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

Cooper - Krakauer - (Carolyn) Jessop - Toobin

I'm glad I watched the Arizona Attorney General's interview first (Terry Goddard). This interview oscillates between pathetic, to unbelievable to people simply emoting because they did not get their way. They're appalled, stunned, bewildered, blah, blah, blah. The decision was UNANIMOUS folks.

Watch it, then follow the link back and watch the Terry Goddard interview. The key thing AG Goddard says is that the Utah Supreme court decision was right, even though he is "disappointed."

I'm really convinced that a large portion of the behavior of both Arizona and Utah in prosecuting Warren is to protect Elissa Wall. She lied under oath and manufactured evidence She cannot go back to court without being tried (eventually) for perjury. Ok, it's not JUST to protect Elissa Wall, it's also to protect those who offered her as a credible witness and built the world's strangest prosecution around her.

Now go watch the Terry Goddard interview. Another thing, I wouldn't trust Anderson Cooper farther than I could throw him, he's clearly bought in as well. Why does NO ONE ask Jon how he knows about this "tape?" Why is he accepted as "Mr. Expert on the law and everything else under the sun?"

I'm going to repeat what I have said elsewhere. Upon reflection the decision of the Utah Supreme Court was codespeak for the fact that there should have been a directed verdict of "Not Guilty" after the prosecution rested. There was no case. Since the Judge failed to grant that motion, the Utah Supreme Court said that the Jury should have been instructed that what they (the Jury) saw as the prosecution's case was no case at all. The prosecution was trying to peer into Warren's soul, and absent Warren's public confession of what his state of mind was, there simply could be no determination of "Guilty."

More →

Sphere: Related Content

CNN admits in a left handed way, Tea Parties have GRASS ROOTS.

According to CNN, the Tea Party movement has anger, but no "dominant leaders."

Isn't that what a movement is? Isn't that the very definition of "grass roots," provided of course, you delete the word "anger?"

CNN - "Deborah Johns is the angry conscience of the tea party movement.

'Question everything your government is doing,' she tells a crowd of about 100 from the bus's stage in the parking lot of the Winners casino in Winnemucca, Nevada."

More quotes:

"The men and women in our military didn't fight and die for this country for a communist in the White House," she says, and the crowd erupts in a chant of "U-S-A, U-S-A!"

Typical "Dark Mood" stuff:

"The crowd is its own sideshow. Tea partyers are a creative lot, and many in the crowd express themselves by way of their clothing and signs.

'Obamacare Condense Cream of Crap soup' reads a sign in Sparks, Nevada. In Dallas, Texas, a darker mood prevails. A homemade sign with 'Obama Lies' features a bold, black swastika."

Hey, CNN! Could you turn out the lights on your way out? By the way, on occasion, one should be angry. I wouldn't define what you now admit to be truly a grass roots movement, by anger.

More →

Sphere: Related Content