Madaleno Deconstructs the Ruling Against Maryland Marriage Equality
Yesterday, the Maryland Court of Appeals issued a 244-page opinion that said the state's ban of same-sex marriage was legal. It would also be OK if the legislature passed a law approving it, but for now it won't be the courts who decide, it has to be the legislature.
You can read the entire ruling HERE. As you can imagine, it's a pretty big file.
Delegate Rich Madaleno sent around an email after the ruling that summarized his disappointment and his criticism of the opinion, and he does know how to put things. I'm just going to paste his whole message here. (I emailed him and asked if was OK, but haven't heard back yet. Rich, let us know if you want us to un-post this.)
Judge Glenn T. Harrell Jr., writing for the majority, said "Our opinion should by no means be read to imply that the General Assembly may not grant and recognize for homosexual persons civil unions or the right to marry a person of the same sex,"
This was a 4-3 vote, and the tide is turning.
You can read the entire ruling HERE. As you can imagine, it's a pretty big file.
Delegate Rich Madaleno sent around an email after the ruling that summarized his disappointment and his criticism of the opinion, and he does know how to put things. I'm just going to paste his whole message here. (I emailed him and asked if was OK, but haven't heard back yet. Rich, let us know if you want us to un-post this.)
As I am sure you have heard by now, today the Maryland Court of Appeals denied equal rights for gay and lesbian couples in our state. While I am disheartened by this decision, I am more incensed by the poor quality of the majority opinion, which relies on several flawed arguments.
The Court held that the current law does not unlawfully discriminate on the basis of sex because it "prohibits equally both men and women from the same conduct." If that argument sounds familiar, it should: it is the same discredited argument that southern racists used to claim that anti-miscegenation laws did not discriminate on the basis of race, because everyone was subject to the same restriction. In fact, Judge Lynne Battaglia noted in her dissent that "In reaching this result, the majority breathes life into the corpse of separate but equal…" The US Supreme Court saw through that twisted logic four decades ago. It is sad that the Maryland Court grasped onto such a discredited argument today.
After reciting a long history of the often-brutal discrimination that gays and lesbians have faced in our society, the Court went out of its way to hold that laws discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation are nevertheless not subject to the same elevated level of scrutiny as those based on race or sex, in part because the gay and lesbian community is not so politically powerless that they constitute a suspect class. Under that reasoning, race and sex should no longer be suspect classes. As General Counsel to the General Assembly, Robert Zarnoch, pointed out in his argument against upholding Judge Murdock's decision, "In Maryland, we have openly gay legislators who, in fact, are legislative powerhouses in leadership." While I and my openly gay colleagues are flattered at the idea of being legislative powerhouses, to say that we as a class are more politically powerful than our African-American or women colleagues is a bit of a stretch.
Another reason that the Court said discrimination against gays and lesbians is constitutionally permissible is that sexual orientation - unlike race or sex - may not be immutable. That's certainly an interesting viewpoint, totally at odds with reality. Do the judges who are in the majority routinely change their sexual orientation? I doubt it. Regardless, we prohibit discrimination - and rightfully so - on other bases that are not at all immutable - religion being chief among them.
Perhaps the worst argument the court used to deny marriage equality was the one that right-wing activists have espoused all along: that marriage is explicitly about procreation. Judge Irma Raker recognized the failed logic in her dissenting opinion, stating that "This disparate treatment of committed same-sex couples, exhibited in a multitude of Maryland laws discussed supra, directly disadvantages the children of same-sex couples, and there is no rational basis to allow such disadvantages when the State's proffered interest is to promote a stable environment for procreation and child rearing. Each child raised in a household headed by a same-sex couple in Maryland needs and is entitled to the same legal protections as a child of married parents." For those of us who are lucky enough to be proud gay and lesbian parents, the idea that the state has less desire to protect our children than those of our heterosexual neighbors is particularly disturbing.
Today, gay and lesbian Marylanders feel a devastating kick in the gut, as the Court blithely writes us out of our own constitution with little or no thought to the impact on real people. Regardless of what the Court says, those of us who are prohibited from civil marriage by the state can attest that we are being denied a fundamental right. And the glee with which this decision will be greeted by anti-gay forces intent on dehumanizing us by denying us the fundamental human right to marry indicates that the reason behind retaining the discriminatory law is animus, and nothing more.
Yet, our struggle does not end with this decision. As the Court makes clear, there are no constitutional barriers to the General Assembly and the Governor taking action on expanding the legal recognition of same-gender couples. I fully expect bills to legalize marriage equality will be introduced next session as well as bills to authorize civil unions and the like. Rest assured, I will be advocating for full marriage equality. However, as a community, we will face a major decision over the next few months as to what we might accept out of the legislative process. I hope you will stay engaged with me and Equality Maryland as the debate unfolds.
I would like to leave you with a comment I read today on the blog www.freestatepolitics.us: "SCREW DESPAIR! It's time for a strong pot of coffee and some political work ethic." Let's get to work and redouble our efforts in Maryland. Make no mistake, we will prevail. Not as soon as you and I had hoped, but it will happen. Please stay involved and let your elected officials know that you want action now that our courts have let us down.
With hope for the future,
Rich Madaleno
Judge Glenn T. Harrell Jr., writing for the majority, said "Our opinion should by no means be read to imply that the General Assembly may not grant and recognize for homosexual persons civil unions or the right to marry a person of the same sex,"
This was a 4-3 vote, and the tide is turning.
posted by JimK at 7:37 AM
37 Comments:
"the tide is turning"
Stop it, Jim. You're killing us. This started off us a fun little news item and you're trying to make it funny. We might bust a gut laughing.
I think this here court will have the final say on that whole MCPS curriculum thing. It shouldn't be necessary to send it on to our Roberts-Alito-Thomas team.
Looks like Maryland is following the rising national trend, along with trend-setters like New York and California, and rejecting the gay agenda.
Here's some plagiarism for Andy's Aunt:
"Maryland’s highest court today upheld a state law that defines marriage as the union of one man and one woman.
Nine gay couples, who had been denied marriage licenses, filed suit with the help of the American Civil Liberties Union, claiming that MARYLAND'S LAW defining marriage as solely between one man and one woman was unconstitutional. A lower court overturned the law in 2006, saying it amounted to “sex discrimination” and violated the state's Equal Rights Amendment. But the Court of Appeals, the state's highest court, SET THE RECORD STRAIGHT.
