The owner of a bakery in Lakewood said he will no longer sell wedding cakes after the Colorado Civil Rights Commission ruled he did discriminate against a gay couple when he refused to sell them a cake.
Jack Phillips owns Masterpiece Cakeshop. In 2012, David Mullins and Charlie Craig went to the shop to order a cake for their upcoming wedding reception. They planned to marry in Massachusetts and have a reception in Colorado.
(read more)
373 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 373 of 373Where is CL to explain prior shart?
Fortunately, online translation programs are in the public domain.
Oh, but saccharine German poetry is all public domain. But I understand that there are EU regulations detailing the permissible designs, sizes, and contents of gay wedding cakes.
That's correct.
The top groom must wear a condom.
See, none of this would have happened if we had been living in the EU. It's this damned American cowboy culture that causes all this trouble. The Germans have very sensible regulations about baked goods that have been incorporated into EU law.
But it probably can't be answered, because the algorithm for freedom of association is patented.
That must have been before in re Bilski. Abstract business methods are no longer patentable and applications are subject to much more screwtiny. But don't take it as gospel -- I'm just remembering stuff from a previous life.
Beautiful poem, TT Burnett!
Sixty Grit said...
Where is CL to explain prior shart?
Ah, so you do still read TY.
Baked in, one might say. Gebacken.
Even a transparent comment does not escape the attention of the ever vigilant Sooper Chicken!
"E-U" is the sentiment that got that baker in trouble.
So, the last word possibly being forever, I will say, Gute Nacht!
LOL, Chip!
Chip S. said...
Fortunately, online translation programs are in the public domain
They still choke on elision.
Weltrusten, Tim!
I don't join in on beating up on Meade and Ann,..
It does feel like hippy punching sometimes, and usually my hand feels coated in metaphorical goo afterwards. I'm trying avoid it there, but I still indulge in it sua sponte here.
but Father Fox makes some pretty good points,..
As per usual. And I understand why he came to not feel welcome there. There is a list a mile long of fellow travelers.
Apparently the Denver baker also refuses to bake cakes for Halloween and bachelor parties. Isn't that discriminating against Wiccans and unmarried males, and thus a violation of their civil rights? Do they have a case?
No.
Only the gays have rights these days.
Get used to it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=abcj6kSkO1A
Laurence Meade demonstates his own bigotry by calling other people's beliefs bigoted because those beliefs aren't exactly what Laurence Meade thinks they should be.
Because coexist.
And his "wife" voted for this mess. Twice. You must be very proud to be part of the oppressors.
Isn't it about time that you pledge to give some money, that is not yours, to Lem or some other layabout minority? Or are you still drunk and forgot what your next predictable move is?
Michael,
I tolerate even your right to hold religious beliefs of intolerance toward those who hold opinions different from your own. What I won't accept is your attempt to deny them legal rights you reserve only for yourself and those who share your beliefs.
"Because coexist."
Sarcasm? Toward a concept that is at the very heart of American exceptionalism — liberty, egalitarianism, individualism, live-and-let-live?
And you call yourself a conservative?
Soon they will come into churches and demand the sacrament of marriage be given to same sex couples in violation of doctrine and deeply held religious belief.
The government is imposing the beliefs of the politically correct on all of us. No cake shop is so small that they will not try to control or destroy it.
...but enough about Meade.
That is funny and apt Sixty.
The goal of these people is to come where they are not wanted to sow discord. They will reveal peoples names to attempt to hurt them. To get them to lose their jobs like the Modzilla guy. Try to destroy or lose their businesses if they do not knuckle under to their dictates. Like the Duck Dynasty and those real estate dudes.
They are the ones who are forcing their corruption and perversity on anyone they can damage. All the while proclaiming their innocence and good intentions.
Sixty Grit said ...
...but enough about Meade.
Oh me or my, pray tell how we'd know out place if not for the drive-by flatulence of our betters?
Meade:
Your notions that:
> Believing same-sex behavior to be immoral is "bigotry"; and
> Opposing redefining the indefinitely ancient understanding of marriage as heterosexual is "oppression";
Are astounding either in their thoughtlessness or in their malice. You've declared all ancient forms of Christianity to be bigotry, excepting only the modernist variations that are, even now, collapsing.
Holding marriage to be essentially heterosexual = "oppression"? Says who? You? Who appointed you to make these declarations? The hubris is risible. And incoherent.
And none of this can seriously be called "conservative." Conservatism, as a intellectual and political movement, even in this country, has always been -- as the name implies -- about conserving something. And if you have done any reading in conservative thought, you know it's always been rooted in Judeo-Christian religion, even where adherents themselves weren't Jewish or Christian. That is to say, they knew where the ideas sprang from.
If you're going to hijack the term "conservative," at least own up to that.
"The sin of gayness."
Who claims having same-sex attraction itself is a sin?
I am not denying there may be folks who do; but as far as I know, Christians who talk about sin in this area, talk about actions, not orientation.
If you're going to call people bigots, you might have the sense to aim with some care.
Meade said…
What I won't accept is your attempt to deny them legal rights you reserve only for yourself and those who share your beliefs.
While I'm not a law prof, I do have the ability to read the constitution. The relevant part seems to be the 14th amendment. People who argue that there's a right to marry invoke the "privileges and immunities" clause, but they neglect the explicit protection of the right to property reiterates the 5th amendment):
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 to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Seems to me that compelling a baker to provide wedding cakes at ceremonies that clash w/ his religious beliefs deprives him of his right to property. The Lockean argument that "life, liberty, and property" are the essential and natural rights of mankind was known and embraced by the founders.
A "right to marry" would have to fall under the right to liberty in order to be on a par w/ the right to property. Since this was not argued by Locke, nor by Jefferson or any other members of the constitutional convention (whereas they did argue about slavery), it seems to me that the burden of proof in this argument falls on those who would restrict this baker's use of his property.
The baker may also be losing his 1st amendment right to the "free exercise of religion", as has already been argued here and remains unrebutted. (Denunciations of "intolerance" beg the question.)
If we view the baker's refusal to provide the cake as a form of protest against gay marriage, then he is also being deprived of his 1st-amendment right to "the freedom of speech".
(Can't type today. Need more coffee.)
Chip S:
I think the advocates of redefining marriage lean heavily on the "equal protection" clause. However, they tend to skip quickly past the question of whether the things they want protected equally are, in fact, equal.
In other words, is a "same sex marriage" essentially the same thing as heterosexual marriage?
Here, too, I'd argue the burden of proof falls on those who say yes. But it's hardly self-evident.
It shouldn't necessary to point out the obvious, but alas... "Same sex marriage" lacks complementarity and it lacks any potential of procreation, and -- this point is often overlooked -- it also lacks any similitude to relationships that have the potential of procreation. I.e., this is why there has never been a problem with marriage between heterosexuals when one or both was clearly sterile. It's what adoption aimed at: similitude with the family of origin.
