societies which have limited marriage to one man-one woman fare much better in all areas. As far as equal rights for women, much better.

    There is something called wisdom of the ages. When a practice that has endutred across millenia, that exists in every culture in much the same manner, seems to be working, the burden of proof for changing that practice should be upon those who would change it.

    Proponents of same sex marriage have yet to prove that same sex marriage would be beneficial to society.

    If I remember corrrectly from the 1970’s, proponents then of SSM were pushing it in order to destabilize marriage itself, not to legitimize homosexual couplings. One of the goals of communist subversion in non-communist states has always been to destabilize marriage in order to destabilize society in order to make it ripe for revolution. Yet marriage was firmly entrenched in all Communist societies.

    I also remember booklets from that time about how to entice people (read young men) into homosexual relationships. Guess homosexuals then didn’t believe that homosexuality was written into the genes. IMHO, they still don’t, but it makes for a handy justification for their lifestyle, as in, “I just can’t help it, I was born this way.”

    1. Homosexuals, like other people, have great variety. As such they believe a lot of different things. As do we all.

      Yes, every totalitarian state represses homosexuality. Define “does better”? Are singing the praises of the old USSR tovarish? No? Then I would say the data is inconclusive and you’re seeing what you want to see.

      1. I was referring specifically to one man-one woman vs. one man-multiple women. If you see what exists in Sharialand vs. the rest of the world, and cannot see better, you are purposely blind.

        There is yet insufficient data on SSM to define better- but the scarcity of data doesn’t look good, and when pointed out, has led to pressure to fire the professor who dared point it out.

        1. Yes, but if you compare Greece to the other countries of the time they did pretty well.
          Look, I never advocated one man many women. Even the instance in the Bible was not all roses. The thing is we’re ALREADY in radical experiment territory. Marriage has never been a union of equals and at least now it purports to be.
          And don’t, please, talk of the “wisdom of the ages” — America is RADICALLY against the wisdom of the ages.
          As someone has pointed out there are much fewer gay people than people seem to think. Letting them marry would be a ripple. As conservative lesbian has pointed out downthread, most of them won’t even do it. Only concern is lawfare. BUT we have that for all sorts of other stuff — if you don’t believe it look in the womyn’s dept in any college.THAT is separate and must be resolved separately.
          BUT don’t give me the “we can’t survive it and it’s stupid. Never been done before.” Yeah, that Constitution of the United States? Pretty radical document. Will it work out in the long run? Who knows? But so far, best last hope on Earth.

          1. I’m all good with radical experimentation.
            I’m not all good with the government officially sanctioning it.
            America is full of all kinds of failed radical experiments. The Shakers. Jim Jones and followers. Koresh and his followers.

            Koresh is an interesting case. The locals may not have approved of the goings on in his compound, but they left him alone. It was the heavy hand of the Feds, in a liberal democrat administration, that caused the killing.Ironic, isn’t it?
            And I think innumeracy is responsible for a lot of (especially young peoples) support of SSM. As said several times here, the average American thinks about 25% of the population is homosexual, without looking at his or her own experience and thinking, “Wait a minute, one out of every 4 people I went to high school with ISN’T gay. What’s up with that?” The same type of surveys also point out that most Americans think blacks make up 24-30% of the population, when 10-12% is more in line with reality.
            As far as stable multiple partner arrangements among fen, when you are dealing with fen, you’re dealing with a very special self selected sub-set of the population. When you are dealing with people who can define rishathra, and can give examples, you are dealing with people who MIGHT be able to successfully handle a long term multiple partner relationship. For to them, such an arrangement is not exotic. But I am reminded that the story is that the Chinese ideograph for trouble is two women under one roof. Don’t know if that is actually true…
            As for Wisdom of the Ages being a bad thing in America, that’s an interpretation thing. My thoughts are that the founding fathers took the best of what they could from previous examples of governence, and created our founding documents. Nothing in the Constitution or Declaration is completely new; combining it all in one was. Republics? They existed. Elections? They existed. Congresses? They existed. Wait, there is one- Freedom of Speech. That sets us apart. We are the only nation on Earth with no official censor or censorship agency.