Jenny Tyree, associate marriage analyst for Focus on the Family Action, called it a SIGNIFICANT decision.
“The Maryland court upheld two important ideas — that the marriage laws do not discriminate, and that procreation is a RATIONAL BASIS for the Legislature to PROTECT MARRIAGE in the state," she said. “It's an especially heartening decision as we see evidence that children do best with a married mom and dad. This decision confirms that marriage is not a legal institution for the purpose of equality; it's a social INSTITUTION WITH CHILDREN AT IT'S HEART."
Thanks for publishing Senator Madaleno's reaction to yesterday's close decision.
Here are some fitting words from Martin Luther King.
"I must confess, my friends, the road ahead will not always be smooth. There will be still rocky places of frustration and meandering points of bewilderment. There will be inevitable setbacks here and there. There will be those moments when the buoyancy of hope will be transformed into the fatigue of despair. Our dreams will sometimes be shattered and our ethereal hopes blasted. We may again with tear-drenched eyes have to stand before the bier of some courageous civil rights worker whose life will be snuffed out by the dastardly acts of bloodthirsty mobs. Difficult and painful as it is, we must walk on in the days ahead with an audacious faith in the future. ... When our days become dreary with low-hovering clouds of despair, and when our nights become darker than a thousand midnights, let us remember that there is a creative force in this universe, working to pull down the gigantic mountains of evil, a power that is able to make a way out of no way and transform dark yesterdays into bright tomorrows. Let us realize the arc of the moral universe is long but it bends toward justice."
Yes, but will the end of that "long arc" look like: a healthy and wholesome society encouraging families or a licentious and hedonistic society encouraging self-focused indulgence?
We're not talking about liberty here, we're talking about what society should encourage.
And thanks to Del. Rich for pointing out the view of the court on whether homosexuality may be a matter of choice:
"Another reason that the Court said discrimination against gays and lesbians is constitutionally permissible is that sexual orientation - unlike race or sex - may not be immutable."
Given this, how do you think they will feel about a curriculum that implies or states that homosexuality is immutable. Do I hear "viewpoint discrimination"?
And you really think the opinions of two retired, septagenarian white men is going to be determinative? Get a life.
And thanks to Del. Rich for pointing out the view of the court on whether homosexuality may be a matter of choice:
"Another reason that the Court said discrimination against gays and lesbians is constitutionally permissible is that sexual orientation - unlike race or sex - may not be immutable."
Given this, how do you think they will feel about a curriculum that implies or states that homosexuality is immutable. Do I hear "viewpoint discrimination"?
And what do you think it says about you, and invertebrates like you, who don’t have the spine to say outright that every gay person on the planet chooses to be attracted to what revolts them the most?
Face it, you’d wage war on the moon if Focus on the Family told you to.
So yes, you do hear “viewpoint discrimination.” The viewpoint of cockroaches is definitely something to be discriminated against.
john, you seem very interested in this "strengthening marriage".
A question for you (and orin, given his interest in the previous post).
Would you be willing to lead by example?
i.e. Would you will willing to sign a legal document stating that you will never get divorced?
Nah, not strong enough. An activist judge would probably overturn that on those phoney lib'ral liberty grounds.
Would you be willing to have your State constitution changed to ban you -- personally -- from ever getting divorced?
(And we do mean ever. Under no circumstances. This, of course, also means re-marriage is not permitted.)
Why/why not?
-----------------
orin, still waiting for your reasoning from months ago (you did promise): how exactly does banning gay couples from getting legally married strengthen any other marriage?
Do you know any married couple this has actually happened to?
Dana Byer, M.D. writes,
And you really think the opinions of two retired, septagenarian white men is going to be determinative? Get a life.
Come now Dana, you can do better than that...can't you?
Orin,
I was only responding to the "invertebrate" from the previous post. Of course I can do better when I have the time. I was pointing out that had these plaintiffs and their children decided to postpone caring for their families as best they could and delayed this suit until after a Democratic Governor replaces these two aging judges (the process begins tomorrow, I believe), then the outcome would have been different.
This change will happen -- the progress made since Vermont approved civil unions back in 2000, under the most repressive regime in American history, has been breathtakingly remarkable. This is cultural change at its best. And several of the bigots on other blogs have commented on just how lucky they've been to escape the last few very close calls. Of course, there is also that little problem of hypocrisy crying out in CA where the people's legislature has now twice called for marriage equality and the intolerant governator has refused to abide by the will of the people. What gives there, Orin? I thought the people should decide. And don't give me any referendum nonsense, since we still live in a republic, not a pure democracy, and those are the rules.
And I do love the comment about "accidental procreation." So that's what marriage is reduced to these days. I doubt you're very proud of that judgment.
oops! writes,
Yes, but will the end of that "long arc" look like: a healthy and wholesome society encouraging families or a licentious and hedonistic society encouraging self-focused indulgence?
Opps, this assessment is too broad and does not take into consideration the role self-absorbed heterosexuals have played in weakening marriage. If heterosexuals had not weakened marriage, placing it in the perilous state that it is now in, I suspect it would be more difficult for those that want to redefine in a way that it has never been...ever.
We're not talking about liberty here, we're talking about what society should encourage.
Exactly, and this is one of those areas that most clearly differentiates liberals from conservatives: liberals are at war with the idea that there should be any normative standards with regards to marriage.
Perhaps the saddest part of all of this is that when they do win, and marriage is redefined, they will discover that their victory is really an illusion.
And thanks to Del. Rich for pointing out the view of the court on whether homosexuality may be a matter of choice:
"Another reason that the Court said discrimination against gays and lesbians is constitutionally permissible is that sexual orientation - unlike race or sex - may not be immutable."
Well, there is that...though science could change that assessment. What will be more difficult to wish away is this (taken from the Washington Post article Jim posted - at the very end of the article),
The court also found that the state has an interest in promoting procreation and that the General Assembly "has not acted wholly unreasonably in granting recognition to the only relationship capable of bearing children traditionally within the marital unit."
Given this, how do you think they will feel about a curriculum that implies or states that homosexuality is immutable. Do I hear "viewpoint discrimination"?
That is possible, but I think still a bit of gamble...
Then Dana writes,
And you really think the opinions of two retired, septagenarian white men is going to be determinative? Get a life.
And I responded by saying,
Come now Dana, you can do better than that...can't you?