...Unless the argument simply is, because same-sex attracted people themselves are equal to heterosexual people, then they are entitled to have everything heterosexual normally can have...i.e., state-validated marriage.
It occurs to me that's the argument, nonsensical though it is.
Fr Martin Fox said...
> Opposing redefining the indefinitely ancient understanding of marriage as heterosexual is "oppression";
Martin,
Yes, oppression.
"The federal statute [DOMA] is invalid, for no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and to injure those whom the State, by its marriage laws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity. By seeking to displace this protection and treating those persons as living in marriages less respected than others, the federal statute is in violation of the Fifth Amendment."
Chip,
I'm not a law professor either but I too can read the constitution and I can read Supreme Court decisions.
Let me see if I can help you get on the right track: In United States v. Windsor the Supreme Court made an Equal Protection analysis of the Due Process Clause in the Fifth Amendment.
Now read Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). Section 3 is unconstitutional under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
As for this cake baker, you said,
"The baker may also be losing his 1st amendment right[...]"
He may well be. I don't have a strong point of view either way. Sometime this month, I think, the Court is expected to come out with its decision in the Hobby Lobby case. I hope that will help illuminate the issue for the cake baker and all Americans.
There are two separate issues, which my earlier comment mixed together--the right to marry and the right to determine the use of one's own property (most especially one's own labor).
Obviously, w/o gay weddings there are no gay wedding cakes, so the two are tied. But it's probably better to keep the two issues separate.
Wrt the right to marry, the key case of Loving v. Virginia only determined that race was not a sufficient basis for determining the extent of a "right to marry." Earl Warren said:
Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law.
This seems pretty clearly to imply that there are "supportable bases" for determining the rules governing marriage. And the "principle of equality at the heart" of the 14th amendment is, of course, the equality of people of all races. Period, as some like to say.
I'll also point out that when the 9th circuit court overturned Prop 8, it explicitly rejected Vaughn Walker's citation of Loving as a precedent, instead relying on a tortured bit of legal gymnastics.
Regarding the subsidiary question of the rights of the baker, which is the actual subject of the OP, the "principle" discovered by the SCOTUS in 1937 (seemingly aided in its "reasoning" by FDR's threat to "pack the court"), is this:
the Constitution permit[s] the restriction of liberty of contract by state law where such restriction protected the community, health and safety, or vulnerable groups
So it seems that the question may come down to determining whether wedding cakes are essential to the protection of the community, or the comparative vulnerability of religious bakers vs. gay grooms.
Having found out about this principle, I now see the logic behind the evolution of this thread. Meade's arguing for the greater victimhood of the gays, and ST's arguing on the basis of community health.
Which mostly tells me that you get really shitty SCOTUS decisions when the president is a latent fascist.
"The federal statute [DOMA] is invalid, for no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and to injure those whom the State, by its marriage laws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity. By seeking to displace this protection and treating those persons as living in marriages less respected than others, the federal statute is in violation of the Fifth Amendment."
Isn't it interesting that such open-ended language doesn't proscribe polygamy or even bigamy. Existing State laws of course do, but aren't they now ripe for challenge? Don't such living arrangement too deserve the same respect?
Meade wants to "marry" even more dogs. Droopy wants to be part of a pack.
The people who are being oppressed by the full fury of the government are the bakers.
They refuse to bake cakes for Halloween because they do not want to be associated with the Satanic overtones of Halloween.
They refuse to bake cakes for bachelor parties that revel in heterosexual depravity.
They refuse to bake cakes for same sex marriages. This is only case where the government will oppress them and force them to stop selling cakes or violate their conscience. It doesn't matter if you think it shouldn't be a problem. It is a problem for them. They should get the right to decide.
The government not only demands that they violate their religious beliefs but they demand that they make reports on who and what they sell.
Do we live in the Soviet Union now?
Meade:
Just to be clear, Windsor -- which you cited -- didn't redefine marriage, nor did directly address the legitimacy of state laws sustaining the indefinitely-ancient understanding of marriage-as-heterosexual.
So it would seem you are agreeing with Scalia's dissent, when he said that this reasoning leads, inevitably, to the invalidation of state laws that maintain the traditional definition of marriage. Am I correct in this?
Beyond that, it just seems bizarre to me that you answer by citing that. What moral authority does a majority of the U.S. Supreme Court confer on...anything? Because the Court said it, it's moral? How bizarre!
While I don't agree with you that anything in the Constitution demands invalidating state marriage laws, suppose it did. Does the Constitution make things moral or immoral? You seriously are making that argument?
Chip S. said...
"There are two separate issues, which my earlier comment mixed together--the right to marry and the right to determine the use of one's own property (most especially one's own labor)."
And I think you will agree with me that neither of those rights are absolute.
Interesting that you brought up Loving v. Virginia. In the context of Martin Fox asserting "the indefinitely ancient understanding of marriage", would you agree with me that the power of the state to criminalize marriage, cohabitation and sexual relations between whites and non-whites was in fact a power to oppress?
And would you agree that the statutes used by the states to apply that power were indeed oppressive until the Supreme Court acknowledged the People's right against that state power in 1967?
"What moral authority does a majority of the U.S. Supreme Court confer on...anything?"
None. For example, Pace v. Alabama.
The Supreme Court's authority is not moral but legal.
Forcing a baker to bake a cake for a same sex marriage ceremony is the same thing as forcing him to bake a cake for ceremony to celebrate the forced female circumcision. It is the same thing as forcing him to bake a cake for the first communion of a Satanist at a Black Mass. It is the same thing as forcing him to bake multiple cakes for a polygamous marriage ceremony where the guy from Big Love marries two woman at a time.
It is forcing someone to directly violate their religious beliefs in a tangible way. Just to satisfy the demands of the gay lobby. There are plenty of places they can get their cake. They just want to control. Or destroy those they can not control.
That is their goal. Destruction of the traditional moral context in all of its aspects.
Meade - Do you believe that a same sex couple should be able to demand marriage in any church, temple or mosque. In America?
And that if said marriage is denied because of thousands of years of theological beliefs forbidding it, the the full force of government should be used to compel said marriage?
Of course he believes that. Of course he wants that. That is what they really want. That is their ultimate goal.
What they can not control they want to destroy.
Meade said…
would you agree with me that the power of the state to criminalize marriage, cohabitation and sexual relations between whites and non-whites was in fact a power to oppress?
I agree completely w/ this conclusion of the Court in Loving:
There is patently no legitimate overriding purpose independent of invidious racial discrimination which justifies this classification.
As I said earlier, I think Loving establishes that a state's conditions for marriage must have a justifiable basis, and it determined that racial segregation provided no such basis. I agree 100% w/that.
The same logic says that, e.g., a challenge to a law against sibling marriage would have to be decided on the basis of its instrumental value rather than an appeal to natural rights.
I think the same thing is true in the case of a challenge to a law against polygamy. And I think the same thing is true in the case of a law against same-sex marriage.
In every instance, I think the challenges to the status quo should be made on the basis of instrumental arguments and not natural rights.