            1. As for Wisdom of the Ages being a bad thing in America, that’s an interpretation thing. My thoughts are that the founding fathers took the best of what they could from previous examples of governence, and created our founding documents. Nothing in the Constitution or Declaration is completely new; combining it all in one was. Republics? They existed. Elections? They existed. Congresses? They existed. Wait, there is one- Freedom of Speech. That sets us apart. We are the only nation on Earth with no official censor or censorship agency.

              Locke. Hume. Adam Smith, Edward Gibbon (whose Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire was reportedly a best-seller amongst the Founders.) Arguably, the only new idea the Founders had was expressed in the Presidency.

              Remember, they saw themselves as Englishmen; had King George shared their view they would have gladly stayed within the Commonwealth.

              1. How about the idea that the govenment was subject to the people? I believe that was pretty radical as well.

                1. Heavens yes. BUT more importantly, we take it SERIOUSLY. No other nation does. Not the same way. My mom once said that I worried her. I thought life should follow logical rules and took thought seriously. Writ large, so is the US.

            2. If I recall correctly, the Chinese household had women living with their husband’s family, which tended to result in the mother ruling over the daughter-in-laws.

              While some of these arrangements may have been harmonious, others were likely about as harmonious as my relationship with my mother-in-law.

              I’d be inclined to suspect that interpretation as much as “two wives.” >_>

              1. My complete understanding of Chinese households came from Pearl S. Buck (can’t remember the name of the book… ouch). Also I took a Chinese modern history course from a Chinese professor. About the only thing he mentioned of women in the current culture was that they worked hard and Mao Tse Tung had at least two very young girlfriends (at one time).

            3. I’ve never seen any indication that Koresh was guilty of anything other than (1) bad theology, and (2) failing to finish off the ATF thugs so that he could get the women and children, whom those thugs eventually incinerated, to safety. Granted, the Clinton regime might still have murdered some of them after they left the compound, but they probably wouldn’t have killed all of them.

              1. May I add — stupid linguistics? He thought human was derived from hue-man and therefore wrong. Look, seriously? Yeah, I think we should beat people for bad linguistics but NOT execute them. AND on the beatings? Wymen first! And Herstory users. GRRRRRR.

                1. Unlike MOVE, Koresh posed no threat of gangrene to the surrounding environs. He could have been encysted and starved out; cauterization was excessive.

    2. “I just can’t help it, I was born this way.”

      I gather the same argument applies for alcoholics, con artists and child molesters.

        1. As all the ladies here probably recognize, this same argument has long been popular with young men possessed of wandering hands. Come to think of it, this justification blows all sexual harassment suits out of the water: “Damn straight I pinched her bum; I’m a guy, en’t I?”

      1. Actually, the tendency certainly does. How (and whether) it’s expressed… not so much. Some will act on the tendency even when they know the end result will be them dying horribly. Others… there’s a spectrum.

        1. It is not the tendency I was addressing, it’s acceptance of the tendency as sufficient justification for the behaviour.

          Which is not to express an opinion of the behaviour in question — we each can form our own judgments according to our bents — merely of the quality of argument being put forth.

          1. Oh, for that… I go by “does it cause physical harm to someone or their property?” Very crude and unspiritual of me, I know, but that’s how she goes.

      2. Writers, artists and other non-accounts. And as with gays it varies. Some are telling the truth, some are looking for an excuse. Something people get killed for — in the Middle East for instance — is I’m going to guess not just a matter of “I woke up in the morning and decided to be into dick.” I could be wrong.

    3. The wisdom of the ages? I am not sure that is the best argument for your cause.

      For most of history the ownership of other persons was not only acceptable, but though a wise way of managing things. There are still corners of the world where it remains.

      For most of history it was largely overlooked when members of the lower classes simply opted for co-habitation. They lacked property, so what did it matter?

