Friday, December 20, 2013

If Marriage Falls in North Dakota, does it Make a Sound?

Breitbart and Rush made mention of the huge plural marriage news this week (Limbaugh even linked us to Duck Dynasty).
CNN took the occasion as a chance to call all the names on their anti plural dance card and trot out the same story they essentially do every time polygamy is in the news. Then there's this take on it, which should sober all of us (yes, monogamy idiots, you're "us" when it comes to "traditional" marriage advocates).
The Western Center for Journalism - "While the 10th Amendment rightly affords individual states the liberty to pass laws as they see fit, such legislation can and does have rippling consequences across the nation. The left’s mission to dismantle traditional marriage represents a prime example." - B. Christopher Agee
The strike-through is mine. Marriage is what it is, or frankly, it deserves to change with the times like car styles, music and whatever else is like the grass. It withers, and the flower fades, but what stands forever?

The left cannot destroy marriage, but it can make it's practice difficult for those who wish to participate. If we want (on the Conservative Christian side of the aisle) to preserve marriage, we're going to have to realize what it is. To the rabid right in the Christian world, I have this to say: You're wrong, and you're doing more to tear down the practice and realization of "Traditional Marriage" than the left by enabling them.

Christian (and to some extent Mormon, maybe even Muslim) practitioners of polygygy (yes, that is the closest word in the dictionary to what we advocate) are on the same side as the Christian Right. Thus since they cannot recognize who their bedfellows actually are, they keep kicking "plygs" out of bed. Hello "Focus on the Family" types, you're bringing down the whole house around our ears.

For a few days earlier this week I thought my prediction regarding the reversal of Brown v. Buhman was premature. But important news like what happened Thursday and Friday of last week, falls by the wayside, and makes no sound.
More →

Sphere: Related Content

Tuesday, December 17, 2013

(UPDATED) A Bisexual Legal Union (Marriage) will occur first in North Dakota?

Hat tip to The Coalition of the Swilling, for alerting me to this article over at Breitbart.
"North Dakota Attorney General Wayne Stenehjem filed a legal opinion last week confirming that the state does not recognize out-of-state same-sex marriages, allowing a man married to another man to come to North Dakota and marry a woman without divorcing his husband."
This of course could also occur with a woman "marrying" a woman, and then going to North Dakota to marry a man. Apparently this can happen right now.
"While many wildly speculated that the legalization of same-sex marriage could lead to polygamy, they probably never thought it would be like this. Presented with a legal hypothetical, Attorney General Stenehjem answered three questions: whether someone in a same-sex marriage in another state can also receive a marriage license to someone of the opposite sex in North Dakota, whether they can file legal documents as 'Single' when they possess a same-sex marriage license in another state, and whether this would open the individual up for prosecution under another state's bigamy laws. The Attorney General's response can be read in full PDF form here."
Silly me, I thought it would be in Vermont. Somebody was thinking. I'll have to find out who. This is really a genius back door way to get where we're going. I wonder how long it will hold up though before the legislature of North Dakota catches up. Coverage is also at "Religion Clause." "Jon's Blog" noticed before the Kody Brown case was decided. See also "Rhymes with Right and Georgia Unfiltered."

More →

Sphere: Related Content

The Legalization of Polygamy

Of late, I have retreated a great deal from public view. Yes, to those of you reading for the first time, this blog and blogger were semi popular once, more semi popular than quite a few local newspapers. Not so much now. I've cut down to very occasionally pointing to other articles, in social media I've cut my list of friends down to less than a tenth of what they were, and I've closed off access to most of the public. I repost memes for the most part, and that's sorta what I'm doing here. I referred yesterday to a post I made over four years ago.