That's the only way I can see to prevent gay marriage from establishing a precedent for consanguineous marriage or polygamy.
I asked:
"What moral authority does a majority of the U.S. Supreme Court confer on...anything?"
Meade replied:
"None. For example, Pace v. Alabama.
The Supreme Court's authority is not moral but legal."
Agreed. So your point in citing the Windsor decision -- in support of your accusation that I'm an "oppressor" -- is that you merely mean "oppression" in a legal sense?
Which means that if I and my fellow "oppressors" manage to overturn the Windsor decision -- or, if the Supreme Court rules that nothing in the Constitution requires an invalidation of laws upholding the traditional definition of marriage...
Then it stops being "oppression" to defend those laws?
This is your argument?
Michael,
No, I don't. Why? Is it happening?
Fr Martin Fox asked...
Opposing redefining the indefinitely ancient understanding of marriage as heterosexual is 'oppression'
Meade replied...
Martin,
Yes, oppression.
Under Meade's broad construal of "oppression," both Moses and Jesus were "oppressors" because they proscribed a litany of behaviors including divorce, fornication, homosexual behavior, adultery, along with shellfish consumption.
Question for Fr. Fox: Is polygamy forbidden in Scripture or is that a part of Catechism? It's certainly a part of State and Federal law which technically makes Caesar an "oppressor" too under Meade's definition but I think we all knew that already.
Oh and Meade should listen to Crack regarding the co-opting of black civil rights by same sex advocates. I suspect that's a sore spot between Meade and Crack though.
Martin,
Yes.
The only hope we have is that somehow the leaders of the Church will have to backbone to fight. To not surrender to the tyranny of the politically correct.
The church of my youth would have fought this tooth and nail. But I am not so sanguine about the Church's leaders today.
They seem weak, corrupt and greedy.
Meade said:
Interesting that you brought up Loving v. Virginia. In the context of Martin Fox asserting "the indefinitely ancient understanding of marriage", would you agree with me that the power of the state to criminalize marriage, cohabitation and sexual relations between whites and non-whites was in fact a power to oppress?
And would you agree that the statutes used by the states to apply that power were indeed oppressive until the Supreme Court acknowledged the People's right against that state power in 1967?
You cleverly truncated my quote -- and necessarily, because it derails where you wanted to go.
I referred to: "the indefinitely-ancient understanding of marriage-as-heterosexual."
And I used hyphens to make as CLEAR as possible the point I was making about the heterosexuality of marriage. You could not have missed that.
You're actually deliberately misquoting me, to be able to associate my argument with a position I do not hold, vis-a-vis interracial marriage.
Pretty slimy.
Make your arguments without deliberately misquoting me.
chickelit,
Cite for me where Jesus "proscribed" shellfish consumption or any of those other behaviors.
"They seem weak, corrupt and greedy."
Pope Francis?
I apologize for inadvertently misquoting you, Martin. I copied and pasted too soon, I see.
Still, wouldn't you agree that ancient laws concerning marriage have many substantial differences from modern laws? Which was my only point - not to associate your position with racial oppression.
Fr. Fox didn't say the word "heterosexual" was ancient, it's the understanding of marriage as being heterosexual that's ancient. I read it as shorthand for "the infinite-understanding of marriage as being between a man and a woman."
Wikipedia says the term "heterosexual" was first published in 1892 and came into use from the early 1920s, and entered common use in the 1960s.
Thanks, Lydia. Maybe he will explain why he chose the term "heterosexual" when "between one man and one woman" would have been more precise.
Meade said...
chickelit,
Cite for me where Jesus "proscribed" shellfish consumption or any of those other behaviors.
_________________
Jesus didn't come to rescind specific laws as he seemed to make clear in Matthew 5:17-20. He was silent on things like men marrying men -- stare decisis? On other behaviors, he was even more restrictive, teaching not just on adultery but also on lust. That's pretty "oppressive" teaching under your definition wouldn't you say? On the other hand there was no compulsion.
Also, Lydia,
I notice you used the term "infinite" where he used the term "indefinitely-ancient". Are those two terms synonymous?
chickelit,
But you said Jesus "proscribed a litany of behaviors".
He never did, that we know of, did he?
Go home, Meade, you're drunk.
Maybe he will explain why he chose the term "heterosexual" when "between one man and one woman" would have been more precise.
I think Fr. Fox was going for something broader than marriage between one man and one woman because polygamy would have to be included to make it an "infinitely-ancient undertanding." Hence, the "heterosexual."
The "infinite" I used earlier was just a mistake on my part.
Meade said...But you said Jesus "proscribed a litany of behaviors".
I actually said that he and Moses did those things without specifying who said or did what. I can see how that was sloppy of me, but I was trying to make the Matthew 5:17-20 point without having to point out that Jesus didn't repeat jots and tittles of Mosaic Law. I can also see why you would want for me to cite verse where Jesus specifically called out "men lying with men," but that's not what I wrote.
Lydia, thanks for clarifying.
Maybe he will explain why he chose the term "heterosexual" when "between one man and one woman" would have been more precise.
I think "gay" is an OK term; it took some steam out of Nietzsche's science.
"I can also see why you would want for me to cite verse where Jesus specifically called out 'men lying with men,' but that's not what I wrote."
You can see why I would want for you to do something I didn't in fact want for you to do?
Okay.
Meade:
Thanks for your apology; I shouldn't have assumed it was deliberate; I'm sorry for that.
You asked several questions. To answer:
- However old the word heterosexual came into use, the experience of heterosexuality is, "indefinitely ancient."
I used the term as shorthand for "between a man and woman" to avoid being tedious in repetition.
- As noted, I deliberately did not insist that monogamous marriage was "indefinitely ancient," because that's not my point.
Finally, I appreciate your refreshingly clear, direct answer to my question about your use of the term "oppression." I remain baffled, because that seems a remarkably idiosyncratic use of the term. Surely you know that few people use the term "oppression" without it primarily being a moral statement, but solely a legal statement? But at least you've made your meaning clear, and I appreciate that.
Meade:
I missed one of your questions, sorry...
Still, wouldn't you agree that ancient laws concerning marriage have many substantial differences from modern laws? Which was my only point - not to associate your position with racial oppression.
Indeed, I would; which only serves to buttress my point. There are lots of ways social understandings of marriage have changed in time, or differ over many cultures:
> monogamous v. polygamous
> exclusive v. non-exclusive
> equal partners v. patriarchal
> for life, hard to dissolve, easy to dissolve -- wide variation here
> contracted by spouses v. contracted by families or something in between
> religious v. non-religious
I could go on, but you get the idea; definitely lots of variations as you say.
However, there is one thing that seems to be constant in all that:
It's about man-woman. Even in societies where same-sex attraction, romance and sexual congress were viewed with mild, or even no, disapproval, you still don't find any sort of "same sex marriage."
People have always seemed to understand that marriage is bound up with procreation, even if it didn't always happen.
The variability of all the other factors serves only to make that one constant all the more notable.