To which Dana replies,
I was only responding to the "invertebrate" from the previous post. Of course I can do better when I have the time. I was pointing out that had these plaintiffs and their children decided to postpone caring for their families as best they could and delayed this suit until after a Democratic Governor replaces these two aging judges (the process begins tomorrow, I believe), then the outcome would have been different.
I went back and re-read Opps and found what I would consider minor disagreements (the taunting tone not least among them), but that this poster on the whole had one sentence that in particular stood out,
We're not talking about liberty here, we're talking about what society should encourage.
To which I would modify by stating that we are talking about liberty, just not the kind that it too often gets confused with, i.e. licentiousness, defined as,
1. Lacking moral discipline or ignoring legal restraint, especially in sexual conduct.
2. Having no regard for accepted rules or standards.,
but rather ordered liberty. And yes, there is a difference.
Dana writes,
then the outcome would have been different.
So, what is justice?...something to be determined by some sort of "gaming" strategy?
Then grantdale writes,
john, you seem very interested in this "strengthening marriage".
A question for you (and orin, given his interest in the previous post).
Would you be willing to lead by example?
You bet I would.
i.e. Would you will willing to sign a legal document stating that you will never get divorced?
Never? Even in a clearcut case of abuse? You don't really mean that, do you?
If your proposal were to make it more difficult to get divorced, especially where the care and welfare of children are concerned, then the answer would be YES, I would sign off and support such a proposal. So, I guess I would sign...so, where do I sign?
Nah, not strong enough. An activist judge would probably overturn that on those phoney lib'ral liberty grounds.
Strawman...you forget that there would first need to be plaintiffs, of which there would surely be no shortage...straight, gay or otherwise. Heaven forbid that Society should enforce any responsibility upon adults when they have children in their care.
Would you be willing to have your State constitution changed to ban you -- personally -- from ever getting divorced?
A ban would be over reaching; statutory reform of divorce laws would be the better avenue to thinking this problem.
Though I do recognize what you are up to here: advocates/activists working to redefine marriage (in a way that it has NEVER been, notwithstanding the prodigious efforts of the late John Boswell et al) are not of the same stripe as those seeking to assist those in broken relationships.
Sorry, but the two are not even closely similar.
(And we do mean ever. Under no circumstances. This, of course, also means re-marriage is not permitted.)
As a believing and practicing Catholic I am compelled to work more diligently on making my marriage work and keeping it together. The idea that I have a duty to another human being that I am not able to skate away from the moment I don't feel fulfilled is a good thing for social stability (as social science research has borne out).
Why/why not?
While I have tried to answer your query here, I suspect my answers will forever come up short. Sorry...
orin, still waiting for your reasoning from months ago (you did promise): how exactly does banning gay couples from getting legally married strengthen any other marriage?
Sigh...first Randi and now you...ok, I thought I had answer THAT question (not quite like THAT woman, Miss Lewinsky), but I try yet again to answer it.
Banning same-sex "marriage" strengthens natural marriage in much the same way that banning polygamy (well, mormons call it "plural marriage", LOL...yes, quite so) does: it limits how marriage is defined in a public sense. This in turn strengthens the identity and character of that institution. But, hey, this theory is all a bit abstract, how about a couple of example, culled from religious sociology?
Jews...the jewish people...those Hebrews...how have they managed to maintain their identity as a people, all the while watching other civilizations come and go? Ever thought about that? Jews have managed to maintain their identity (really up until the 2nd half of the 20th century) by stringent rules that define jewish life, their character and identity.
I recall a story told by Michael Medved about when he brought a gentile girlfriend home to meet his parents. He was serious (thinking about marriage)about this girl and made that clear especially to his father. His father was equally clear: I like this girl and I think she is a wonderful person, but IF you marry her, never darken my doorstep. Now this struck Michael Medved as odd and harsh; odd, because his father was hardly an example of one leading a jewish life (so why should he really care if Michael married a gentile) and harsh...well, do I really need to explain that? Still Michael's father understood that in order to preserve their identity as a People, sometimes harsh measures were needed. A group does not maintain their identity by being casual about defending the borders that define their identity.
Mormons...you know, members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (and not to be confused with members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, one of nearly 3 dozen off-shoots from the Brighamite branch). At one time I was a member of the LDS Church; I even served a mission in the early 80's.
When Brigham Young was the President of the LDS Church there was one major measure of religious devotion and faithfulness: the willingness to submit to plural marriage. Part of breaking up the theocratic structure established Young in the Territory of Utah necessarily involved having the federal government force the LDS Church to abandon the practice of polygamy. This was not an easy thing to do because it had become entertwined with their identity as a religious people. But from 1890 to 1902, they were forced to abandon the practice of a core religious principle (I say practice because it is still very much a teaching).
At right about the same time, a food item once considered so essential that it was a staple and required item for every Mormon pioneer crossing the Plains, was banned from use. Here I am talking about coffee...
So, what gives? Well, this is my theory: up until they were forced to abandon the practice of polygamy, it was this practice that binded them together as a people and what gave them so much of their identity. Once that was taken away, something else was needed in order to preserve and defend their identity as a religious people.
When the Word of Wisdom was originally given, it was delivered as "advice" and "counsel", and not as the "commandment" that it now is. Now, without polygamy, another boundary device was needed, and re-interpreting the Word of Wisdom as a commandment fit the bill as a modern way of the LDS Church defining who is, and is not a member in good standing.
I know this from personal experience as well: I recall distinctly that moment in my life when I first started drinking coffee, and then questioning the faith I was raised in. What I so clearly recall is the feeling of loss as left mormonism and became (at first) Agnostic.
Apply this understanding of religious sociology to the present public understanding of marriage today and it should not be too difficult for any but the most obdurate to understand why some of us continue to defend how it is defined at present.
In explaining this I don't for a moment think that many of you will be at all persuaded, but perhaps you will understand such efforts as possibly originating from something a little more noble than crude prejudice.
Then again, maybe not...
Do you know any married couple this has actually happened to?
With regards to easy divorce law, yes, I do know married couples that this has happened to. One couple in particular with two boys...and what is happening with these two boys is sad beyond belief.
Same-sex "marriage" would only further the trend that easier to obtain divorce has done to marriage as a publicly understood social institution. Let's try not to be too narcissistic here and pretend that marriage is just about love and committment of two people to each other.
Orin,
Sorry. You still haven't answered Randi, because you are simply promoting abstract principle with no basis in reality. You don't know any gay couples whose actions happen to strengthen marriage, because their relationships happen to be stronger than many straight relationships. I know them, and their children. You discriminate against them to strengthen your own institution, from which you benefit? That is not justice.
