Christians opened the door

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Much to my amusement, Satanists are now a presence in the Orange County, FL school system.

At the same time, I am not sure I like this, but not for the reason you probably suspect.

If the kids are the ones handing out Bibles, religious info and so forth, Cry 'Havoc!', and let slip the dogs of war! If the adults are the ones handing this stuff out, Hey! Lemme show you to the door and if necessary, lemme push you through the door without opening it. I suspect the adults are pushing this, hence my objections.

Here's some 'splainin'.

The most relevant comment in this story: "Greaves made it clear that, in both cases, his organization is only responding to provocations by the Christian community."

Yep. Christians brought this on.


It's that furshlugginer First Amendment again, f'dang it. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

To briefly explain - Public schools receive federal tax dollars. This puts Congress in a position of having some control over the schools. Under that pesky 1st Amendment, public schools cannot say which religion or lack thereof is allowed in school and which are not. Let one in, all come in.

When one religions demands X of government, all religions are entitled to the same treatment. Don't like it, then shup, petition to change the Constitution or move to another country.

So. When Christians (and I am trying to be one) demand prayer, the Bible and etc. in schools, they are opening the door to other religions. This offends many Christians. This also offends many non Christians. Ahem. The right to offend is greater than the right to not be offended.

The solution is simple. No religion at all in school. This offends people as well.

Lemme doubletap this one simply. Take prayer. If you want prayer in school, who is allowed to pray? Christians only!, you say. OK. You gonna let a Catholic recite the rosary? Catholics pray to saints. What if a pentecostal starts speaking in tongues? Ooooo.

Division in the ranks, general!

Anyway, now that other religions are getting access to schools, Christians are getting upset. Cool. Their faith needs some shaking up.

Yassee, this tells me these people are not really Christians. Real Christians know that God has it all in hand and it's going to work out right.

Real Christians don't worry. Real Christians wouldn't worry about Satanists and others getting access to public schools because real Christians know God is allowing it.

Real Christians are also not worried about their faith going toe to toe with other beliefs.

And one last thought - Real Christians don't force their beliefs on anyone.

Aside - Our public school has a voluntary Bible Study class conducted off campus. It's packed with kids and it's privately funded. Should any other group wish to start a religion or non-religion class under the same set of rules, they are welcome to come. Doubt they'll get takers, but der yaggo.

Which is the greater?

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
This is a serious question. Which do you think is the greater crime- rape or shutting down someone's freedom of speech?

We sort of tackled this question in a recent FB discussion. By we, I mean the group of regulars on my page. By sort of, I mean it was addressed in a rather oblique way. I broached the idea of Sharia in the US. That led to a discussion of how Sharia is implemented in the US and then into a discussion of marital rape. MA brought up the First Amendment.

As to why MA brought the First Amendment into a discussion that examined marital rape, ask her. I thought the juxtaposition of the two, whether intended or not, is fascinating. So, lemme ask again:

Which is the greater crime against a person? Rape or stifling free speech?

Are you sure? Is that your final answer?


Rape is an intensely personal offense. It is a violation of another person's body.

Shutting down free speech is an intensely personal offense. It is a violation of another person's mind.

I ask you again, which is more heinous?

I mangle some grammar in this next statement.: According to our Fire Chief BM, the late Sheriff Lamar Whiddon once told him that people who shoot you, beat you and etc., well, you can get over what they do to you. The people who assassinate your character, you can never get over that.

The evil that men do lives after them; the good is oft interred with their bones. William Shakespeare

Look at it this way. Rape is a singular act, even a gang rape. But take a one-on-one rape. If the two people never tell, two people are affected, presuming pregnancy does not result.


In the absence of free speech, that may be all that can ever be done. Two people left to deal with the ramifications.

With free speech, both can tell what happened. This brings more people into the matter. Whether or not the rapist is convicted or even charged with a crime, his reputation is forever marked by more than just the two people involved in the rape. Indeed, that free speech can be used to bring the rapist to judgment. It was not too long ago that rape was a capital punishment crime. But in order to prosecute a crime, the victim must have free speech. Free speech means more people become involved: judge, jury, law enforcement, legal teams, medical people, etc.

Because of free speech, more people must deal with the ramifications of a one-on-one crime.

After I posted this, MAG shot this comment to me "Only one omission from your blog which I believe bears mentioning: rape is also an attack on the mind; not just the body. The effects are long lasting and debilitating even with the presence of free speech to help mitigate the impact of the mental and physical assault."