Chikelit asked:
Question for Fr. Fox: Is polygamy forbidden in Scripture or is that a part of Catechism? It's certainly a part of State and Federal law which technically makes Caesar an "oppressor" too under Meade's definition but I think we all knew that already.
It's certainly forbidden in the Catechism, and as far as I know, Christians have always believed it was wrong. But there's no question that polygamy was practiced by many people, including many of the Jews, during the times reflected in the Old Testament.
As far as what the Bible says about polygamy, I think a strong case can be made that it's agin' it; but it's not as simple as citing chapter-and-verse. There's no question that people in the Old Testament practiced polygamy, and the Bible tells these stories; and where you might expect God to thunder against it, that's not what happens.
Still, I think the Bible opposes it, but in the way it presents the narrative. The Bible tells the story of people whom God is pursuing, and their response is halting and often wrong-headed. But here's something I invite you to check out for yourself: whenever the Bible tells the story of people who have multiple wives, it never presents this in a positive light. More than that, you will frequently have character-studies in which the polygamy proves to be tragic, even disastrous. Abraham dallying with Hagar was a big mistake. Jacob with his two wives and two concubines, and David and Solomon with their wives, are disasters with huge consequences.
Meanwhile, monogamy is repeatedly and consistently presented positively, and as blessed by God. Genesis, of course, presents it as God's original design, but which humanity, in it's hardness of heart, and greed and ambition, drifted from.
In short, I'd argue the Bible is strongly against it, but more by "show" than by "tell."
Chiklet:
Monogamy, by itself, doesn't assure the decent treatment of women, but they sure seem to go together, don't they?
Contrary to what people often assert, Christianity from the beginning was always marked by notably higher view of women.
And the argument has often been made that monogamy is more egalitarian, as the richer and more powerful are going to have more wives, leaving the poorer men with fewer options.
Some more rambling thoughts...
The thing about monogamy is that this is one feature of our current marriage laws that clearly derives from religion -- that is, Christianity and Second-Temple Judaism.
Which makes me wonder how, if heterosexual marriage doesn't survive "strict scrutiny" by the courts, I don't see why monogamy and anti-incest regulations don't fall inevitably, when it's all about people's right to define their own mode of existence, or whatever Kennedy said in that one ruling; and someone is sure to argue that it represents an "imposition of religion."
This whole thing is legally incoherent.
Surely, someone is going to figure out that "same sex marriage" is open to people regardless of their sexual orientation? Two brothers, or business partners, why not? And, sooner or later, some family members are going to figure out that inter-generational marriage is a swell way to ensure inheritance without paying the death tax.
And surely there are other scenarios still to be thought up? I just don't see how it doesn't all unravel.
Surely, someone is going to figure out that "same sex marriage" is open to people regardless of their sexual orientation? Two brothers, or business partners, why not? And, sooner or later, some family members are going to figure out that inter-generational marriage is a swell way to ensure inheritance without paying the death tax.
Social opprobrium would stop that sort of scamming and legal abuse, if it is allowed to survive.
Thanks for your thoughts on monogamy.
Chickelit said:
Social opprobrium would stop that sort of scamming and legal abuse, if it is allowed to survive.
Could be; but then folks will conceal the motives that draw opprobrium, and emphasize those that don't.
So, for example, the ban on incest will be knocked down by a couple who insist they love each other -- no doubt. And they will point to the decisions handed down, fairly recently, that deny any essential connection between marriage and procreation. If the couple are the same sex, what can the state's attorney argue? Birth defects? Can that concern really trump "privacy"?
I wouldn't be surprised if a heterosexual, same-sex "marriage" hasn't already happened. Surely the registrar doesn't ask?
Besides, who says that's a "scam"? The law says two men can marry. Does it require proof of homosexual orientation? I'm pretty sure it doesn't.
Now, one reason not to do it is because it complicates marrying someone of the opposite sex. And I'd be curious to know if prenuptial arrangements are ironclad in such a situation.
But, there are two arguments these folks could make. First, they could point out that people have entered into heterosexual marriage without any real sexual attraction, and no one batted an eye; so why the double standard?
Second, they could cite the argument frequently made by advocates of same-sex marriage: to ensure visitation and inheritance rights. What's sauce for the goose...
Besides, who says that's a "scam"? The law says two men can marry. Does it require proof of homosexual orientation? I'm pretty sure it doesn't.
Good point of law.
Martin,
Reviewing your comments in this thread:
Fr Martin Fox said June 5, 2014 at 3:07 PM:
> Opposing redefining the indefinitely ancient understanding of marriage as heterosexual is "oppression";
Fr Martin Fox said June 5, 2014 at 5:58 PM:
Just to be clear, Windsor -- which you cited -- didn't redefine marriage, nor did directly address the legitimacy of state laws sustaining the indefinitely-ancient understanding of marriage-as-heterosexual.
Fr Martin Fox said June 5, 2014 at 6:28 PM:
You cleverly truncated my quote -- and necessarily, because it derails where you wanted to go. I referred to: "the indefinitely-ancient understanding of marriage-as-heterosexual." And I used hyphens to make as CLEAR as possible the point I was making about the heterosexuality of marriage. You could not have missed that. You're actually deliberately misquoting me, to be able to associate my argument with a position I do not hold, vis-a-vis interracial marriage. Pretty slimy. Make your arguments without deliberately misquoting me.
Fr Martin Fox said June 5, 2014 at 10:58 PM:
“Meade: Thanks for your apology; I shouldn't have assumed it was deliberate; I'm sorry for that.”
----------------
If you'll go back to my comment June 5, 2014 at 6:08 PM, I think you will see I was copy and pasting from your June 5, 2014 at 3:07 PM comment in which you did not use hyphens.
Now, in light of that fact, in light of the calumny and libel so freely and often expressed here toward me and toward my wife, Ann Althouse, by commenters such as Shouting Thomas and Trooper York, and in light of your own use of the word "slimy" in falsely accusing me of "cleverly truncat[ing]" and "deliberately misquoting" you...
Don't you think you owe me a little something more than a "sorry for that"?
Shorter version of Meade's comment:
Crap. I can't out argue Fr Martin on facts or philosophy, so I'll go back in time and search for where he misused hyphens.
Then I'll demand an apology.
-----------
Bait The Priest is a favorite game of secular humanists.
Shorter Sixty Grit - Meade thinks he can argue theology (or anything else, for that matter) - BWAHAHAHAHA!
You have got to be kidding!
It's awful early in the day to be drunk, but I am glad Meade is doing what he does best.
Nach einer solchen Unannehmlichkeiten, lasst uns singen ein hübsches traditionelles deutsches Lied über die Ehe!
Als ich ein Junggeselle war,
Nahm ich ein steinalt Weib.
Ich hat' sie kaum drei Tage,
Ti-, Ta-, Tage
Da hat's mich schon gereut.
Da hat's mich schon gereut.
Da ging ich auf den Kirchhof hin
Und bat den lieben Tod
Ach, lieber Tod von Basel,
Bi-, Ba-, Basel
Hol' mir mein' Alte fort.