Btw, I'm in a same-sex marriage right now. How does that weaken your own?
As for Michael Medved as a representative of the Jewish people -- please. The man is quite inadequate a representative of us. It's telling that of all the Jews you quote a right-wing blowhard. I'm personally insulted. All you're doing is advocating for in-group solidarity and racial and religious purity, which has led us to Bosnia, Iraq, Brooklyn, etc. Maybe my people have survived this long because of strict separation, or maybe not, but applying that to our free society today is dangerous and doesn't even respect your definition of liberty. By virtue of these stories I would have to infer that you reject inter-racial and inter-ethnic marriage as well. Oh, and our sense of tribal separatism led us to commit multiple acts of genocide over the past three thousand years -- how lovely.
As for procreation, I'm sorry there as well. Procreation technology has irrevocably changed, we're not going back to a strictly limited man on woman regimen, the heterosexuals would not allow it. And, fundamentally, there have been, John Boswell notwithstanding, so many different family units throughout human history, to say nothing of American history, that this fetish for the nuclear family is absolutely ridiculous. Why, even the Jewish people experimented with kibbutz upbringing for a century.
You have no evidence to support your basic argument -- that marriage equality threatens straight marriage. As with the double standard for straight sex, with men rarely demanding from their sons that they take full responsibility for sex, you simply don't want to lay the responsibility on heterosexual individuals, where it belongs. And, yes, if you want to strengthen straight marriage, then require classroom instruction (given by whom, if I may ask?), tighten divorce laws, and ban marriage for pedophiles, other common criminals, and say, those with incomes less than $15,000 annually because they clearly cannot support their children, the primary reason for marriage in the first place.
Here's a fun little story from this morning's Post:
"Senate President Thomas V Mike Miller Jr said yesterday that he would not support legislation to legalize same-sex marriage or civil unions in Maryland, signaling that supporters of gay marriage will face resistance...Miller says he see no reason to change the law..."
So the head Democrat is this supposedly blue state is not signed on to the gay agenda.
This is one of those fun man-bites-dog type of story.
"this fetish for the nuclear family is absolutely ridiculous"
Just as there is no reason to pass a gay civil union law, there is no reason to comment further here.
Thanks for not commenting. It's refreshing.
Mike Miller is a Southern Democrat whose politics on marriage equality mirrors his politics on just about everything else.
Well, pro-family advocates are just glad he's there to stop the anti-family forces determined to undermine the "nuclear family fetish", as these, ahem, creative thinkers like to call it.
He'll be helpful to insure the new nominees to the State Court have a proper perspective too.
A Google search reveals one commentor at Crooked Timber using the phrase "nuclear family fetish," and one description of a TV show about a serial killer with a "nuclear family fetish." Pears to me this apple fellow has a way of making stuff up.
JimK
Actually, it was just a joke on Dana. I never heard anyone call the nuclear family a fetish before the Dr did so earlier today.
I'll try to make my joke s'peaches clearer.
Dana writes,
Sorry. You still haven't answered Randi, because you are simply promoting abstract principle with no basis in reality.
You could be honest and simply admit that you do not agree with my assessment of this issue; instead you choose to deny what most rational people understand to be an answer...even if they do not agree with that answer.
You don't know any gay couples whose actions happen to strengthen marriage, because their relationships happen to be stronger than many straight relationships.
I would not be the least surprised since those relationships certainly involved greater levels of sacrifice and commitment than most heterosexual relationships ever entail. I also know for a fact that some gays want nothing to do with what they consider to be a deeply flawed, heterosexist, oppressive and patriarchal social institution as marriage. So, why the push for marriage?...
I know them, and their children. You discriminate against them to strengthen your own institution, from which you benefit? That is not justice.
Everyone benefits from social stability...even the children of gays.
As to the issue of justice...that will be an issue for the Maryland State legislature to decide. If they decide to allow same-sex "marriage" then those of concerned...no, obsessed with that worst of all possible fetishes, "the nuclear family", will have to abide by the results.
Dana writes,
As for Michael Medved as a representative of the Jewish people -- please. The man is quite inadequate a representative of us.
LOL...do you think he really cares? The fact is that he commands the attention and respect of not only a few jews that take their faith seriously (as opposed to conforming their faith to fit contemporary social and political opinions), but a good many other people of faith.
And finally, again Dana,
Btw, I'm in a same-sex marriage right now. How does that weaken your own?
No man (or woman) is an island...for a group that preens and prides itself in thinking about issues in a broad manner, such a comment of yours as this one only demonstrates how narrow your point of view actually is...sad.
Orin,
Really now.
Let me start by saying that Mike Miller has no influence on whom the Governor chooses for the court. The Governor is not particularly enamored with the man, according to press reports.
Yes, I do not agree with your assessment, but by claiming that any rational person would, you're overstepping yourself and claiming support that doesn't exist. I really do not care for the "tradition" argument, because we have many traditions we jettison when we mature.
You also claim many gay individuals reject marriage for a variety of reasons. No surprise there, since why support an institution that you have been consistently denied access to? But as Andrew Sullivan, a staunch conservative in many matters, has pointed out, gay culture is changing along with the general culture, and what is still routinely manipulated by the right in their denigration of the gay community is brecoming less and less common as the gay community is being mainstreamed. These days I wouldn't be surprised if the percentage of gay people who you might describe as "hedonistic" is smaller than the number of such in the straight population.
And, yes, heterosexual marriage is a deeply flawed patriarchal institution which is in crisis because it hasn't evolved to keep up with women's socioeconomic enfranchisement. I support changes that will strengthen it, for straights as well as gays.
Yes, everyone benefits from social stability, and mariage equality adds to social stability, it doesn't detract from it.
No, Michael Medved doesn't care about what I have to say, nor do I personally care about him. He's does a lousy job in his chosen profession, too.
You're correct -- a "few" Jews respect his comments - very few, as well as other persons of faith who are ignorant and afraid. I'm sure he's pleased to have the support of the "God Hates Fags" crowd.
Tell me, as one example -- do you respect those Jews who continue to dress in the garb of their northern European ancestors, and don't conform their dress to the current social mores? What are you talking about here? The prohibition in Leviticus against gay sex?
My personal anecdote is a counter to your abstract argument about what rational people believe. Why is that sad?