She's right and Thank You for that!

Lemme also point out the First Amendment. Free speech is Constitutionally codified. Rape is a legislative issue. Yes, there is a very real difference. Changing a legislative law is a matter of getting a majority of the legislative body to agree. Constitutional changes require a far stronger effort.

I am in no way denigrating victims of rape or excusing the attackers. I'm just throwing out something to think about.

That music is just degrading and should be banned

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

With thanks to M.A.

Taking this from the rear and moving forward, banning anything just makes people want it more. The most (un)successful ban I can think of in recent times is The Satantic Verses by Salman Rushdie. When the towelhead terrorists put a death sentence on Rushdie for the book, he packed it off to England and sales of his book skyrocketed. It's still being sold.

Meanwhile, I am trying like mad to get some of my books banned. I can use the money.

Banning stuff is idiotic. People with more sense than me have pointed to Prohibition as the single act that let the Mafia get a hold on American society. The War on Drugs is absolutely not working.

Anyway, some people would like to ban certain types of music because they find it offensive and degrading. Some record labels will put that "WARNING OFFENSIVE LYRICS" on the album cover. A few artists stuck that same label on their recordings in hopes to selling more. Their work was not offensive.

Or was it?

Many years ago, I sat back stage with The Kingston Trio and had a beer while they ate. The gents told me their song "Greenback Dollar" was nearly banned when it was released. Why? Because of the line "I don't give a damn about a Greenback Dollar." When they performed the song on stage that evening, they emphasized the "damn."

Today, the word damn is ubiquitous. Times change.

(C)rap songs today often glorify violence, put women down and brag about breaking the law. This offends a great many people.

Really?

"But I shot a man in Reno just to watch him die."

Pretty graphic. That's also a line from Folsom Prison Blues, recorded in 1955, well before the birth of the current crop of (c)rap performers. Hank sang about crying into his beer.

Today's crop of "country" music glorifies getting drunk, having sex anywhere and everywhere. The First Lady of Country Music sang about jackin' another gal up for messing with her man. She also bragged about birth control, a VERY controversial matter at the time.

The truth is, the most popular music of today is pretty inhumane.

The objections to (c)rap music are because it appears to represent - yeah, I'm going there - the Ferguson riots. In other words, it appears to represent a subculture of America that is resentful and is only waiting for a spark to ignite an inferno to destroy everything. The objection is less about the lyrics and far more about fear.

If you get the chance, watch Fear of a Black Hat. It explains in far more detail what I'm trying to say here.

Myself, I do not like most of what passes for popular music today. That is pop, country, (c)rap, R&B, soul and others I probably don't know about. It's not the lyrics I object to, it is the lack quality music. Learn to play and sing and I'll listen. Gimme old blues, soul, funk, rock and I'm a happy listener.

The Traveling Wall

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
The Traveling Wall, a 3/5ths scale model of the Vietnam Wall in Washington DC is coming to my community Sept. 4-7. As part of this appearance, the crew in the office has produced the official program (a magazine) for this event.

It is the biggest magazine we have ever produced. It is FTP'ing to the printer as this is written. 40 pages, 6,000 copies.

To say this magazine was hard to produce is both a vast overstatement and an understatement.

It's hyperbole because it's a magazine. We produce them regularly. It's no more trouble than putting out a newspaper every week.

It's a serious shortcoming because this one hurt me. Everything about it did. From the front cover to the back cover, pain everywhere.

The two extremes didn't stop there. As this is an official program, I shared galleys with people who are heading up The Wall's visit. SOP for such a magazine.

When I watched veterans look over the pages and some of them cried - yeah, that hurt.

What hurt me the most and what I am most pleased with are the two infographics. It took a half day to produce the two pages. Normally I can do that in an hour. I had to regularly stop and compose myself as the pages came together. Still hurts thinking about it.

•••

For myself, I barely remember Vietnam. My memories of it are very sketchy and are confined to the last few years of that war. I remember one summer in the middle of watermelon season riding to town  for lunch with Billy Joe and Howard and they discussed the atrocities being committed in the war. True or not, I found the stories fascinating.

But.

The names on that wall. Those who did come home shattered and crippled in body, mind and spirit.

I can't know their pain, but I feel it nonetheless.