Hol' mir mein' Alte fort.
Und als ich wieder nach Hause kam,
Die Alte war schon tot;
Ich spannt' die Ross' vorn Wagen
Wi-, Wa-, Wagen
Und fuhr mein' Alte fort.
Und fuhr mein' Alte fort.
Und als ich auf den Kirchhof kam,
Das Grab war schon gemacht.
Ihr Träger, tragt fein sachte
si-, sa-, sachte
Daß die Alte nicht erwacht!
Daß die Alte nicht erwacht!
Scharrt zu, scharrt zu, scharrt immer zu
Das alte böse Weib!
Sie hat ihr Lebetage,
Ti-, Ta-, Tage,
Geplagt mein jungen Leib.
Geplagt mein jungen Leib.
Und als ich wieder nach Hause kam,
War'n Tisch und Bett zu weit;
Ich wartet' kaum drei Tage,
Ti-, Ta-, Tage
Und nahm eine junges Weib.
Und nahm eine junges Weib.
Das junge Weiberl, das ich nahm,
Das schlug mich nach drei Tag'.
«Ach lieber Tod von Basel,
Bi-, Ba-, Basel
Hätt' ich mein' alte Plag!
Hätt' ich mein' alte Plag!»
Meade asks Fr. Fox ....
Don't you think you owe me a little something more than a "sorry for that"?
Excuse my laughter. You suggest others apologize for what you infer is libel after the pronouncements, aimed at many people who did the "Althouse" brand no harm indiscriminately with those you felt who did, by you and your wife, of last July? Please tell me what I did to offend your or your wife pre-July 2013? Anything? Come on, spill it.
Gee...that's a hard one. I'll ask Palladian what he thinks about it.
BTW...Palladian has done one direct commission for me during your childish tantrum, and is in the process of doing another, oil and canvas this time, as we speak. Funny how I can't find a bit of grifter there...just an artist with sensitivity and talent. A gay man whom you attacked with all the bigotry you could muster, you jerk.
Your shtick is victim-hood and it suits you. Not so much your wife, however, she has credentials earned long before you came along. I understand her defense of her son, but I wonder, do you? Or is it just an ax for you to grind incessantly at places like Lem's?
BTW, it is common courtesy to address a Priest as "Father " or "Fr." in front of their first name or last name or both. I'd include Protestant Reverands and Muslim Immams....a few whom I also know. Manners are nice. Exception would be, and then only in private, if you had a close personal realtionship/freidnship with the Priest or Immam, etc. Do you? Or are you just rude?
Your wife is Professor Althouse in public to anyone who has a whit of common courtesy. She is "Ann" only to those she was signified by her own words the intention to be personal/familiar....or "Ann Althouse" by dint of her blog persona. Is that wrong?
They why do you call Fr. Fox "Martin"?
Note that I have cleaned up my address for you, although I though the former was very appropriate for someone who disrespects almost everyone else and plays the passive agressive victim.
BTW...I apologize for none of my prior comments. I cleaned them up befcasue the blog owner here suggested I should. Respect is for him, not you, "fuckface"!
Whoops, I did it again! Bwahahaha.
So sue me.
Meade:
(Revised...)
I'll split the difference with you. You're correct: I mistakenly thought you had truncated my quote, which had hyphens for ultra-clarity, and I did so in good faith. I didn't remember the earlier quote.
To your credit, you responded promptly and graciously to my earlier complaint, which I already noted.
Now that you've demonstrated that I was mistaken about my complaint -- about hyphens! -- but I'll do the same.
I apologize for my earlier response. It wasn't quite so blantant.
But here's the thing. Even without hyphens, my meaning was clear; "marriage as heterosexual" was what I said each time, with or without hyphens.
I think you know exactly where I'm coming from on this, and it shouldn't even be necessary to go through these excessive hyphenated words. There's been a fair amount of word-gamesmanship and cuteness with terms on this that makes this a crazy discussion to have. Not a cardinal sin, but weird and, I think, unnecessary. I don't think I'm guilty of it, but maybe I am.
It's not all on you; but I do think you've been helping in that direction. The whole business about "oppression" (but not in the way anyone would normally take it) is an example. We never even got to the lovely use of "bigotry."
And then to make a case out of whether hyphens were used?
So--I reacted too quickly. I'm glad to apologize for that.
But I might also point out, in my defense, that I did not engage in any attacks on you and your wife. (My "slimy" comment was aimed solely at an interaction here, albeit wrong in review). In fact, I thought I made it clear that I was offended by how you and your wife were being discussed, and tried, but failed, to steer away from that.
That is to say: I'm not your enemy. I'm not your wife's enemy.
I'm truly sorry any sort of back-and-forth gets into the personal. I think it's pretty crystal-clear I don't do that. If that's not clear...(throwing up hands).
Perhaps we can just aim for a little more direct communication without artifice. It might make it more fun!
June 6, 2014 at 11:35 AM Delete
However, Needy's slimy "wife" is the enemy of us all, as she has voted repeatedly for Obama. That makes her scum. And an idiot. As if her sham marriage to a groundskeeper was not evidence enough of mental incapacitation.
Fr. Fox said ...
In fact, I thought I made it clear that I was offended by how you and your wife were being discussed,...
You were very clear and concise on that subject. Anyone who says otherwise is either daft or lying.
Just my opinion, but you are being conned by a "artist" who specializes in the con....the master of the "yeah, but..." You, who have gone through Seminary and other higher education, get lectured and hectored by a lawn jockey without the years of study. I wonder if he critiques his wife on Con-Law matters?
You see, I am not bound by any dictates of composure...I am nothing but a scurrilous old soldier and bureaucrat who has the manners of my Irish ancestors...e.g., none.
Father I have a tremendous amount of respect for you. I beg you to remember the example of Father Merrin.
Pazuzu's petals!
It is well to remember that, in many online encounters, one is not an "interlocutor" but a "prop."
High Plains Grifter ended up derailing the thread after all.
I place some blame on ST, but mostly it is lawnboys pathological need to come over to a blog where his shrew of a "wife" does not wield censorship power over comments.
But Larry, on your mealticket's blog dear Crack told us he is living in poverty once again. What happened to your plan to give him lots of money?
Ann wouldn't up your allowance?
I miss the olden days, when it was considered bad manners to openly fuck the domestic servants, instead of trumpeting your slumming it on the internet.
The lack of respect is palpable. I guess Aridog and I are from a different generation because I would never think of referring to a priest without his title.
I deeply respect Father Fox's opinion and admire his kindness and generosity but I beg to differ.
The Lawnboy and his paymistress are agents of the Adversary. They are bitter enemies of the church and should be recognized as such.
They will be among the first to demand that the Church provide the sacrament of marriage to same sex couples. Have no doubt.
TTBurnett ...to Meade, we're all "props" for his victim-hood drivel. Waaaagh.
"I apologize for my earlier response."
Apology accepted.