      For most of history the people did not rule themselves. And of the first two experiments in Republican government in modern times – the USA and France, one was a major disaster, not only for the citizens of their own county, but extended throughout a continent and across an ocean.

      Large parts of the world is still out on what equal rights for woman entails, and if it is, in fact, better.

      I can be a stubborn cuss. Tell me: because; I ask: why? No the onus of proof does not lie solely on those who wish change, although they best give good reason for change. The society which can explain and defend its principles and stands is the stronger for it.

      Whatever, before you take down a societal wall it is best check to see if it is load bearing.

      1. Thank you. I was going to say but it might end being a post that while the USA is founded on ideas known, we’re the only ones who take it seriously.
        Look, guys, you’re natural born citizens, you might not GET this, but even when other countries started aping the US and getting constitutions, none hit upon the same idea of individual rights. AND if they bowed to it, they never really believed it, just tried to figure out how to USE their constitutions to continue as before.
        Guys, guys, I hate to tell you this but this country is exceptional. The only other one I know that took their “founding rule” as seriously was ancient Israel and it was, of course, a theocracy. (Though in many ways we have much the same mind-set in examining ourselves and blaming ourselves FIRST. It’s unknown of among the other nations of the world) Trust me. The US is something new upon the world. And I’m mad in love with it, so I should know.

        1. Many of us have an idea — and some of us say twaddle like “I believe in American exceptionalism, just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism …” in the mistaken belief it makes them sound sophisticated.

          In the movie The Lost Battalion, a “[f]act-based war drama about an American battalion of over 500 men which gets trapped behind enemy lines in the Argonne Forest in October 1918 France during the closing weeks of World War I.” [IMDB], the battle in which the USMC won the nickname teufelhunden the following exchange occurs between the German commander and his American counterpart, between the professional soldier and the civilian in uniform:

          Maj. Prinz: You Americans, you always have so much of everything. No matter. Eventually you have to surrender.
          Lt. Leak: I don’t think so.
          Maj. Prinz: Are you officers so callous? You’re surrounded. You have no chance of relief. Every night you send out patrols, and every night we kill them. We can hear the cries of your wounded Lieutenant. There is no dishonor in surrender.
          Lt. Leak: Maybe for you, but my guys are different.
          Maj. Prinz: What do you mean?
          Lt. Leak: What you’re up against Major, is a bunch of Mick, Pollack, Dago, and Jew boy gangsters from New York City. They’ll never surrender. Never.

          and there is this:

          Maj. Prinz: [speaking German; subtitled] We learned at Chateau-Thierry and Belleau Wood that these Americans are unpredictable. They don’t retreat when they’re supposed to.
          Gen. von Sybel: [in German] How inconsiderate of them, Major.

  47. i am not angry at/with you, i just disagree vehemently 😉
    i am for no civil unions. no common law, no homosexual marriage. just one man, one woman. everybody else, do whatever the hell you want. just don’t look for official sanction.
    man and woman make baby. no marriage=poverty (generalizing! i know, but mostly true)
    yes, i know two wonderful lesbians who have a child by AI, that’s a plan to keep humanity going.
    doubt my revanchist side will win, but pretty sure i am right about human nature and how things will turn out (pretty badly, no matter what we do)
    wish you strength, hope and wisdom.
    God knows we all need them!

  48. Like your post. Good to see there is a backlash brewing over the nasty shenanigans employed by the gay community and their liberal toadies.

    As a lesbian and a conservative, I’m fed up with the whole gay marriage madness. The bully boy tactics and the endless demonizing perpetrated by Gay Inc are disgusting and so very counter-productive.

    I think there are good reasons to support gay marriage but I also believe there are intelligent arguments for defining it as a bond between a man and a woman. But holding such a traditional viewpoint has now been conveniently classified by the gay mob as a ‘hate’ crime and those daring to voice such an opinion are attacked as ‘haters’.

    As to the stabilizing effect of marriage for the gay community….I’m not optimistic about that. The only thing that would help stabilize the gay men’s community is a radical change in their sex-obsessed culture. And as for lesbians…well our little community of women-loving-women indulges in serial monogamy, with women jumping from one partner to another mostly by cheating (adultery?) on their so-called mates.