When The Wall comes, I'll be there. I'm supposed to be a minister counselor for those who visit the wall and need someone to talk to. I don't know if I'll be able to to hold up.

I'm gonna be there.

I will support the men and women who served there. I just hope none of them wind up having to support me.

If you set the rules, don't complain when I play by them

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
The band Nazareth had a 1975 hit which is still played on classic rock stations today. Unlike in 1975, you can actually hear the whole song on terrestrial radio stations today. I refer to, of course, the seminal and repeated lyrics "Now you're messing with a son of a bitch." (I don't think Dan McCafferty was referring to me.)

Blase' by today's standards. Today various people with no talent and even less ability to be coherent are exploiting the ability to record using nothing more than a smartphone to bring us a cacophony of discord that ranges from the truly terrible to sounds that make me want to climb the clock tower with a deer rifle.

This morning while waiting for the cheerleaders to get dressed for pictures, I was ... subjected? tortured? irritated? annoyed? Bah. I can't find the right word. Anyway, I listened to a verbal assault coming from the field house as the boys got ready for morning football practice.

Among the words I did understand were various iterations of MF and the word nigger about every 5 seconds or so. Understand I have zero objections to these kids listening to this stuff. Their practice, their team, their warmup, their sonic assault from the stereo.

But.

I leaned on Purple Haze waiting for the cheerleaders and wondered what would those same boys (and coaches) would do if I suddenly walked in to the field house and my every 5th word was nigger. I didn't really wonder long. I pretty much know what the reaction would be. Hostility.

I also know that if I were famous, had several recordings of the type I mention above and more attitude than I could possibly back up even with the whole football team behind me, I could have walked into the field house and my every 5th word be nigger and they would cheer for me. My skin color, background, personal history and so forth would be irrelevant. Marshall Mathers gets away with it.

I have said, say and will continue to state words do not require special privilege or rights to use. Words should be used by everyone or no one. If you can use it, I can use it. If you truly believe in parity, then you cannot justify allowing some people to use a word and deny that use to others.

If you don't believe in parity, I can deal with that too. But when you complain that I take special privileges for myself and others and deny them to you, expect me to remind you that you set the rules.

In other words: If you set the rules, don't complain when I play by them.

Education, experience and appendix surgery

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

If you insist on getting right down to the absolutely stripped bare fundamental, there are extremely few experts on anything in this world. I know a couple of people who are experts, but they are few and far between.

A lot more people who qualify as expert unless you want to stay particular about the definition. And, of course, there's gajillions of people who are really amazingly good, educated, knowledgeable and experienced.

And then are those people who have a few classes, a year, two, three of experience and they are experts.

You know what I'm talking about. I have fallen into this category way too many times. My attitude gets ahead of my brain sometimes. Perhaps you've been there too.

An expert is a person who has the knowledge and can back it up with experience. To get back to that particular definition, I suggest you have to nearly be a senior citizen to be a true expert. There's always something else to be learned and then put into practice.

Lemme come at this from a different angle. This is what I tell the guys in prison:

You need an operation. Doesn't really matter what kind, but for this one, call it an appendix removal. Fairly straightforward operation, yet complications do arise. You have a choice of people to operate:

Person 1: This guy (generic term for male and female cause it's my column and I get to make my own rules of grammar), has never been to med school, but circumstances placed him in an operating room assisting surgeons. He's gone through a thousand appendix removals.

Person 2: This guy is right out of med school and his internship.  Appendix removals, call it a dozen under supervision.

In the words of Ray Parker Jr,, "Who ya gonna call?"

Ok, you can leave prison now and get back to this column.

In keeping with this column, which of these two is closer to being an expert? Shouldn't be much dissension in the ranks on this one.

The hypocrisy of special privilege with one word

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Read this first.

Now lemme take this point by point.

1)  You know that whole 600 year time period when White Europeans were buying and selling Black Africans as chattel?

Point 1 - I abhor the use of colors to define people. I consider that insulting.

Yeah? And? That was in the past. Furthermore it was the Africans who sold the people of Africa into slavery, as I’m told by historians. Beyond that, slavery as an institution saw all stripes of people so enslaved.

Myself, I prefer to move forward, but if y’all wanna live in the past, eat my dust. Now if you wanna talk about current slavery in Africa, I'm all ears. In fact, if you wanna talk about the history of slavery, I'm still ready for that discussion.