I have to admit this song made an impression on me:
"You start a conversation, you can't even finish it. You're talking a lot, but you're not saying anything. When I have nothing to say, my lips are sealed. Say something once, why say it again?"
It's an alternate lyric or version of the David Byrne/Talking Heads tune "Pyscho Killer." It's not so much that I have become the Psycho "first person" of the song, but I have no desire to be the object of his criticisms. "Say something once, why say it again?" That of course echoes "The Preacher" of scripture who says there's nothing new under the sun and that many books are wearying to the soul.

So I've said it before. The "Preacher" says it has all been said before anyway, and apparently Rod Stewart read Ecclesiastes (I couldn't quote you no Dickens, Shelley or Keats 'cause it's all been said before). Keep in mind I wrote this while I was about as high on the radar screen as I'll probably ever get.
"(W)hy (is it) important to legalize (plural marriage?) It's important to do so because as long as we classify people for tax purposes by marriage status and family size, (for this reason) the state will want formal marriage records. Get rid of our archaic, repressive and invasive tax code, and then talk to me about "marriage being none of the Government's business." Get rid of child molestation legislation tied to age difference, and then too, it won't matter too much whether you're legally married or not, either that or get the government to accept private records as acceptable proof of marriage. Bottom line? These things are almost certainly NOT happening in YOUR lifetimes. So the Government snoop is in bed with you, taxing you more and wanting to at least have a record of how you live."

"Notoriety (mine) that doesn't translate to income is infamy. It may still be infamy with income, but without it, it's just infamy. I'm sure the bum that stands on the same corner everyday on Wall Street is well known after a fashion, but only the Naked Cowboy makes money. I have more in common with the bum. The cowboy, for all his notoriety is not even as notorious as I, in internet terms. I have said I will begin to get negative inquiries. I have now begun to get them. This can't go on forever. Like a popular environmental buzzword, it's not sustainable, not in it's present form. The bum gets hauled off the stage eventually, the Naked Cowboy? He runs for mayor."

"Now is the time to get behind the effort to legalize Polygamy, or not. I only know that if not it looks more and more like I tied myself to the train tracks by getting out in front of an issue. One of the paths to legal polygyny is simply going to a state like Vermont, and trying to register to marry more than one wife, which will initially fail, but may evolve into a successful court challenge."
That opportunity has rolled around again. So who is it going to be? Who will be like Esther and Mordecai and go carve out a place for our people? In this regard, I am playing the role of Mordecai. Which family will be our Esther? Believe me, I'd play both roles if I had the opportunity, but it's not in the cards. I often joke that what I need is a naked (reformed) gal with a Bible and a CDL (which calls to mind a crude but germane Don Imus joke)*. There is no one on the radar screen that would fit the role of Mrs. McBryde II, Mrs. McBryde III or even IV. Ideally (in my mind) it would be a family with no minor children at stake, since the state would eagerly take the children hostage, or perhaps a vengeful former consort might seize some kids because of the inappropriate lifestyle of a former wife or lover. Nevertheless, someone from the Christian side of the plural marriage crowd needs to do it. Not a Mormon, not a Muslim. A Christian family. Who are you?

And somewhere David Byrne's psycho is saying: "AGAIN?!?!"

*FOOTNOTE The point is, that there is no such person. "Naked" is a loose way of referring to something no conservative Christian woman would do which also refers to the majority of them when it comes to plural marriage. "Reformed" is referring to a generally Presbyterian mindset, and again, few if any consider being a second or third wife. Then you pile on top of that they have a CDL, want to drive with me and marry a nearly 60 year old dude? That's a null set. Don Imus made a similar but crude observation regarding all the things women allegedly wanted from men, and if they ever FOUND that guy, they'd better move over because he'd probably be interested. The point being, that was also the aforementioned null set.
More →

Sphere: Related Content

Monday, December 16, 2013

Kody Brown's Victory will be reversed (UPDATED)

That's my prediction, and I hope I'm wrong. Here's why the decision will be reversed on appeal:
The Judiciary is highly politicized and tied to the news cycle. I may have missed it, but the almost complete lack of coverage of Brown v. Buhman in the Broadcast media is the proverbial canary in the mine shaft for decriminalization of Plural Marriage/Polygamy.