Orin being the disingenous person he is continues to repeat what he knows to be the lie that marriage has "NEVER" included gays.
in some societies marriages between gay men were officially recognized by the state, as in ancient Sparta, and on the Dorian island of Thera.
Much later, in 2nd century Rome, conjugal contracts between men of about the same age were ridiculed but legally binding. Such marriages were blessed by pagan religions, particularly sects of the Mother Goddess Cybele (imported from Asia Minor).
Eusebius of Caesarea, wrote that "Among the Gauls, the young men marry each other (gamountai) with complete freedom. In doing this, they do not incur any reproach or blame, since this is done according to custom amongst them." Bardaisan of Edessa wrote that "In the countries of the north — in the lands of the Germans and those of their neighbors, handsome [noble] young men assume the role of wives [women] towards other men, and they celebrate marriage feasts."
http://www.infopt.demon.co.uk/marriage.htm
A Kiev art museum contains a curious icon from St. Catherine's monastery on Mt. Sinai. It shows two robed Christian saints. Between them is a traditional Roman pronubus (best man) overseeing what in a standard Roman icon would be the wedding of a husband and wife. In the icon, Christ is the pronubus. Only one thing is unusual. The "husband and wife" are in fact two men.
Is the icon suggesting that a homosexual "marriage" is one sanctified by Christ? The very idea seems initially shocking. The full answer comes from other sources about the two men featured, St. Serge and St. Bacchus, two Roman soldiers who became Christian martyrs.
While the pairing of saints, particularly in the early church, was not unusual, the association of these two men was regarded as particularly close. Severus of Antioch in the sixth century explained that "we should not separate in speech [Serge and Bacchus] who were joined in life". More bluntly, in the definitive 10th century Greek account of their lives, St. Serge is openly described as the "sweet companion and lover" of St. Bacchus.
In other words, it confirms what the earlier icon implies, that they were a homosexual couple. Their orientation and relationship was openly accepted by early Christian writers. Furthermore, in an image that to some modern Christian eyes might border on blasphemy, the icon has Christ himself as their pronubus, their best man overseeing their "marriage".
The very idea of a Christian homosexual marriage seems incredible. Yet after a twelve year search of Catholic and Orthodox church archives Yale history professor John Boswell has discovered that a type of Christian homosexual "marriage" did exist as late as the 18th century.
Contrary to myth, Christianity's concept of marriage has not been set in stone since the days of Christ, but has evolved as a concept and as a ritual.
Professor Boswell discovered that in addition to heterosexual marriage ceremonies in ancient church liturgical documents (and clearly separate from other types of non-marital blessings of adopted children or land) were ceremonies called, among other titles, the "Office of Same Sex Union" (10th and 11th century Greek) or the "Order for Uniting Two Men" (11th and 12th century).
These ceremonies had all the contemporary symbols of a marriage: a community gathered in a church, a blessing of the couple before the altar, their right hands joined as at heterosexual marriages, the participation of a priest, the taking of the Eucharist, a wedding banquet afterwards. All of which are shown in contemporary drawings of the same sex union of Byzantine Emperor Basil I (867-886) and his companion John. Such homosexual unions also took place in Ireland in the late 12th / early 13th century, as the chronicler Gerald of Wales (Geraldus Cambrensis) has recorded.
Unions in Pre-Modern Europe lists in detail some same sex union ceremonies found in ancient church liturgical documents. One Greek 13th century "Order for Solemnisation of Same Sex Union", having invoked St. Serge and St. Bacchus, called on God to "vouchsafe unto these Thy servants [N and N] grace to love another and to abide unhated and not cause of scandal all the days of their lives, with the help of the Holy Mother of God and all Thy saints". The ceremony concludes: "And they shall kiss the Holy Gospel and each other, and it shall be concluded". Obviously any ceremony that joins two people who commit to loving each other all their lives and who seal it with a kiss is a marriage.
http://www.libchrist.com/other/homosexual/gaymarriagerite.html
Portions of the actual Catholic same sex marriage ceremony are noted here in red:
http://home.aol.com/DrSwiney/unions.html
Further, native North American tribes celebrated gays as "two-spirited" individuals and held marriage ceremonies between such men living female roles and men in traditional male roles.
In addition check out Gary Leupp's Male Colors: The Construction of Homosexuality in Tokugawa Japan (University of California Press, 1995) in which hr described the msttishrd between samurai males, involving written contracts and sometimes severe punishments for infidelity, in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Check out the literature on the Azande of the southern Sudan, where for centuries warriors bonded, in all legitimacy, with "boy-wives." Or read Marjorie Topley's study of lesbian marriages in Guangdong, China into the early twentieth century. Check out Yale law professor William Eskridge's The Case for Same-Sex Marriage (1996), and other of this scholar's works, replete with many historical examples.
Orin, no matter how much you try to deny reality the fact is there have been same sex marriages throughout history. The idea that people who see same sex love and conceive of the idea of marriage between them and not do so at some point is simply laughable.
Orin said "liberals are at war with the idea that there should be any normative standards with regards to marriage.".
Another outrageous lie. Liberals support the idea that the normative standard of marriage should be two people who love each other more than anyone else joined to support and love each other forever. It is conservatives like you who would prevent such loving, socially beneficially arrangements out of your own bigotry. The fact that you have no problem with murderers and child molesters getting married (just gays) shows you are totally insincere about concern for marriage as an institution - your goal is to oppress and denigrate gays.
Orin also brings up the red herring of procreation. Gays getting married doesn't prevent any one from promoting procreation as much as they want. Banning gays from marriage will not result in one more event of procreation.
Orin asks "So, what is justice?...something to be determined by some sort of "gaming" strategy?".
You really aren't that stupid, are you? Justice is the fair and equal treatment of all in the pursuit of maximizing the benefit and minimizing the problems. There's the difference between liberals and conservatives like you. Liberals want justice for all, including gays, and you want justice just for your in-group.
Orin said "Perhaps the saddest part of all of this is that when they do win, and marriage is redefined, they will discover that their victory is really an illusion.".
LOL, nonsense. We have won in Canada and the victory is complete and wonderful - I cherish and delight in it every day. The marriages of gays in Canada and Masachusetts are no illusion, they are the real thing bringing joy and productivity to gay couples and thus enhancing society for the better of all, including heterosexuals like you.
Grantdale asked "i.e. Would you will willing to sign a legal document stating that you will never get divorced?"
Orin replied "Never? Even in a clearcut case of abuse? You don't really mean that, do you?".