Back on topic, let’s ALSO talk about ancestry. Few people can genuinely claim they do not have people from Africa or Europe in their ancestry for the past few hundred years. The current president is a great example of this. People tell me because he identifies with a "race" of people, then he is of that "race." Really? So if I decide to identify as Ainu, I can be one? Ludicrous? Then pick a side and stay there. If you get to flop around, so do I.

2) No matter how long that conversation goes on in Black communities, though, White people do not get to take part.

Really? F’danging REALLY? People are screaming about equality, justice and treating each other the same and some people want to carve out an exception? Parity don’t live here.  (and if you don’t like my grammar, lemme introduce you to the Don’t Visit My Blog Any More link.)

3) Not Everything Should Be in Bounds to Us as White People

Pick a side. Park your butt there. If you insist in fence jumping, I’mma call you on it every time. We either have parity or we have special privileges.

Me? I do not like special privileges except where there is a demonstrated need. Blind people need Braille books or audio books. People who have lost the use of their legs need wheelchairs or the amazing new electronic bio-devices that let ‘em walk.

Special privileges based on who your ancestors happened to be? If you want such, fine. But I also get to claim that right and, well, when it comes to being treated like a septic tank RECENTLY then I have the trump card. I just ain’t gonna play it unless you back me into a corner.

4) It Is Not, in Fact, a Double Standard – It’s a Standard

This doesn’t merit the dignity of a reply, except some people still do not get it. And someone needs a dictionary.

When you afford one person special treatment and do not give the other person the same opportunity without justifiable reason, It. Is. A. Double. Standard. Ancestry ain’t a justifiable reason, sez me. See No. 3 above.

And as to the wrap in this article I refer to, lemme add I have been known to use the “N” word. I use it as a pejorative. I use it to refer to a person who abandons responsibilities like skipping out on children, refuses to work, demands support from those around him/her without justifiable reason and in general would do humanity a favor if he/she got hit by a train.

ADDENDA: My use of this word is entirely within my own head. No one ever hears me say it in connection to another person or group of people. Like you, I have thoughts that never leave my head. However, in the interest of fairness and full disclosure, I felt this needed saying.

The person's ancestors have no bearing on my use of the word.

I do not use the word in connection with how much melanin a person has OR that person’s recent ancestry. It's ALL about the character of the person.

So, chew on THIS:  I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.

Martin Luther King, Jr.

The last one! HUZZAH! Some questions for same gender marriage Part VI

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

In case you missed yesterday and the days before.


All the court cases I can find, including the landmark SCOTUS decision United States v. Windsor No. 12-307 hinge on equal treatment under the law. The couple in this case were married in Canada. I do have real problems with laws of other countries being enforceable in the United States, but that’s well off topic.

Law. Considering the history of marriage, then law is the right and proper way to consider marriage, a political and economic contract.

Writing a dissent, Justice Alito penned: “Past changes in the understanding of marriage—for example, the gradual ascendance of the idea that romantic love is a prerequisite to marriage— have had far-reaching consequences.“ See previous posts on how love had little to do with marriage.

Emotion, except when it is used to restrict another’s rights for marriage, is not something much discussed in court cases regarding same gender marriage.

So I get to my final point:

Why do you need someone else’s permission to get married if marriage is not about economics and political machinations?

Why is it necessary to have the approval of an outsider over your relationship? Note provisos posted previously.

If you are getting married for economic benefits, then SCOTUS has clearly stated government has the power to regulate this. If you are getting married for political reasons, ditto.

If you are getting married for love, why do you need a government seal of approval?

You don't.

Parity under the law is one thing. Emotion is something entirely different.

If you get married for economics, yep, government has the legal right to step in under SCOTUS decisions. If you get married for love, then government has no right to tell you what to do. If you combine the two, then government has the right under SCOTUS decisions to tell you what to do.

Some questions for same gender marriage Part V

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
In case you missed yesterday.

In Part I of this series, I stated, "Race is a matter of genetics and ancestry. A person cannot choose their ancestors."

 Some of you are now saying to yourself "Don't go there, Baker."

Too late. I've built an entire country there.

Is sexual orientation a fixed matter or is it mutable? I do not know. I've read articles from "authorities" that argue it is fixed and other “authorities” who say it is a matter of choice. Again, I do not know. I can only say SCIENCE! has not made a completely solid case either way.