There has been nothing (as of this writing) on the "Drudge Report." I checked both CNN & Fox and they were late to the table with both of their stories, and despite the fact that I can't watch every channel all the time, I have tuned in enough to know that coverage on Television and Radio was minimal to non-existent. (UPDATE, Apparently Bill O'Reilly opined, but I can't find the transcript or video, I did find a CNN video complete with "plyg" clichés.) Both the political right and the political left are largely ignoring the story. Democratic/Left leaning media sources have begun to point out that Judge Waddoups was a Bush appointee, this using that sort of backhand to discredit the decision. Rush didn't mention it at all on his show (I've listened MOST of the day) until December 18th, 2013. I'm not waiting to hear what Hannity will (or won't) say before sticking my neck out.

Face it. BIBLICAL plural marriage proponents have no friends on the right OR the left. The media KNOWS that and just signaled to the politicized judiciary that they're not going to be looking when the legal mugging occurs. Please remember there was overwhelming evidence (notice I did not say conclusive) that "informant" Rozita Swinton was probably a plant and a tool of law enforcement. This evidence was never followed by the media, either on the right or the left. Why? My best guess is that the outcome of incarcerating FLDS men was so important to both the left and the right, that no one cared how it was done.

I'm going to say we have exactly the same sort of situation here. Some supposed inconsistency of law is going to be cited on appeal, and Judge Waddoups decision will be reversed. My best guess is that it will be that Kody Brown had no standing. This will turn on the fact that he was never prosecuted for his supposed violation of law which will shove us back into the limbo of Law Enforcement using laws that contain phrases like "purport(ing) to be married" to break down your door, and then never trying the suspect for bigamy/polygamy. They will instead ransack the house, perhaps take any children present, and lever the "suspect" into a plea bargain on something like tax evasion or violations of some housing codes.

I fully realize that the case went ahead and the Judge dismissed the idea of "no standing" on the part of the Brown family as avoidance on the part of the State. I agree with him that it was. I was quite happy to see he swept the state's objection aside and went ahead with the case. I think that's the grounds though, on which the decision will be reversed.

I have qualifiers to my prediction. First it may be reversed on more than one or other grounds. Remember, no one is watching and all the right and left care about is a decision they like. They don't like religious plural marriage/polygyny. It's almost always one man with two or more women. It's not egalitarian. Both the left and the right agree on some version of couples only sexual relationships. Second, if someone comes forward, aggressively and uses this moment as a wedge opportunity, and goes to some place like Vermont or Washington DC and demands multiple marriage certificates/licenses at the same time, it might fan the flame of interest. Why those places? These are jurisdictions that have passed same sex marriage laws through their law making bodies. The idea of personal preference governing marriage practice is written into those laws and they are ripe for a test case.

Christians believing in Plural Marraige are largely Libertarian/Right Wing in their other views. They are hopeless idealists and look for all or nothing solutions.* Just as they won't vote for a McCain or a Romney, they will not be part of any incremental or interim solution that involves part of what they're looking for, and what they're demanding is a total exit on the part of all governments. That's not going to happen.

*Dr. Francis Schaeffer: "(I)f you insist on perfection or nothing, you will always have nothing."
More →

Sphere: Related Content

Saturday, December 14, 2013

(UPDATED) Judge "Decriminalizes" Plural "Marriage" in Utah

I could write a wordy analysis, but this quote says it all, and quite a few of us have been saying something similar, for a while:
From the Salt Lake City Tribune:
"Utah’s bigamy statute technically survived the ruling. However, (Judge) Waddoups took a narrow interpretation of the words 'marry' and 'purports to marry,' meaning that bigamy remains illegal only in the literal sense - when someone fraudulently acquires multiple marriage licences."
Jonathan Turley cites among other things, Lawrence v. Texas. More also at "The Fall of Reynolds." In addition, there is the "Utah Political Capitol" and "The Aquila Report."