Yeah, Meade, note one sentence and skip the rest of what Fr. Fox said. I realize you are reading impaired, but I suggest that the context of Fr Fox's entire message was not one of apology per se, but one of clarification.
Fr Fox may correct me if I am in error.
As TTBurnett said...again with the Props.
Follow along, as we learn our next two words in German:
Entschuldigen Sie
On this theory of "oppression," I'm not, in fact, an "oppressor": because where I am, right now, in Ohio, same-sex marriage is illegal.
Until that changes, in supporting that status-quo, I'm not "oppressing" anyone.
But if it's struck down, or repealed, then I've "lost my power to oppress" -- isn't that what Meade said? -- except it was not oppression when I had that "power."
It's a "power to oppress" while I seek to re-instate the status quo; but should I succeed -- and the "power" is actually restored, and the marriage law is actually made more restrictive -- then it once again ceases to be "oppression."
Is this coherent? Tell me what I'm getting wrong here.
There must always be "oppression" in order for the noble among us to paint themselves as liberators.
Instead of worrying about these silly word games, I'm spending a bit of time today contemplating the sacrifice and courage of some true liberators.
Awesome, Chip.
The Adversary and his minions will use words to trip you up. He will twist and turn and use everything in his power to confuse you and make you doubt.
That is why he was first portrayed as a serpent.
In some cases, he's more like Woody Woodpecker.
Fr Martin Fox said...
Aridog: ... No, I said I apologize and I meant it. It wasn't necessary for me to call Meade's cut-and-paste deliberate and "slimy."
I think I acknowledged that, however much I disagree that your remark was uncalled for...quite the opposite.
But I did make other points, which drew no response. I'd have been grateful for some further response, but so be it.
Which was precisely the point of my remark vis a vis clarification. However, you cannot "debate" with parser of terms when it suits them.
Let there be no doubt, Meade's point is that anyone who disagrees with the gay marriage hoopla is an oppressor, in both the legal and moral sense. Actually, being "oppressed" is the catch all term for the victim-hood obsessed...their validation.
That said, I do understand your revision of commentary. And your intent. My best friend is a Diocesan Priest and we periodically have just that argument ...his forgiveness versus my pronounced "screw them all" outlook. Now only slightly fading as I learn more. Only about 1 in 30 times do I catch him in a spate of anger, shown only in private when we are alone, where I can suggest moderation. In short, I am learning, slowly.
Aridog:
Thanks for the kind words.
You said: "Let there be no doubt, Meade's point is that anyone who disagrees with the gay marriage hoopla is an oppressor, in both the legal and moral sense."
Even so, Meade specifically disavowed, "in the moral sense." However odd I find that, I take him at his word, until he says otherwise.
Fr Fox said ...
However odd I find that, I take him at his word ...
That is perhaps why you are a Priest and I am not. I find it odd, too, in fact I find it disingenuous.
Well, I won't be disingenuous.
I am airing all this out so that (a) Meade himself can correct me if he likes, and (b) anyone else can tell me, I've got it all wrong.
And, if we get down the pike, and there's a change in tune about the "oppression" business, this is on the record.
And now for our last three words in German:
Ich habe Langeweile
I'm not bored. I rarely am when integrity is on the table and the opportunity to sort through the words of another for Grace and Truth is present.
Integrity:
1. the quality of being honest and having strong moral principles;
2. the state of being whole and undivided.
Perhaps I need to repeat what I posted upthread:
Fr Martin Fox said...
"> Opposing redefining the indefinitely ancient understanding of marriage as heterosexual is 'oppression'[?]"
I then said:
"Martin,
Yes, oppression."
Then I quoted from the Supreme Court's decision in Windsor to indicate what I meant by "oppression":
"The federal statute [DOMA] is invalid, for no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and to injure those whom the State, by its marriage laws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity. By seeking to displace this protection and treating those persons as living in marriages less respected than others, the federal statute is in violation of the Fifth Amendment."
Disparage, injure, seek to displace protection in personhood and dignity, treating those persons as living in marriages less respected than others. In a word: oppress... by exercising legal authority or power in a burdensome, cruel, or unjust manner.
Now, if I understand correctly, Airdog is accusing me of being "disingenuous" and Father Fox finds it "odd" that I claim to be using the term "oppression" only in the legal sense.
I would encourage anyone who shares Aridog and Father Foxes points of view to research the term "oppression" — the exercise of authority or power in a burdensome, cruel, or unjust manner — and, if I'm wrong about it having a far greater legal connotation than moral connotation, to feel free to educate me.
Meade:
With all your repeating and rehashing, you haven't actually contradicted my account of what you claim you mean by "oppression."
You only seem to be contesting my term, "odd."
Until you actually say I got it wrong...
Father Merrin: Especially important is the warning to avoid conversations with the demon. We may ask what is relevant but anything beyond that is dangerous. He is a liar. The demon is a liar. He will lie to confuse us. But he will also mix lies with the truth to attack us. The attack is psychological, Damien, and powerful. So don't listen to him. Remember that - do not listen.
(The Excorcist, 1973)
I'm not sure I understand. Please repeat your account of what I claim to mean, Martin.
Oo oo - can I go - you are a disingenuous asshole! Your mommy will be home soon, so you better stop typing now, drunky.
The perpetrator of a confidence trick (or "con-trick") is often referred to as a confidence (or "con") man, woman or artist, or a "grifter". The first known usage of the term "confidence man" in English was in 1849 by the New York City press, during the trial of William Thompson. Thompson chatted with strangers until he asked if they had the confidence to lend him their watches, whereupon he would walk off with the watch. He was captured when a victim recognized him on the street.[1]
A confidence trick is also known as a con game, a con, a scam, a grift, a hustle, a bunko (or bunco), a swindle, a flimflam, a gaffle or a bamboozle. The intended victims are known as "marks" or "suckers", and when accomplices are employed, they are known as shills.
In David Mamet's film House of Games, the main con artist gives a slightly different description of the "confidence game". He explains that, in a typical swindle, the con man gives the mark his own confidence, encouraging the mark to in turn trust him. The con artist thus poses as a trustworthy person seeking another trustworthy person.
A short con is a fast swindle which takes just minutes. It aims to rob the victim of everything in his or her wallet.[2] A long or big con is a scam that unfolds over several days or weeks and involves a team of swindlers, as well as props, sets, extras, costumes, and scripted lines. It aims to rob the victim of thousands of dollars, often by getting him or her to empty out banking accounts and borrow from family members
(Wikipedia)
Trooper,
Whatever his personal flaws, I don't think you have evidence of Sixty Grit actually swindling people out of thousands of dollars. Do you?
Meade:
Ah, no, I'm not retyping anything. My comments are quite clear.
If you want help finding one that gives a better summary than most, see my comment at 2:19 pm today.
... Then read forward.
The advantage of my photo is finding my posts is remarkably easy (as finding yours is, thanks to the Ohio cardinal).
Martin,
Looking back over this entire thread, I think I might see the problem.
Here, you posted:
Fr Martin Fox said...