SCIENCE! has also revealed the homosexual behavior among animals is more common that thought. "Currently, homosexual behavior has been documented in over 450 different animal species worldwide.”  This article also states “Yet another example is lizards of the genus Teiidae, which can copulate with both male and female mates.”

The New Mexico whiptail lizard is a species comprised solely as best we know, of females. “Despite reproducing asexually, and being an all female species, the whiptail still engages in mating behavior with other females of its own species, giving rise to the common nickname ‘lesbian lizards.’ A common theory is that this behavior stimulates ovulation, as those who do not ‘mate’ do not lay eggs,” sez Wikipedia. (yeah, Wiki. I am too lazy to dig out the actual SCIENCE research papers.)

Some of those who vehemently oppose same gender marriage like to point out these unions cannot produce offspring. See above for the contrary. Anyway, let’s just skip right past infertile couples, couples who don’t want kids and etc and point out that excuse is just stoopid. It’s not even worth the dignity of spelling stupid correctly.

What about the argument that even in homosexual animal relationships, the other gender is needed to produce offspring? The whiptail is the one exception breaks a rule. I suspect there are others.

What about hermaphrodite animals? Snails & worms, the rare human. What about sequential hermaphroditism. That’s the natural process of gender-changing in case you wondered. Yes, it is real. Most common in fish.

Biology is not as neat as people would have it. It's messy in far more ways than one.

Part 6 when I remember to post it, after today that is.

Some questions for same gender marriage Part IV

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Re-read or get what you missed here.

To repeat myself, part of the SCOTUS ruling from 1967 bothers me, a lot: "While the state court is no doubt correct in asserting that marriage is a social relation subject to the State's police power..."

Again, this bothers me. A lot. It's my contention that government has only very limited business being involved social relations, if any business whatsoever. Yes, I am a libertarian, so keep reading to let me explain. (break news note - SCOTUS sided this morning with individual rights in the Hobby Lobby case and the unions case HUZZAH! May blog these later).

I object, but not totally. What two or more adults of sufficient mental capacity do to, with, by and for each other is no one's business as long as it is consensual. I point you to NAMBLA (and now my browser history has NAMBLA in it, dammit). I personally believe child molesters, which is what NAMBLA is, should be loaded into a catapult and hurled into a cliff face. So yeah, I can tolerate a tad of government involvement there.

The statement by SCOTUS says government can get involved in marriage. This also bothers me.

I do object to marriages minors to mature adults. I believe this is child abuse and government does have the right to step in to stop this. Where adults are concerned, none of your business unless you’re in the relationship.

“The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual, and cannot be infringed by the State.”

In a statement hat hugely amuses me, the court states, “Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival.”

Really? How is it fundamental? Certainly it is one of the oldest contracts man has. But I do not see how it is a bedrock of human existence.

As for it being a basic civil right, SCOTUS did say “marriage is a social relation subject to the State's police power.” However, the Supremes have never defined concretely marriage. The decisions do point to marriage being a function of the state of economics and not a religious ritual, but this is not a firm statement, rather weighted inference. I remind y’all that for most of humanity’s history, religious authority was also the political authority. Secular government is a recent convention. Theocracy is the history of human government.

Historically, marriage has been a function of rulers. A ruler in this case can be the head of state, a local official or the head of a family. The ruler orders a marriage. Freedom of choice is a new concept where marriage is concerned. Arranged marriages are not made with the thoughts of the two or more people being married in mind. Rather, the people planning that arranged marriage are working on building political ties and fiscal gain.

Fortunately, the court case did put some brakes on government power in marriage.

The court said, “The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual, and cannot be infringed by the State.”

In the case which turned the tide on same gender marriage, United States v. Windsor, the 5-4 majority opinion states “It (the Defense Of Marriage Act which was signed by a Damnocrat president) also forces same-sex couples to live as married for the purpose of state law but unmarried for the purpose of federal law, thus diminishing the stability and predictability of basic personal relations the State has found it proper to acknowledge and protect.”

Why does government need to protect the stability and predictability of basic personal relations? Government is doing a greatly damned horrible job if this is a basic function of government. In regard to this government function, we exist in a river of chaos flowing with anarchy and piled high with islands of well-nigh inexpressibly stupid fascism.

It’s not government’s business to regulate basic personal relations. Anarchy, defined as a total lack of government, is the best option.

I also note the words “marry” and “marriage” do not appear in the Constitution.

More tomorrow if I remember to post.