The "Volokh Conspiracy" is suddenly "noticing" the overt racism of Reynolds v. Sims/Reynolds v. United States:
"I’m no fan of the collected works of Edward Said, but I thought the Court’s use of Said entirely defensible. As the Court details, 19th-century hostility to polygamy was based, in part, on polygamy’s association with non-white races. As the U.S. Supreme Court wrote in Reynolds v. Sims, 'Polygamy has always been odious among the northern and western nations of Europe, and, until the establishment of the Mormon Church, was almost exclusively a feature of the life of Asiatic and of African people.' Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145, 164 (1879)."

"Simple Justice" adds this observation:
"That Kody Brown, with the adult consent of the women in his life, has chosen a different path than others has no more to do with me than it does with you. He just doesn’t want to go to prison for it, and if everybody living with him is cool with the arrangement, then it’s nobody’s business but theirs."
If the decision is reversed, it's probably going to be based on something having to do with Kody Brown's "lack of standing." It's really the only way out for those that wish to keep plural marriage criminal and at the same time want to posture about and use that "illegality" for political purposes. Kody after all, had been promised he wouldn't be prosecuted prior to his "escape" to Nevada. All the government opponents want is the ability to bust down your door and search for "extant" circumstances, like tax evasion, and to round up your kids. They'll drop the initial charge of "purporting to be married" later.

All anyone remembers after whatever conviction or plea bargain occurs is that the man was arrested for "committing polygamy." That makes the ignorant masses happy.

Other opinions? Professor Stephen Bainbridge echoes Robert Bork (I'm generally a fan) and says we are "We are Slouching Towards Gomorrah."

"Hot Air" concludes the same thing I've been saying for probably a decade, but uses "Lawn Mower" as opposed to an Aardvark:
"But with all that said, while a wildly unpopular position among many conservatives, I still think the government’s hands should be as far away from the entire concept of marriage as possible. The fears that some are expressing over the Brown decision, however, aren’t really related to this question and appear to be unfounded. The court didn’t strike down rules against actual polygamy – the practice of being licensed and married to more than one spouse – but rather laws prohibiting one from saying they are married to additional people. You can say you’re married to your lawn mower, but that doesn’t mean the government is going to recognize it or grant you any benefits based on it."
I would note that "benefit" is for me, one of the biggest swear words in my vocabulary, and infinitely more so when it's attached to "government."

The New York Times hilariously reveals their "anti straight" bias merely via headline, stating that the polygamy law in Utah, has been "weakened." Had Kody been Gay, they would have doubtless trumpeted the huge victory for Gay Marriage. "Business Insider" does see it that way.

The odd interest of ALIPAC makes me wonder if they see it as an avenue to unlimited immigration. "Freepers" aren't exactly thrilled but might want to read "Hot Air" and take a deep breath.

At Breitbart Ken Klukowski points to the incremental slippery slope strategy. It's only the tip of the iceberg folks:
"This lawsuit is the brainchild of Prof. Jonathan Turley at George Washington University. He’s designed a two-step strategy, piggybacking on same-sex marriage: first, decriminalize polygamy, then assert a right to official recognition of polygamy."
Time magazine doesn't seem to think it's a problem for women anymore, including young women, but a problem young men.
"(Time's own) studies suggest that polygamy, when conducted among consenting adults (unlike the kind practiced by Warren Jeffs), is not as harmful to the young women who consent to being a second or third wife as it is to young men. Because the older and more successful men attract most of the wives, there are not enough women for the younger men to marry. In a community that values family above all, this can be devastating and has led to many leaving or being expelled from their homes."
And then they hit on the idea that plural marriage is only practiced in closed gated communities or "compounds." It's not, but beating that dead horse image still serves the purpose of "Anti Pligs." They also ignore the fact that the ruling throws open the door to group marriage and polyandry so it's a complete non sequitur as observations go. Doh!