The people who take the bible most serioulsy mean never even in the case of abuse - that's something to be worked out to preserve that which god has joined together never to be torn asunder. You want gays to never have the right to marry, you should never have the right to divorce under any circumstances. That you are unwilling to do so once again underlines you hypocrisy and the "concern" for marriage you use as a facade for your gay animus.
Orin said "A ban [on divorce] would be over reaching; statutory reform of divorce laws would be the better avenue to thinking this problem."
How hypocritical of you - you supported the bans in gay marriages - the same logic is applicable.
Orin said "Banning same-sex "marriage" strengthens natural marriage in much the same way that banning polygamy (well, mormons call it "plural marriage", LOL...yes, quite so) does: it limits how marriage is defined in a public sense."
Nonsense. Limiting marriage doesn't necessarily strengthen it. Marriage was once limited to whites only, and then to non-interracial couples. This did not strengthen marriage and by the same token preventing more people from joining the instituion (gays) does not strengthen the institution, it weakens it. Unlike with polygamy gay marriage does not deprive anyone of a marriage partner whereas when a man marries 10 or 20 women it creates a shortage of marriage partners.
Preventing people from marrying the one they love most does not strengthen the identity of marriage it weakens it. It contradicts the idea that marriage is about marrying the one person you love most to support and benefit each other and society.
Orin said "Jews...how have they managed to maintain their identity as a people, all the while watching other civilizations come and go? Ever thought about that?".
There is nothing saying there identity won't go, and given history it almost certainly will at some point - comings and goings occur on a scale of millenia and that means we are unlikely to see such changes in our lifetimes. There is no reason to believe that the societies we see now are the ones that will always be there.
Orin said "Jews have managed to maintain their identity (really up until the 2nd half of the 20th century) by stringent rules that define jewish life, their character and identity...Michael Medved...IF you marry her, never darken my doorstep...A group does not maintain their identity by being casual about defending the borders that define their identity.".
A totally false analogy. This presumes that if we allow gay marriages gay marriages will take over and people will stop having heterosexual marriages - a patently absurd idea. Sexual orientation is deeply ingrained and heterosexual for the vast majority of people. The idea that people are going to give up their heterosexual marriages because they see gay marriages is laughable - when people see marriage, even when gays can marry, the vast majority of time it will be a heterosexual marriage and that is and will always remain the default assumption as to what people think of when they hear the word marriage.
Laughably, Orin then goes on to give another example that contradicts the points he was trying to make with the Jewish examples. He talks about how polygamy was once essential to the mormon identity and notes that when it was banned the Mormon identity still exists - so much for saying you have to rigidly protect the definition of your identity or it will disappear.
Despite all this dancing Orin has to continued to evade answering the question as to how banning gay marriages strengthens any heterosexual marriage - he has failed to give a specific cause and effect step by step explanation as to how the marriage of any specific gay couple weakens the marriage of any specific heterosexuals marriage. Take your own marriage for example Orin, give us a causal step by step explanation as to how banning gay marriages in any way strengthens your marriage. If you can't demonstrate that gay marriage bans have an effect in the micro (individual) level then you can't expect anyone to believe it has an effect on the macro (societal) level. How about you just admit the obvious - you have no logic at all to back up your baseless, if lengthy, assertions that gay marriage magically keeps men and women apart.
When asked if he knows of any specific couples that have had their marriages strengthened by the ban on gay marriage orin responded "With regards to easy divorce law, yes, I do know married couples that this has happened to"Same-sex "marriage" would only further the trend that easier to obtain divorce has done to marriage as a publicly understood social institution.".
You were asked about the effects of same sex marriage, not divorce law, divorce law has nothing to do with it.
Orin said "Same-sex "marriage" would only further the trend that easier to obtain divorce has done to marriage as a publicly understood social institution.".".
Another worthless unsupported assertion. Once again either give a causal step by step explanation as to how gays marrying results in any heterosexual couple deciding to divorce or admit that it doesn't happen. For god's sakes think about it Orin, are you or any heterosexual couple you know going to be encouraged to divorce because the gay couple down the street gets married?! That's crazy! Once again the absurdity of your unsupported assertions makes it clear that you only bring up these crazy ideas because you need cover for the gay animus that is rapidly becoming socially unacceptable to be open about.
Orin said "You could be honest and simply admit that you do not agree with my assessment of this issue; instead you choose to deny what most rational people understand to be an answer...even if they do not agree with that answer.".
Orin, you have repeatedly refused to give a causal step-by-step explanation as to how any specific gay couple marrying harms any individual heterosexual's marriage. If you can't demonstrate how this would occur on the micro(individual) level it is clear it cannot happen on the macro(societal) level. You have simply gone from a short baseless assertion (gay marriage keeps men and women apart) to a much longer baseless assertion of the same thing. YOU HAVE NOT ANSWERED THE QUESTION. Because you can't. You know it, I know it, well all know it, but you're just too dishonest to admit it.
Orin said "I also know for a fact that some gays want nothing to do with what they consider to be a deeply flawed, heterosexist, oppressive and patriarchal social institution as marriage. So, why the push for marriage?.".
Orin, its clear from such statments that your believes aren't sincere as these are just pathetic excuses. I know for a fact that some straights want nothing to do with what they consider to be a deeply flawed, heterosexist, oppressive and patriarchal social institution as marriage. By your logic we shouldn't allow heterosexuals to get married. Surely if you take a minute even you can see how crazy this is - we don't deprive a couple who wants marriage because some other couple doesn't want marriage. Once again, your excuses are an obvious facade for your desire to deprive gays regardless of what is good, right, and beneficial for society.
Orin said "Everyone benefits from social stability...even the children of gays.".
And given that you argue marriage brings social stability to the children of heterosexuals then it also necessarily follows that it brings social stability to the children of gays. You can't insist that marriage is critical to the children of straights and then deny that the same is true of children of gays. Your dishonesty and hatred couldn't be anymore transparent.
Orin said "As to the issue of justice...that will be an issue for the Maryland State legislature to decide. If they decide to allow same-sex "marriage" then those of concerned...no, obsessed with that worst of all possible fetishes, "the nuclear family", will have to abide by the results.".
You hypocrite. You had no complaints about the courts deciding to strike down the ban on interracial marriage - you weren't squawking that that should have been left up to the legislature. We can see how it works for you - marriage should be decided by the legislature and not the courts, unless you like the decision the courts make. How two-faced.