Meade:
"...your loss of power to oppress."
And that's what drove me from Althouse. Being told that I'm an "oppressor."
Last time Meade was here, he was feigning ignorance over any disinvitation.
When you call your guests "oppressors" and bigots and morally cognate terms, they will tend to feel unwelcome...and leave.
June 3, 2014 at 9:19 PM
"Feigning ignorance"? Do priests have the moral authority to know exactly what is or is not in another person's heart and mind? It would seem you think you do, at least in my case.
Please cite for me exactly where I or my wife, Ann Althouse, has ever called you an "oppressor". And in particular, an "oppressor" or "bigot[] and morally cognate terms". If you can do it, I will make a sincere public apology to you. If you can't, I think you will need to wonder whether your words in your (June 3, 2014 at 9:19 PM) comment could be reasonably considered to be libelous.
Don't you?
It appears from the context of Windsor v. Nobody in Particular (this is a case in which the prez ordered his imperial DOJ not to defend the DOMA) that "oppression" means not being allowed to claim a spousal exemption from the estate tax by traveling to a foreign country to obtain a marriage license under conditions that your home state does not recognize. (State officials did, however, recognize the marriage ex post.)
In the year that the estate was taxable, no federal taxes were due on any estates under $3.5 mil, so apparently the estate in question was on the order of $4.25 mil. This case was about the fact that being legally married saved the beneficiary $363K.
So we've got to give credit to Obama for not prosecuting a case against a 1 percenter.
It most certainly could not be considered "libelous" you uneducated twat.
Groundskeeper Larry, please leave legal discussions to your box wine swilling harridan, at least she has some academic credentials.
Oh, and you still haven't answered why Crack is in poverty, despite your professed generosity (with other people's money of course).
"the Ohio cardinal"
You are 500 miles off. My cardinal photo was taken with a telephoto lens right here in my Wisconsin backyard.
"my Wisconsin back yard."
I think you mean "Anne's back yard."
You didn't pay for that house, remember?
Meade:
"Libelous"?
You're actually threatening to sue me?
Are you freaking serious?
The association of people who think as I do with terms "oppression" and "bigot" came from you. They're in this thread.
Feel free to serve the papers. I can be found easily. I can't wait to read them.
Meade ... some questions:
Why are there laws at all if not for moral approbation of things such as the application of authority or power in a burdensome, cruel, or unjust manner? Absent the moral connotation, how can there be legal basis?
Of course, none of this is the point of this thread's topic vis a vis the baker Phillips: the application of authority or power in a burdensome, cruel, and unjust manner applied to him.
To wit; exercising unreasonable authority to deprive a baker of a substantial portion of his business, if not destroying it, to serve as an example for others (as the plaintiffs essentially said)...NOT because he would not serve you, but only because he would not provide you a specific product, one not on his list of products, due to his own religious beliefs, although there's no evidence presented that he refused service per se or would not have provided a cake for any other occasion save a same sex wedding celebration. In short, he didn't refuse to provide a cake to gay people. His refusal was product specific.
In my opinion baker Phillips was set up, by design, alone among the dozen or more bakers of cakes in Denver, and intentionally told it was for a same sex wedding celebration. Maybe you know more of the details...like could the plaintiffs have just asked a specific cake in the catalog...which I assume had no cake with a same sex theme... and been served? By specifying something not in the catalog, off-menu, so to speak, the plaintiffs were requesting (in effect demanding by dint of results) a special item. How does that usually work in a product provision enterprise...can one be forced to provide a product not normally produced and one that is objectionable for religious reasons?
Can I go to my local Kosher Deli and demand a cheese stuffed pork chop with a side of broiled shrimp? I mean the deli serves food right? Who gets to decide what kind of food and why?
Note that the plaintiffs were married in Massachusetts, and apparently held their reception there as well...as documented by photographs on Huffington Post. What happened to Denver? None of the dozen plus bakers would provide them their cake, but only one was brought before the commission? Appears so.
BTW...I do understand your progressive stance, and logical fallacy, vis a vis SCOTUS rulings. Once a penalty for non-performance can be deemed a tax, something usually levied for performance or acquisition, then words begin to mean nothing...and you cannot deivne the origins of laws from moral codes. We now live in the land of Diktat.
Martin,
I am "freaking" serious. I am not "threatening" to "sue" you.
Please calm and get emotional control of yourself.
Someone likes to pretend that he owns something, and that his "marriage" is not a sham. He's wrong, of course.
Father I beg of you to not continue to converse with the odious and disingenuous grifter.
You are a kind and generous man who rightly said you didn't want to consider these Spawns of Serpent "enemies." That is to be expected from a pious and generous spirit such as yourself.
That fact is they are enemies of the Church. Of Religion. Of all religious people of any faith or sect.
You must realize that they begin to abuse alcohol on Friday afternoons and will continue until there is the usual spectacular breakdown on Sunday Night.
It is best to not be tainted by contact with these foul manipulators.
It is not enough to leave their corrupt and diseased lair. They will follow you to attempt to engage you with their lies and deceit.
They will be the first ones to try to destroy the Church if it doesn't provide the sacrament of marriage to those who break the most basic doctrines of our Faith.
Don't dignify them by arguing with them.
Or perhaps, with his Wikipedia reference, Trooper was suggesting that it is he who is the con artist: scamming the fat women of Brooklyn out of thousands and thousands of dollars.
That does make more sense than the idea of Sixty Grit, the high-level craftsman, being some kind of robber.
No matter the personal provocation and the calumny they might heap on you....to engage the serpent is to lower yourself. They will take your personal details and try to destroy you with them. As they did to others who post here and had to leave because they could not bear the hate that they spewed on them.
Just ignore them. They will in time turn and devour each other.
Because that is what serpents do.
TTBurnett ...your Ich habe Langeweile girl would earn a Rule 5 post over at EBL's place. Very pretty.
Meade, the only person here who has actually accused a specific individual, who once posted here, of gifting and cheating is you. I am sure you are proud of yourself.
Groundskeeper Larry is like Groundskeeper Willy from The Simpsons, but with poorer hygiene and less education.
Aridog said...
"Why are there laws at all if not for moral approbation of things such as the application of authority or power in a burdensome, cruel, or unjust manner? Absent the moral connotation, how can there be legal basis?"
For moral approval or praise? No. Read Locke - Natural Law (as opposed to Divine Law).
Meade...vis a vis the grifting/cheating accusation you levied a while back, did that rise to the level of libel or slander or both?
Now parse it any way you want, no matter, everyone here knows exactly what you did.
Meade...I've studied Locke for years beginning in college. I suggest you are having difficulty with interpretation.
Fr Martin Fox said...
"If you're going to call people bigots, you might have the sense to aim with some care."
June 5, 2014 at 3:09 PM
Martin,
Do you know how to do what I think is called a "word search on page"? If you do, I suggest you search this entire thread for the word "bigot". While you will find others calling me that very thing, you will not find me calling anyone a bigot.
Aridog said...