The lack of comment at Poor Richard's News proves that no one cares. I have one of the two comments at the site, which is about the same as the performance here, and I've retreated to being a blogging nobody. There are some sites with a plethora of comments, but they are all first tier bloggers who chose to comment on the story. I've been scanning Fox and CNN but haven't caught either of them running the story. For this reason (should this trend continue), I will venture to make a prediction, probably by tomorrow.

I figured Al Jazeera would eventually run the story, and they have. Vox Popoli has commented. I always value what's said there, whether I agree or not. In this case though, Vox seems to be advocating a dictator or revolution:
"American society is rapidly slip-sliding away, to the extent that it can even be said to exist at all anymore. One may not be able to legislate morality, but it is becoming eminently clear that one can legislate civilization. And barbarism, for that matter. But we may be past the point where civilization can be legislated; it may have to be imposed."
I guess a King wouldn't have additional consorts and he'd keep us from having them. That's what we have found, right? Leaders, especially the most powerful, always keep their pants on, away from home.

Last but not least of course, the SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the United States) Blog has chimed in with some thoughts:
"The state of Utah, the judge noted, does not prosecute those who engage in cohabitation as an act of adultery — that is, a married person having intimate relations with a person who is not the spouse. The state thus threatens prosecution only for those who cohabit as a religious activity, according to (Waddoups).

The judge said the state has ample authority, under other criminal laws, to protect against crimes such as incest, sexual assault, and rape of a minor.

He thus struck down the cohabitation ban in the bigamy law, finding it intruded upon the free exercise of religion under the First Amendment. In addition, the judge also struck down that section of the law under other constitutional provisions.

Specifically, the judge struck this phrase from the law — 'or cohabits with another person'."
More →

Sphere: Related Content

Thursday, August 29, 2013

It's all been said before

There is nothing new under the sun. With regard to the current Mideast "Crisis." I'll let an actor do the talking.

The Russians are now sending warships. Fred Thompson's character also intoned; ""Somebody messes up, we'll be in the biggest naval battle since the Jutland."

Then there's always Suzanne Sugarbaker:
"Personally, I do not enjoy history. People were always telling me I had to learn it because history repeats itself. I say, if it's gonna repeat itself, why the heck should I pay attention the first time?!"
More →

Sphere: Related Content

Sunday, July 14, 2013

Secret Footage of the Zimmerman Prosecution obtained under the Freedom of Information Act

The prosecution does it's best to spin the Zimmerman Evidence.

In general, I hated the movie, except for this sequence.
More →

Sphere: Related Content

Saturday, July 13, 2013

Not Guilty (Get Over It)

My "used to be a DJ" song dedication to the lynch mob:

Justice HAS been done for Trayvon Martin, AND George Zimmerman. If you don't like it, get over it.
More →

Sphere: Related Content

Friday, July 12, 2013

The Real White Racist take on the Zimmerman Trial

The real racist's reaction in a nutshell (warning, STRONG LANGUAGE):

When all of this Zimmerman Martin stuff started, my instant take on the situation was, "If I was a racist, why would I care?" D. L. Hughley after all, says all white people use the "N" word when they think no one else is around. At that point, I gave up and started to use the word (rhetorically).

Then all this "White Hispanic" nonsense started. I largely saw it as a way of suckering in a misled "Black" or "African American" community into believing that their problems were external. Instead of looking inward they look outward, for the source of their problems. It was all too easy to stir up support.

Only now has the media community on the right started to become vocal about the the observation that President Obama is as "White African" as George Zimmerman is "White Hispanic." Around the house I've been pointing that out for the last five plus years. Oh well, now I can start calling our Fearless Leader "White Chocolate." It's a sort of Darryl Dawkins thing.
More →

Sphere: Related Content

Saturday, April 13, 2013

Mystery Solved?

Is this really it? Look at the before (and after) pictures.