Some questions for same gender marriage Part III

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Pick up Part II (and the link to Part I) here.

Part of the SCOTUS ruling from 1967 bothers me, a lot.

In the Loving v. Virginia SCOTUS decision, Justice Warren also wrote, "While the state court is no doubt correct in asserting that marriage is a social relation subject to the State's police power..." Where this is elaborated on, it’s always in reference to race.

Much hangs on the word “race” and its variants. Court cases turn on a single word, so the relevance of “race” in this decision has to be fundamental.

SCOTUS makes it clear: “The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual, and cannot be infringed by the State.”

The 14th Amendment: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.  No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

In the Wikipedia article on Loving v. Virginia, the article states: "Before Loving v. Virginia, there had been several cases on the subject of interracial relations. In Pace v. Alabama (1883), the Supreme Court ruled that the conviction of an Alabama couple for interracial sex, affirmed on appeal by the Alabama Supreme Court, did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment. Interracial marital sex was deemed a felony, whereas extramarital sex ("adultery or fornication") was only a misdemeanor. On appeal, the United States Supreme Court ruled that the criminalization of interracial sex was not a violation of the equal protection clause because whites and non-whites were punished in equal measure for the offense of engaging in interracial sex.”

Race is mentioned in the Constitution.

Some questions for same gender marriage Part II

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
In part 1, we looked at two definitive SCOTUS cases on marriage.

I pick up now on the Loving v. Virginia case and your relations with another consenting and mentally capable adult. This case revolves around whether or not interracial marriage is a criminal offense.

I cannot find any examples of a same-gender couple being arrested in the United States on the charge of being in a same-gender marriage. My search was far from exhaustive. I did find an article stating “Texas, like many other states, outright bans issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Any official who issues a license to a same-sex couple can face misdemeanor criminal charges.”  Yes, I understand people are so arrested in other countries, but I don’t live there.

I can find plenty of articles stating certain states do not recognize same gender marriages performed in another state. Refusing to recognize is not the same thing as a criminal offense.

The SCOTUS ruling states basing a criminal offense on race is extremely questionable. “Indeed, two members of this Court have already stated that they cannot conceive of a valid legislative purpose . . . which makes the color of a person's skin the test of whether his conduct is a criminal offense.” and “There is patently no legitimate overriding purpose independent of invidious racial discrimination which justifies this classification.”

Writing for himself in a concurring opinion, J Stewart said, “I have previously expressed the belief that "it is simply not possible for a state law to be valid under our Constitution which makes the criminality of an act depend upon the race of the actor." McLaughlin v. Florida, 379 U.S. 184, 198 (concurring opinion).”

I have to point out race is a matter of genetics and ancestry. More on this in subsequent posts.

Some questions for same gender marriage Part 1

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
This blog goes through six parts. One per day, if I can remember to post each day.

To start, let's run this train back to 1883.

In Pace v. Alabama, SCOTUS ruled that Alabama's anti-miscegenation statute was legal. They were not actually married, but having sex. Extra marital sex was also frowned on at the time, much moreso than today. Adultery was also illegal. At the Jail Museum, we have records of people being criminally charged with adultery and given various sentences.

Later cases upheld this even in the face of the "Cruel and unusual punishment" challenges. In other words, having established that interracial relations was wrong, the court further ruled that since both sides were given the same treatment under the law (HAH! That is bullshit and we all know it), there was no problem.

Now if Mr. Peabody will set the Wayback Machine to 1967... in a somewhat ironically named case, Loving v. Virginia, SCOTUS tossed Pace v. Alabama to the curb. At issue here is race. Writing for the court and the unanimous decision, Justice CJ Warren wrote, "The clear and central purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment was to eliminate all official state sources of invidious racial discrimination in the States."

There's a whole 'nother blog in that phrase "eliminate all official state sources."

In the Loving case, Justice Warren wrote, "Over the years, this Court has consistently repudiated '[d]istinctions between citizens solely because of their ancestry' as being "odious to a free people whose institutions are founded upon the doctrine of equality.'" Indeed, the court had shifted on the topic of race.

Race is a matter of genetics and ancestry. A person cannot choose their ancestors.

In short, no matter your ancestry, the law has to treat you the same as everyone else. What is legal for one is legal for another.

Ancestry is one thing. Sexual orientation is another. For this series, same gender marriage means two or more women, two or more men or any combination as long as at least two are of the same gender and swap bodily fluids. Nitpickers of my definition are invited to slap themselves smart and go away.