Orin said "No man (or woman) is an island...for a group that preens and prides itself in thinking about issues in a broad manner, such a comment of yours as this one only demonstrates how narrow your point of view actually is...sad.".
Dana and good people like her want all people to have the same rights. Its people like you who would deprive people not in your in-group of the rights you have, its you who is narrow minded. Its you who tries to deny society equality, fairness, and the maximum number of healthy productive people it can have - that's what's sad.
If marriage is a benefit to heterosexuals and their children it is also necessarily a benefit to gays and their children. The more people we benefit the better it is for society as a whole. There is not one single example of the marriage of a gay couple harming the marriage of any heterosexual couple, in fact as Orin has shown again and again such a process is inconceivable despite his desperation to justify the unjustifiable.
Don't know if anyone read all that but I counted 52 paragraphs from Randi.
Anyway you could condense? This is a blog.
I read every word and you should too.
FYI I just counted 40 paragraphs written by Orin on this thread and I've read every one of them too.
Since Randi was responding to Orin and Anon, the numbers are about right.
Orin,
So, no. You refuse to agree to never get divorced. What, just keeping your options open -- despite the fact this sort of behaviour apparently ruins entire civilisations? How very greedy.
You really do fail to understand one thing in all this: just how strong is my desire is to care for him. And in that, I am not in any way extreme but simply one very ordinary man who is gay.
There is only one secure way to do that, and it's called legal marriage. Despite what you've otherwise claimed, other legal measures are challanged all the time and are never adequate at the very time they are most needed. But that's not a problem for you, of course.
He's worth fighting for, you know. Until I draw my last breath, and I only hope he will be able to stand with me and decide for me at that time.
Exactly who are you fighting for? Nobody: a hypothetical.
Good luck, long term -- you'll need to rely on more than the fear-of-the-unknown to prevail. Might I suggest provoking some anti-gay attitudes -- or are you already relying on them to get you over the line?
Yes, of course you are.
----------------------------
To be repeated until answered or refused:
orin, still waiting for your reasoning from months ago (you did promise): how exactly does banning gay couples from getting legally married strengthen any other marriage?
Do you know any married couple this has actually happened to?
reply#1 [score: 0.5] Q1) if gays can marry... heterosexuals will stop thinking marriage is special, so they won't marry. No basis for that fear is given, therefore not an full answer. Q2) something about heterosexual divorce. Nothing mentioned about heterosexuals having been harmed by gay marriage. Not an answer.
"I read every word and you should too."
I think one could read about an eighth of it and get all the "ideas". Just need someone to clean it up.
Try a tenth!
Orin says:
"Banning same-sex "marriage" strengthens natural marriage in much the same way that banning polygamy (well, mormons call it "plural marriage", LOL...yes, quite so) does: it limits how marriage is defined in a public sense. This in turn strengthens the identity and character of that institution. But, hey, this theory is all a bit abstract, how about a couple of example, culled from religious sociology?"
Ok, well how 'bout some practical comparisons between gay marriage and polygamy?
I seem to recall a synopsis article lying around here somewhere...
So far, libertarians and lifestyle liberals approach polygamy as an individual-choice issue, while cultural conservatives use it as a bloody shirt to wave in the gay-marriage debate. The broad public opposes polygamy but is unsure why. What hardly anyone is doing is thinking about polygamy as social policy…
…Polygyny…is a zero-sum game that skews the marriage market so that some men marry at the expense of others…when one man marries two women, some other man marries no woman. When one man marries three women, two other men don’t marry…
Crime rates tend to be higher in polygynous societies. Worse, “high-sex-ratio societies are governable only by authoritarian regimes capable of suppressing violence at home and exporting it abroad through colonization or war.”
…societies become inherently unstable when sex ratios reach something like 120 males to 100 females… The United States as a whole would reach that ratio if, for example, 5 percent of men took two wives, 3 percent took three wives…
…boys could no longer grow up taking marriage for granted. Many would instead see marriage as a trophy in a sometimes brutal competition for wives.
Same-sex marriage stabilizes individuals, couples, communities and society by extending marriage to many who now lack it. Polygamy destabilizes individuals, couples, communities and society by withdrawing marriage from many who now have it.
___
Practically, and in the sociological sense, polygamy is the opposite of same-sex marriage. Or were you confining your arguments to the purely "religious sociology" sense?
The NYTimes, who has decided to make its content available on-line for free once again, recently published an article about some of the real life problems polygamy has caused in Utah and Arizona.
September 9, 2007
Boys Cast Out by Polygamists Find Help
By ERIK ECKHOLM
ST. GEORGE, Utah — Woodrow Johnson was 15, and by the rules of the polygamous sect in which his family lived, he had a vice that could condemn them to hell: He liked to watch movies.
When his parents discovered his secret stash of DVDs, including the “Die Hard” series and comedies, they burned them and gave him an ultimatum. Stop watching movies, they said, or leave the family and church for good.
With television and the Internet also banned as wicked, along with short-sleeve shirts — a sign of immodesty — and staring at girls, let alone dating them, Woodrow made the wrenching decision to go. And so 10 months ago, with only a seventh-grade education and a suitcase of clothes, he was thrown into an unfamiliar world he had been taught to fear.
Over the last six years, hundreds of teenage boys have been expelled or felt compelled to leave the polygamous settlement that straddles Colorado City, Ariz., and Hildale, Utah.
Disobedience is usually the reason given for expulsion, but former sect members and state legal officials say the exodus of males — the expulsion of girls is rarer — also remedies a huge imbalance in the marriage market. Members of the sect believe that to reach eternal salvation, men are supposed to have at least three wives.
State officials say efforts to help them with shelter, foster care or other services have been frustrated by the boys’ distrust of government and fear of getting their parents into trouble.
But help for the teenagers is improving. In St. George, a nearby city where many of them wind up, two private groups, with state aid, have opened the first residence and center for banished boys. It will offer psychological counseling and advice on things they never learned, like how to write a check or ask a girl out politely, as well as a transitional home for eight who will attend school and work part time.
The polygamous settlement is largely controlled by the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and allies of its jailed prophet, Warren S. Jeffs, who is about to stand trial on charges of sexual exploitation.
Now 16, living with a sympathetic aunt and uncle, Woodrow is one of the luckier boys, though he rarely sees his parents and says, plaintively, “I really miss them.” Some boys end up in unsupervised group rentals they call “butt huts” because of the crowded sleeping, while others live in cars or end up in jail.