The above? Before.

And after? Take a look:

This is the same part (or parts, DOC and DPF) from my truck.

One picture is taken on March 29th, the other today.

Could it be that the problem that won't go away, my recurring "regeneration" issues that began in January of last year, after my truck was repaired from a near total that very nearly killed or paralyzed me, it was on cockeyed two weeks ago. It was off and back on Wednesday, and now it is as I recall seeing it, most of the time when it was new. At least that's my memory. But which is really the cockeyed installation.

I will find out.

I can tell you that if the excess soot collection seems more likely to occur, in my humble opinion, in those tubes, when they're not on the top of the assembly. Guess what the dealer found in those tubes Wednesday? Lots of soot.
More →

Sphere: Related Content

Wednesday, March 27, 2013

Because it keeps coming up

I am the "Ban" master. I get banned regularly. It's hard to take it seriously anymore. With regard to being banned by Biblical Families, a "pro Christian Plural Marriage" discussion forum, I have the following to offer.
When I was banned, I sent the following to their email address that was for "further information" regarding the "banning." All I said was "As You Wish." I'm a huge fan of the movie, "The Princess Bride," in which the phrase "As You Wish" is eventually revealed as another way of saying "I love you."

I know, I have to be less obscure. Not all folks have seen the Classic.

Mark Cowperthwaite:
"I was going to put you on post approval due to your continued sarcastic and demeaning posts, but as that option was not available I had to ban you for the time being. I would be happy to take the ban off once we get the post approval option working again. I was in the middle of writing to you about this when I had to take care of one of the children who is ill. Let me know if you would like to be reinstated, but if you wish this, every future post will have to be approved by a moderator before it goes on the forums. I understand if this is not agreeable to you."
My Reply:
"Please cite what was sarcastic. Please then show that sarcasm is intrinsically inappropriate. Please show how I was demeaning.

You presume quite a lot Mark.

I have always said you can do as you wish with your forum so please do as you wish. When you communicate with me privately and off the board, drop your presumption and pony up with proof or do not communicate with me. I have no need of your sweeping judgement when you announce it without proof. If you have family issues, by all means attend to them, they come first. If you don't have the time for both tasks I would prioritize my family if I were you. You could always get back to me immediately after you find the time to do so even if that were a year from now.

I do not recall my objecting to your banning me. I would, since you mentioned it and did it, point out that I have asked this be done many times before as a voluntary move on my part but your collective wisdom deemed that you wait until you were angry and felt the need to throw me out in mid conversation. What kind of pathology requires you to wait until you feel the need to say 'get out and stay out' when I've offered to leave peacefully MANY times? It's one of those situations where someone is told 'You can't quit, you're fired.' Please share this with the rest of your moderators."
I was not, nor have I ever been "seeking an occasion" with Biblical Families and it's hierarchy. In truth, it seems that no one can remember why they asked me there in the first place and I've always been at odds with the nebulous management of the group that is ever changing. My personal guess is that at the time I was invited to join, I was considered a bit of a plural marriage heavyweight and you couldn't exactly have a forum like theirs without inviting me. I'm not that heavyweight anymore in terms of public consumption and that's fine by me. I have a church to attend to and that's a very consuming activity. We are growing slowly and I think most of what I do now is going to be seen in later generations if God blesses what I am doing.

I had been on a posting hiatus at BF for over a year and resumed posting when I began to see unedited work of mine distributed publicly at the forum without attribution. In fairness, I had given permission for that to be done with the poster in question as they wished to use the work with reference to their own church leadership. I hadn't expected it to show up in a public forum, but there it was, so I thought I'd return and see how things went. I got into tussles almost immediately, but this time with an entirely different group of moderators.