    Ever since the first so-called boycott against Chick-fil-A, I have been going out of my way to stop there when the fast food craving hits. This is a good company and I have a lot of respect for their CEO.

    (I stumbled upon your blog–glad I did).

    have been going out of my way to stop off there when the craving for fast food hits. This is a solid company and I have a lot of respect for its CEO.

    ere when the craving for fast food hits.

  49. Why do you goons instantly run to the bible in discussions that have nothing to do with religion?

    Because there is no better work of literature (Truth or Fiction, it is great writing) from which to quote? Not even Shakespeare has contributed so many great phrases to the English language. As a source of allusion it is without peer, as rhetoricians have demonstrated (“A house divided can not stand” did not originate with Lincoln) for several hundreds of years.

    1. I really enjoy finding out that a phrase I’d always attributed to The Bard or some such actually started out in the Bible. As to “A house divided can not stand”, didn’t that originate with Charles Ingalls? I think the original quote was “A House On The Prairie Cannot Be Large” or something very close to that.

  50. When the Illinois ACLU says your being stupid in trying to promote SSM this way you know you have gone way over the line.

    They point out the sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander problem that the Chicago Alderman and Mayor’s current action brings about. If its fine for one city to ban a company on their stance against SSM then its fine for a more conservative city to ban for the opposite stance.

      1. I know, I’m just amused at the ACLU being the mild voice of reason for once. I’m more used to them being a shrill voice of edge cases

    1. HERE is why Chicago Mayor Emmanuel is getting into this chickensh:t argument:

      Moody’s revises Cook Cty, Ill. outlook to negative
      July 26 | Fri Jul 27, 2012 3:14am IST
      (Reuters) – Moody’s Investors Service said on Thursday that it revised the outlook on Cook County, Illinois, where Chicago is located, to ‘negative’ from ‘stable’, citing increased unfunded pension liabilities at the close of fiscal 2011.

      1. The current negociations with the Teachers Union over the longer school day Da Mayor was promoting so hard are looking to require a lot more teachers which is a bad thing when the Chicago Public School district already has a yearly budget shortfall in the hundreds of millions of $. That came out just this week as well. The CFL flap drove it off the front page.

  51. I’m only 50 comments into reading this, and have to go, but since there are already around 400 comments y’all obviously need a definite answer; so I’ll state my opinion and end the controversy 🙂

    Marriage is a religious institution, the government needs to get the heck out. If your religion allows same-sex marriages, all well and good. Since the Bible states pretty specifically that homosexuality is a sin and wrong Christian religions don’t (same basic answer for Muslim religions, they just believe it is acceptable to do ‘swordpoint conversions’). The only thing government should be able to regulate about marriages is that they can only be between consenting individuals (since non-consenting marriages are de facto infringements of liberty).

    1. Except, of course, that marriage is not a religious institution in all officially atheist and communist states, but exists, and is regulated by -wait for his- THE STATE! Government is involved, and has been involved, in marriage as an institution anywhere and everywhen there has been a state.

      Saying that government shouldn’t be involved in marriage is indeed a radical statement.

      Before the French Revolution, the Church did indeed regulate marriage. The revolutionaries took that power away from the Church, and gave it to the state. The original intention was to abolish marriage altogether, but that was impractical.

        1. Ah, but see you are equating mating with marriage, we have two different definitions of marriage. Marriage generally involves mating, mating doesn’t necessarily involve marriage.

            1. actually I was talking of “mating” from the biological researcher pov. As in “Certain species mate for life” — or at least for a long time.” Even totalitarian regimes can’t defeat that.

              1. Totalitarian regimes use the granting or denying of legal status to control their populace. Consider the process of getting permission to marry in China. Totalitarian regimes like to keep careful records on their citizens and their associations, the better to control them.