[insert string of violent words here]

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Few things make me madder than getting something wrong in the paper. Typos drive me around the bend, yes, but it's nothing compared to what happens when I get a mistake of fact in the paper. Typos are like getting your legs chew by briars when you're in the woods. It comes with the territory. A mistake of fact is like being mauled by a bear. You (or in this case me) screwed up badly because you (me) didn't pay attention, were not prepared, etc etc etc. All. Your (My). Fault.

And yes, it happened this week according to our City Manager.

He says I got a quote wrong in a major story on page 1. I do not doubt him. I thought we had this corrected before the paper went to press. Apparently not.

[insert second string of violent language]

Those who know me will tell you I am

But the great majority of the time, when this image is posted in a FB thread, it's done out of fun. Same thing when I point to the errors in logic in my friend's posts. Some call this trolling. The group of people I've known for nearly 30 years call this bustin' some chops. It's done out of fun.

But sometimes, the post is in earnest. Sometimes when I correct someone's presentation of "facts" it is in earnest.

Folks who know me will also tell you a good way to get my hackles rising is to misquote me. If done for chop bustin' it's OK. But if you do it and mean it, as in you are trying to convince others that is what I said, no.

I also come down incredibly hard on another news outlet in my region of Georgia. This outfit regularly, routinely and pretty much with every story they produce, gets something factually wrong. Every. Time.

So, I misquoted our City Manager in a major news article this week. It's going to bother me for a LONG time to come.

[insert third string of violent language]

The other problem is I don't just publish a newspaper. I publish a history book. Yes, I do. Come to my office, and I can prove it to. Go to our courthouse and I can prove it to you. Real. Books.

So, now that I have made this mistake, it will be recorded in the history book of my community. As John Lee once said when I worked at the Apalachicola Times, it doesn't matter that a correction will appear in the next edition. It's wrong forever. People doing research years from now will not bother to check subsequent editions for corrections. They'll pick the error up and it will go forward and be compounded through the years.

[insert fourth string of violent language]

The stupid is strong in these people

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
We get a couple of fake classifieds a week at the office. It's always someone with poor English skills looking to hire part time help to work from home, give away some dogs, a motorcycle, etc.

It is, of course, a scam. For the business ad, anyone who bites is sent money orders or checks and instructed to deposit the checks, withdraw some cash and wire it to another address. The credit card they would use to pay for the ad is also stolen information. For the others, wire some money to handle shipping. Either way, bye bye money!

They are amusing to read.

Every now and then, I yank some chains and apply for the job. I always give a Post Office as the address because UPS won't deliver there. This throws them into a tizzy about 60 percent of the time.

If I ever do get the fake checks or forged money orders, I just stick 'em in a folder and forget about them until I get an email wondering where the money is. First reply is always I did not get it. This generates a slightly more heated email. Second reply is I have the MO, but have not had time to get to the bank. Now there are threats to involve law enforcement. I pretend to panic. On the 4th email, the swearing starts. I reply I used the money to buy some drugs and ask if they will send more.

Every great once in a while a real winner comes in.

The best one was someone using the TeleType (telephone communications for deaf people) to run a scam. They claimed to have an office at 106 N. Gordon St. My office is 109 N. Gordon St. I really doubted Bob was going to allow anyone else to run a business out of his coin laundromat across the street.

After I discussed the matter at length with the lady doing the interface work, the scammer finally hung up.

Here's the latest one:

Hello How are you doing…Please I want to Place Below AD on your Newspapers and on your website for 2weeks, Please email me back and let me know how to Proceed

ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT
Appointment coordination, Generated reports, invoice documents, Billing Adjustments, Event and meeting planning,setting appointments, send your resume and salary expectations to: js24113@________.com

Jose Sanchez
3**** Stanford Rd 
Ashburn, GA 31714
404-***-0320

Turner County is a small place. But just to be sure, I checked. The 3**** Stanford Road is a field under cultivation. The nearest mail box is half mile away. The phone number is an Atlanta area code, which could be legit considering how cell phones jump all over the nation these days.

A quick Internet search links this number to a variety of scams sent by text message.

But I also used one of my emails to reply to the email, hoping I might eventually be able to trap one of these idiots well enough to catch him or her. Not heard back yet.

Ah the joys of running a community newspaper.