Where Idiotology doth lead, idiots shall follow

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Brace yerself.

"At a certain point, I've just concluded that for me personally it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same-sex couples should be able to get married," Obama said.

So said the current president of the United States.

This comes on the heels of North Carolina voters deciding the marriage is between a man and a woman.

It only took him 3.5 years as president to say something that makes sense. That's a better record than some presidents.

Several things need saying.

IDIOTOLOGY

Earning an advanced degree in Idiotology

The president is a damnocrat. Southern damnocrats are hard boiled on the issue of same gender marriage. They are against it.

Those who share one part of the president's recent ancestry are likewise hard set against same gender attraction.

Now if these voters are to remain true to their beliefs, they will vote against the president come election time. However, as they are more bound to Idiotology (a word I invented), they will support him. It matters not what the candidate says or does, only that he is a damnocrat.

You can just as easily insert the word reboobican in the place of damnocrat and come up with the exact same statements. It happened when Dubya was in office.

RELIGION

A personal relationship. Me and Him. NOT me, you and Him.

The idea that marriage is a union of one man and one woman is Biblical, but is specifically for a man who wishes to formally enter the ministry. The Bible does not specifically prevent a man from having more than one wife. Nor have I found any passage which prevents a wife from having more than one husband.

For that matter, I also ain't found anything that says group marriages are proscribed.

I have found a number of references in which divorce is prohibited by the Bible except in specified circumstances. Circumstances which I note are flouted regularly by the very same people who believe their interpretation of the Bible must apply to everyone.

Why is your interpretation of the Bible correct and mine is not?

STATECRAFT

GO RON PAUL!

A major issue yet to be decided is: Is marriage an institution of state or an institution of religion? Pick one. Under the terms of the Constitution of the United States it has to be one or the other. If religious, government must stay hands off. If state, religion has no place in it.

For myself, part of me continues to wonder why anyone wants independent sanctioning of a decision to spend time with another person and engage in the making of the beast with two backs. Shakespeare said that last bit first so go yell at him if you don't like it.

As an ordained minister I will officiate a marriage of two (or more) people of the same or different genders. I can appreciate the need to make a lasting vow before the Creator of the Universe and friends and family and sealed by a person invested with a smidgen of authority from the Creator. But I don't think it's necessary. If two, or more, people want to declare themselves to be married and they are of age and mental acumen to do so, they do not need my permission. Don't need your permission either. They only need to agree among themselves.

I understand the political ramifications behind a state-sanctioned union. I don't agree with the way the state goes about ordering such unions and affecting such joinings. But I also do not agree with a majority of things government does.