          1. actually they can be damn near mutually exclusive. But I’m not talking “sex” I’m talking as in “Geese mate for life, and not always heterosexually.” (And in THEIR case, they can’t have sex if they’re not male/female. Go figure. Yep, watched a documentary. Male geese trying to have sex look incredibly puzzled as to why it’s not working. THEN they argue. Okay, fine, sue me. I found it ROFL funny.)

            1. Seen this with ducks while in middle school, on science field trip. When one of the kids pointed out that they were both males the teacher tried to explain that only humans make that mistake. You want to talk about ROFL, you should have seen the look on the teachers face as midsentence in explaining this he looked over at what was obviously two drakes attempting the improbable. 🙂

              1. No, this runs in all species where the genders aren’t SUFFICIENTLY different. Like humans. Or cats. (Oh, two of my cats… no, you don’t want to know.)

            2. LOL – that is funny– I don’t know if they ever mate in three-somes, but lately I found a female with two males going around on our ponds.

  52. I was with you until you started talking about how people aren’t the moral equivalent of Hitler if they don’t have the armies to follow through. I’m sorry but that’s ridiculous. Anyone who advocates ‘the final solution’ for any group of people is morally repugnant. And they should be called on it. Forcefully. Because letting things slide is how Hitler got be Hitler in the first place.

    1. I didn’t say they aren’t morally repugnant. BUT they don’t require armies or force to get rid of them and tolerating them exposes people to how repugnant they are. Again, the KKK, say. IF they were forbidden the young and stupid might think they have a point. We tolerate them, they tolerate us, and the truly stupid opinions eventually are exposed. Besides, communists have more of a blood record than the Nazis and we tolerate them — even if their theories are never self-obviously stupid till they cause blood and suffering.

      BUT note this restaurant owner is NOT advocating that. He’s not even refusing not to employ a group of people or serve them (which would be stupid, as well as repugnant.) He’s just using HIS money the way he believes.

    2. From what I understand, he said marriage should be between one woman and one man, for life. Nowhere in that statement did he say gays should be killed, persecuted, drawn and quartered, castrated, or in any other way vilified.

      Of course if he would have said that he wouldn’t serve gays, they would have been trying to get served instead of boycotting. Thus by being contrary, proving they are humans just like the rest of us. 😉

  53. I’m not all that torqued about what 3-4% of the population wants for themselves, as long as they don’t try to push their agenda down my throat as homosexual activists and their cheerleaders in the Mass Media Podpeople Hivemind are intent on doing with the whole, “homosexual behavior is normal and should be endorsed, encouraged and even celebrated by society at large” routine. Nope. By definition, what only 3.4%-3.8% (the other 0.4% is self-identified “transexuals”) do is deviant behavior. Yes, because it deviates not only from the norm but from what is considered normal by over 90% of the rest of the population. Or was until the media onslaught attempting to redefine homosexuality as normal.

    But seriously, what a couple of guys or a couple of gals do in their bedroom is their business… until they want me to be involved.

    Oh, if you’ve noticed that I haven’t referred to homosexuals as “gay” then you may have wondered why. (If you, gentle reader, haven’t wondered and don’t care–or just think I’m a “hater” for some stupid reason–just stop reading now.) I refuse to cede a perfectly useful word to under 4% of the population to own for their exclusive use. I find it detestable that “gay” as referring to homosexual has now supplanted “having or showing a merry, lively mood” as the primary definition in many dictionaries. Just because the tortured, neurotic, though very talented Oscar Wilde referred to a homosexual lifestyle as “gay” we should effectively mangle a perfectly good word?

    Since I refuse to give an inch on this, I can say I am wholeheartedly in favor of gay marriage. In fact, my marriage of 34 years to my Wonder Woman is frequently quite gay.

    (Of course, Joe Sobran dealt with the topic of the misuse of the word “gay” much better than I can.)

    1. David —I am also appalled at what happened to a perfectly good word. The misuse of this word has made me madder than being propositioned. (Yep, it has happened). I too believe that a merry, happy, lively mood has nothing to do with sexuality. 😉 (or maybe I am not doing it right?) lol

      I have homosexual family and friends. I will have to stop using “gay” to describe it. Even better, I would rather just call them my friend “B” and his very good friend “J.”