Utah officials say they realized the extent of the problem only about four years ago, when they learned that hundreds of boys from the sect were roaming on their own and often in distress. While most have construction skills to help earn a living, few have more than a junior high education.
“The house is a milestone, but it’s just a start,” said Paul Murphy, director of communications and policy for the Utah attorney general’s office who has worked with state and private agencies to muster help. “We’re finally reaching out, but it’s been painfully slow.”
The church settlement is essentially one town crossing the border, a jumble of walled compounds, trailers and farm fields at the base of spectacular red bluffs. Nearly all of the 6,000 residents follow the dictates of Mr. Jeffs, who they believe speaks for God; women wear ankle-length dresses, and children are taught to run away from outsiders.
Mr. Jeffs, 51, is in the Purgatory jail in southern Utah, his trial scheduled to start on Sept. 10 on charges of being an accomplice to rape, for his role in forcing a 14-year-old girl to marry an older cousin. He faces several other sex-related charges in Arizona.
But his allies still control the church, former members say, and teenage boys continue to trickle out of the community, by force or by choice.
“In part it’s an issue of control,” Mr. Murphy said of the harsh rules. But underlying the expulsions, he added, is a mathematical reality. “If you’re going to have plural marriage, you need fewer men,” he said.
Andrew Chatwin, 39, the uncle who took Woodrow in, left the sect 10 years ago. He explained how the expulsions usually happen: “The leaders tell the parents they must stop this kid who is disobeying the faith and Warren Jeffs. So the parents kick him out because otherwise the father could have his wives and whole family taken away.”
The sect, which has smaller outposts in other states, has no ties to the mainstream Mormon church, which outlaws polygamy.
Church leaders refuse to speak to the press, and the mayors of Colorado City and Hildale both declined to comment. Mr. Jeffs’s defense lawyer did not respond to calls or e-mail messages.
With Mr. Jeffs and other polygamists, the authorities in Utah and Arizona have prosecuted sexual crimes, but they have not pursued cases involving the neglect of teenagers, in part, Mr. Murphy said, because the boys invariably refuse to testify.
In April, six banished teenagers who brought what became known as the lost boys suit against church leaders agreed to a settlement in which $250,000 will be used to promote education and emergency support for expelled youths. The money will be raised through selling some of the church’s large property holdings, now in receivership because church officials never appeared in court to defend against this lawsuit and others. The court-appointed agent now controlling the properties also gave each of the plaintiffs three acres of church land.
One plaintiff was Richard Gilbert, now 22. He had to leave Colorado City at 16, he said, when he refused Mr. Jeffs’s order to drop out of the public high school.
“I absolutely believed I was going to hell,” Mr. Gilbert recalled.
For a time, Mr. Gilbert lived in the nearby town of Hurricane, where five boys rented a two-bedroom apartment but had as many as 19 sleeping over. Some boys, he said, had literally been dropped off with nothing but the clothes on their backs.
“A lot of guys go off the deep end,” Mr. Gilbert said. “For me, it meant a ton of alcohol and partying.”
Now he works in construction, has been married for a year and has a child.
Mr. Gilbert estimates that 100 boys from his school class, or 70 percent of them, have been expelled or left on their own accord; there is no way to verify the numbers. “There are a lot of broken-hearted parents, but you question this decision at the risk of your own salvation,” Mr. Gilbert said.
The problem of surplus males worsened in the 1990s when the late prophet Rulon Jeffs, Warren Jeffs’s father, took on dozens of young wives — picking the prettiest, most talented girls, said DeLoy Bateman, a high school teacher who watched it happen.
Warren Jeffs, taking the mantle after his father’s death in 2002, adopted most of his father’s wives and married others, and also began assigning more wives to his trusted church leaders, former members say. Forced departures increased.
Shannon Price, director of the Diversity Foundation, an educational nonprofit group near Salt Lake City, estimates that 500 to 1,000 teenage boys and young men have left Mr. Jeffs’s sect in the last six years, based on the hundreds who have contacted her group and another nonprofit, New Frontiers for Families.
Established by Dan Fischer, a wealthy former sect member, the Diversity Foundation has been a rare source of aid for ejected boys — and girls who have left the sect to avoid polygamy — helping many go to high school and college and raising public awareness about their plight.
The new venture, the eight-bedroom house in St. George, is being run by the two nonprofits with private grants and $95,000 from the Utah Legislature.
The one thing nearly all the boys share is a strong work ethic and experience in construction. But many, moving from total control to total freedom, get in trouble with drugs, alcohol and crime.
“These are kids, and they still need a connection with adults who can nurture them,” said Michelle Benward, clinical director of New Frontiers for Families.
A 21-year-old nicknamed Marc, who is on probation for selling cocaine, has straightened out and now works as a mentor to boys leaving the sect. Marc refused to give his name because he wants to preserve relations with his father, who still believes in Mr. Jeffs despite having been expelled himself. Marc described how abruptly his world shattered in 2004, when he was 17.
“I was a good boy, working 13-hour days,” he said. But he had been raising questions, especially after his father’s four wives were assigned to other husbands. Then Marc got caught driving to a nearby town to watch a movie.
One evening as he was making a chicken sandwich, he recalled, “My two older brothers came and said that because I’d gone to the movies, Warren said I’m out.”
“I went into my bedroom and my mother was already packing my things, and crying,” he said. “That night they drove me to a relative’s home in St. George.”
The Blob said "Don't know if anyone read all that but I counted 52 paragraphs from Randi.
Anyway you could condense? This is a blog."
Given that Orin wrote 40 paragraphs and that I need to quote what he wrote to respond to it my post was condensed. Quoting and responding to everything he wrote would take at least 80 paragraphs, I stuck to only the most egregious distortions and lies by Orin. You don't like it, then don't read it. No one's twisting your arm to read my post.
Well, I think you could keep it down, Randi. Maybe you could get some help. Join Ramblers Anonymous.
Really. What part do you think could have been left out without failing to respond to Orin's lies?
Don't know. Didn't read it.
Well, then you're not in a position to know whether or not I could have kept it down.
Randi, this is a blog. If you have that much to say, write an article and get it peer-reviewed.
No, I won't
Quest of the Pest said "this is a blog. If you have that much to say, write an article and get it peer-reviewed."
This provides an excellent demonstration of delusions of grandeur. As all readers here know, JimK decides which posts stay and go. Pest can get his refresher course by reading all 10 paragraphs that explain to TTF blog readers Morons Comments Will Be Deleted."
Post a Comment
<< Home