The two posts were well received when posted by someone else other than myself. That's interesting in view of the fact that it's my work and I've been accused of having all sorts of overtones that are insulting and demeaning when I write publicly. So I'm forced to think the following. I have a reputation. That reputation among the plural believers has always been of a difficult and contentious person. Thus if I say it, it's rude and insulting and sarcastic and demeaning. If someone else says it, even if it's not agreed with, it's not rude and insulting and sarcastic and demeaning.

So be it.
More →

Sphere: Related Content

Here we go!

Instapundit tipped me off to this, but I should be credited (shouldn't I?) for tipping all of you off in advance.
Ted Olson argues for overturning Proposition 8 of California. The Justice is Judge Sonia Sotomayor, an Obama appointee:
Justice Sotomayor - "Mr. Olson, the bottom line that you're being asked, and it is one that I'm interested in the answer: If you say that marriage is a fundamental right, what state restrictions could ever exist? Meaning, what state restrictions with respect to the number of people, with respect to that could get married, the incest laws, the mother and child, assuming that they are the age I can accept that the state has probably an overbearing interest on protecting a child until they're of age to marry, but what's left?"

Ted Olson - "Well, you've said in the cases decided by this court that the polygamy issue, multiple marriages raises questions about exploitation, abuse, patriarchy, issues with respect to taxes, inheritance, child custody, it is an entirely different thing, and if you, if a state prohibits polygamy, it's prohibiting conduct. If it prohibits gay and lesbian citizens from getting married, it is prohibiting their exercise of a right based upon their status."

Olson also said banning gay marriage was 'picking out a group of individuals to deny them the freedom (the court) said is fundamental'." (CNS NEWS)
But what about BISEXUALS I keep asking? Homosexual rights advocates claim they are "homosexuals" on a fundamental and programmed level. They often argue it's genetic. If this is so, what about the bisexual that wishes to engage in the "fundamental right" of marriage with another adult? Isn't their status denied recognition in marriage when they can't also marry another person at the same time? A bisexual, to conduct and realize all of their orientation in marriage needs two marriage partners. A man, and a woman in addition to themselves. Marriage as three. Polygamy!

Notice the bigoted language of Ted Olson saying that the plural married are already in abuse, exploitation and so on.
More →

Sphere: Related Content

Fundies Fear Polygamy more than Gay Marriage

Dr. Andrew Selle (et al) before the Vermont Legislature in 2009.
Covenant Orthodox Presbyterian Church, the sole OPC representative for Vermont, sent an ordained pastor and Ruling Elder to the floor of the Vermont Legislature to testify. He's echoing the "What's Next, POLYGAMY!?" sentiment among conservative Christians all across the country. I thought this was germane since the matter is now before our Supreme Court and the plural friendly Christians of this world are content to let gays and fouled up fundies argue the matter.

Whatever result we get, I'm sure it's not going to help us. They would have had a hard time with King David in the congregation. The way these theological pillars of wisdom talk, they'd have allied with the gays to burn ole Dave and I at the stake, prior to granting the right to civil unions to the homosexuals of this country.

To my plural sympathetic friends: Don't come crying to me when the result (either today or in the future) contains unintended consequences that interfere with your "lifestyle."
More →

Sphere: Related Content

Monday, March 25, 2013

By Georgia! (I think she's got it!)

There is a ray of hope when 23 year old entry level workers see.
Some may have foreseen it what would happen to depositors equity. Indeed a student of the Russian Revolution of the early 1900's Dmitry Medvedev does seem to know. As history repeats itself, the youth now seem to know what the problem really is:

"Why should anyone believe anything this government says?" - Georgia Xenophontos.

Someone needs to get a picture of her now. We're talking poster child for the revolution (if it comes). This could be the face of the awakening.
More →

Sphere: Related Content

Sunday, March 24, 2013

With Regard to "Biblical Families"

You won't have Hugh McBryde to kick around anymore.
You have been permanently banned from this board.

Please contact the Board Administrator for more information.

Reason given for ban: Abusive use of forums

A ban has been issued on your username.
That's all folks.
More →

Sphere: Related Content