      Should I call my heterosexual friends, my straight friend “E?” Yep, it is ludicrous.

          1. My first name is Bruce, but as my father and grandfather went by that, they called me Scott to avoid confusion. So…I’m stuck with B.S. McGlasson if I do the SM Stirling thing. If I go the Peter F Hamilton route, I use a name I don’t go by. I could try B. Scott, but that’s still bullshit. I’m partial to just Scott McGlasson…or Zeus, as the latter seems more fitting.

  54. This observation from Mark Steyn indicates the indignation over Chick-fil-A may owe more to Christophobia than Homophilia:

    [W]hen it comes to fighting homophobia on Boston’s Freedom Trail, His Honor is highly selective. As the Boston Herald’s Michael Graham pointed out, Menino is happy to hand out municipal licenses to groups whose most prominent figures call for gays to be put to death. The mayor couldn’t have been more accommodating (including giving them $1.8 million of municipal land) of the new mosque of the Islamic Society of Boston, whose IRS returns listed as one of their seven trustees Yusuf al-Qaradawi. Like President Obama, Imam Qaradawi’s position on gays is in a state of “evolution”: He can’t decide whether to burn them or toss ’em off a cliff. “Some say we should throw them from a high place,” he told Al Jazeera. “Some say we should burn them, and so on. There is disagreement. . . . The important thing is to treat this act as a crime.” Unlike the deplorable Mr. Cathy, Imam Qaradawi is admirably open-minded: There are so many ways to kill homosexuals, why restrict yourself to just one? In Mayor Menino’s Boston, if you take the same view of marriage as President Obama did from 2009 to 2012, he’ll run your homophobic ass out of town. But, if you want to toss those godless sodomites off the John Hancock Tower, he’ll officiate at your ribbon-cutting ceremony.

  55. Now that we have seen “Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day” produce lines as long as the media coverage has been wrong (a number of stores closed early because they ran out of food vs MSM misreporting ((but I repeat myself)) of this as an Anti-gay thing ((which would mean a VAST number of Americans opposing gay marriage)) rather than an Anti-Bullying thing ((which the Left is all FOR when the bullied are gay, but apparently kinda meh about when the bullied are Christians)) and columns by Andrew Klavan and by gays on CNN and in the NY Times in agreement with Sarah’s post that such in-your-face tactics are counterproductive — it is time to salute Sarah for being willing to speak up early in support of gays and opposition to gays’ shooting themselves in their collective foot by acting the bully.

    The thing is, when you endorse bullying so long as you are the bully, not the bullied, it kinda undercuts your moral high ground.

  56. One of the things about any blog discussion of SSm is the anti-Christian bias that shows up, as if being Christian is the only reason to be against SSM.

    It’s not.

    As for the successful homosexual societies of the past, and the countries practicing them today, a point was made. The top is not considered a homosexual. The bottom is what, then? Abused? Taken advantage of? Weak? The culture’s that have ended up being most successful are those that embraced monogamy and heterosex. Notice- ancient Greece culture isn’t around anymore.

    The most Christian thing that Chick-fil-a does is what keeps it out of many malls- a private business decision that the mall operators make. Chick-fil-a’s are not open on Sunday. The Christian sabbath. This is the right of mall operators; it would not be the right of the State.

    Many areas still have Blue laws in effect. I wonder how, with courts being the way they are, that such laws survive, but they do.

    My opinion on blue laws? I think the state should mandate that every retail business be shut for a 36 hour period on the same day of every week. And that business in an area be free to collectively decide what day that is. Maybe some business’s would stagger, and others would close the same day. It would do wonders for the reestablishment of bowling leagues and civic organizations. With the work schedules of today, very little of the workforce has the same day and time off every week; hence, joining and maintaining any kind of relationship with a community group is well nigh impossible.

    I’m posting this only becasue I see others are still posting. I’ve spent the last week camping with an evil homophobic organization, and have missed out on a great deal of blog activity.

    1. On the passive partner in homosexual sex in ancient societies, please remember that the view of them was taken from those society’s view of women. As for no longer being around, their run dwarves ours (which gives me chills sometimes. We’re a heck of an experiment.) Now it could be argued that female liberation is also not bearing that wonderful a fruit, but I don’t want to believe that.

      I agree with you on anti-Christian, but look the problem is not gays being anti-Christian. I have gay friends who aren’t at all, and at least one who is a practicing Christian (and celibate.) It’s not Christians being anti-gay — I have quibbles with organizing society on religious principles regardless of the religion beyond those that can be supported in other ways, not because I’m not religious, but because I think argument from faith convinces no one. Also, because I studied the late middle ages — because good Christians AREN’T. They’re all about despising the sin and loving the sinner. Yes, some gays and some Christians are asshats. It’s a flaw of humanity.

      The problem is that both sides, like women and men, black and white, blue and white collar, rich and poor are being manipulated by Marxists to believe that they hate each other and to engage in battle with each other, so that, by dividing, the Marxists can rule us. And what distresses me is that both sides fall for it. Always. All it takes is a few bad apples and a Marxist media to amplify it all.

      To steal a quip from the other side “What if they gave a culture war and nobody came?”

      As for the blue laws, on THAT I must vehemently disagree with you. Let the businesses which are owned by good Christians close on Sundays. I don’t grudge them that and employees like me who must attend service on Sundays usually prefer working for them. However, if ALL businesses were forced to do that, then when we had small children, two careers and other commitments, we would have been unable to even grocery shop. And if you say I should have stayed home to raise kids — I did. Unfortunately the only thing I could do from home to make money — and we needed it — was to write, and that took an awful lot of time. Also, for a great part of that time we had only one car. Grocery runs, let alone clothing runs, shoe and school supply runs were done on Sunday. If the stores had been closed, we’d have been at a stand. At one time, in fact the kids both got in trouble at school because their hair covered their eyes: before we figured out WHICH places open on Sunday could cut their hair.

  57. You misread. I didn’t say close on Sunday, though many might decide to on that day. I rmember as a kid- stores all closed before 6 PM, and few were open on Sunday. And bowling leagues, once a week bridge parties, VFW meetins, Lion’s Club, Elks- were all well attended. Most are dying slow deaths.

    Some jobs have to be 24/7. Nurses, power plant operators, police and fire. But do ytou really think it would hurt if Wal-Maaart were required to close for 36 hours straight at the same time every week? Or Wegmans. The slow day for Home Depot in my area is Tuesday. Close Monday at 9 PM, reopen Wednesday at 7 AM. Maybe Lowes would get together and do the same- or maybe they’d close Thursday.

    Barbers are traditionally closed on Wednesday, and many still do. One local barber closes on Monday- he takes 2 straight days off. The next town over does Wednesday.

    I frequently shop between midnight and 1 AM. I have one of those 24/7 jobs, 4-midnight, THUR-MON, fixed shift. If Wal-Mart were closed one of those early mornings, I’d have to plan ahead a little better. Or do without milk for breakfast the next day. Or pay more at a convenience store that was open.

    The town I graduated from HS has one store open 24/7- a 7-11. Which, if you recall, was revolutionary when they opened their first stores, for they were open a then unheard of 16 hours a day, from 7 AM to 11 PM. Immediately after they shifted to 24/7/365, the town passed an ordinance requiring all stored to be closed at least 8 hous a day. The 7-11 was graandfathered. Tehy didn’t require the closing be at night- just required the shuttering for 8 hours.

    1. No. I know what you’re saying, but our kids’ school demanded so much cr*p work from us that we HONESTLY couldn’t get to a store during the week. PARTICULARLY the elementary schools. Yes, I think that’s wrong, but that’s the way they’re doing it. (Mind you, if we had to do it over, we’d go homeschool, but hindsight is 20/20 and I’m sure there’s a lot of people like us out there now.)

Comments are closed.