"Meade...vis a vis the grifting/cheating accusation you levied a while back,"
Cite please, with a link. Or else withdraw your claim.
Meade...you do not command me to withdraw anything.
You know what you did. You did it.
I'm surprised the old woman you sponge off financially allows you to stray out of her censorship utopia.
Maybe she is out shopping for a wedding cake, you never know when she may want to trade you in for a younger lawnbitch.
Also, Groundskeeper Larry, you know damn well that the thread you made your disgusting comments about Palladian (whom you drove off this site by the way, asshole) were deleted by the administrators.
You worthless piece of dogshit.
Meade has a concealed carry permit - he is a very dangerous, well, not man, but lawnboy.
He has a pistol and he knows how to use it. So far it has mainly been used to locate the G-spot on a certain dusty ol' bint, but you know, he should be considered armed and dangerous.
In a battle of wits he is only half dangerous.
Cite please, with a link. Or else withdraw your claim.
Oh goody! A brand new philosophical question to replace the boring one about oppression:
If a blog commenter subsequently deletes his comment, was the comment ever made?
I think the "grifting/cheating accusation" Aridog is referring to happened on this thread back in July 2013. Your comment @July 22, 2013 at 8:57 PM was removed by the blog administrator, but the responses to it remain, and they pretty much spell out what you said.
I think some of the people involved would not like to rehash all of went on again. Suffice it to say that most of us know exactly what happened despite the efforts of some to hush it up.
This exactly what I was talking about. It ill behooves us to engage the mouth of Sauron. No good will come of it.
Remember the example of Saruman. No good can come of conversing with the evil one or her minion.
And yet you keep coming back, polluting the place with your stench and the stench of that self-murdering Howdy Doody lookalike that you call Mommy.
She must be button-bustin' proud to introduce you to her colleagues - "yeah, this is the idiot I "married" in a ceremony that no one saw. He is so dense he thinks we are really married."
Yeah, you know they are laughing behind your back, you unemployable grifter.
I ask that we shut off this thread and not interact with this serpent.
It will not do anyone any good. Especially the vulnerable person this despicable evil slug is attacking again.
Yes, Chip, but what the fantastic Father Fox called me was, and I quote, "pretty slimy" not just plain ordinary slimy.
I'm glad that you are an old man Meade, never amounted to anything and never will. One of the benefits of youth is that I will surely be around to hear the day that you shake lose the mortal coil. If Althouse springs for you to have a tombstone, I may consider a pilgrimage to Wisconsin to piss on it.
You are enjoying a lifestyle beyond your limited intellect, education, and means currently because a lonely old woman allows you to sleep in her home.
You are pathetic in every way.
Trooper,
Are your comments really the best representation of your Catholicism?
What would Father Fox say? WWFFS.
Well, you have properly represented your people - homosexual pederasts, so my hat is off to you!
My brand of Catholicism includes praying for slow, painful, terminal illnesses to befall douchebag yard workers.
The old Testament is where it's at.
News Bulletin:
I know this may come as sad news for some of you guys. But, well, history marches forward.
And speaking of history — I wonder if TT Burnett could politely save his German bullshit for after the anniversary of D-Day. Especially if his next posting is going to be the Horst-Wessel-Lied
Thanks, TT, you're a doll (of sorts).
Lydia ...@June 6, 2014 at 6:49 PM
Why thank you very much for that effort. I owe you. You saved me a bunch of time. I'd forgotten how many folks participated in the depressing conversation.
Here's Meade @ July 22, 2013 at 10:50 PM...the gem that still remains :)
[vis a vis Althouse prior purchases reference Palladian] ... Isn't that just what con artists do? Before they cheat you?
Thank you Lydia for the response to Meade's demand for citation.
Well, isn't it? According to Trooper York's Wikipedia reference, it is.
You know that the traffic and page views are really going down the toilet over at twathouse's when lawnbitch feels the need to come pimp it with links.
It's like Crack, except that he escaped poverty by mooching of a geriatric old slit.
Meade...do you ever tire of instigating? Is there nothing going on at Althouse to occupy your time?
You tell me about YOU serving in uniform, on 06 Jun 44 or EVER anywhere in combat little man and I'll listen to your story.
Otherwise, just who are you? Nobody, that's who.
Trooper York said...
I ask that we shut off this thread and not interact with this serpent.
Late to respond, but I am with Trooper York on this...I am done.
Aridog, you do not command Lem to do anything.
Some, in their cartoon-imaginations, might only be capable of thinking of the Horst Wessel Lied in regard to German music. I highly recommend taking a look at this as an appropriate meditation for the anniversary of D-Day. You will have to pay to see it.
Meade said...
News Bulletin:
I know this may come as sad news for some of you guys. But, well, history marches forward.
"Barbara Crabb" You just can't make that shit up. Sorry if I forgot to call her "her honor" -- I guess I learned from Meade.
And speaking of history — I wonder if TT Burnett could politely save his German bullshit for after the anniversary of D-Day. Especially if his next posting is going to be the Horst-Wessel-Lied
Thanks, TT, you're a doll (of sorts)
WTF do you know about Germans, Meade? Quit aping Althouse, whom I once queried on the point and who is thoroughly ashamed of being German (and BTW, what ever happened to "Inga" who we discussed when we met face-to-face?)
I am starting to believe Shouting Thomas on his points about guilt projection.
To recap:
Fr Martin was asked about the Biblical teachings regarding same sex marriage. He provided several well-researched answers.
Meade didn't like those answers and responded by diverting the conversation away from religious teachings and toward the law, although he is not an attorney.
Fr Martin responded with other views of the law, although he too is not an attorney.
Meade claimed insult because of the use/non-use of hyphens, the use of the word "oppressor", and the use of the word "slimey".
Meade disrespected Fr Martin by addressing him as Martin Meade refused to acknowledge and correct this element of disrespect.
Fr Martin apologized for stating something in a manner that could have been misunderstood.
Meade called Fr Martin's use of words "libelous", hinting at a lawsuit.
Thus we see what the secular progressives do: divert any conversation about same sex marriage away from theology and into law and courts, all the while insulting, demeaning, and harassing others whose beliefs and opinions are every bit as valid.
Meanwhile on Meade's wife's blog, the comment moderator allowed on the D Day topic, a regular commenter to post a link to a photo of a group of black men who had been hanged. And since comments are moderated over there, the posting of the link to the photo was willful and purposeful. On a D DAY thread.
I suggest that Lem and all who frequent Lem's Levity disassociate themselves from Meade and Althouse, and the vile beliefs and attitudes they prose via blog and comments
@Trooper and Sixty: Props to you for casting Meade as Pazuzu. I would voice Meade as Mercedes McCambridge, but my current technology prevents it. You'll have to image what I would do.
Question for Meade: Why does your stepson's comment on your wife's blog sound exactly like Titus?
Does this mean that you will now be suing the local pastry shops?
Oppressor!
I also recommend this by the Dadaist Kurt Schwitters as an interesting exploration of musical form, but with nonsense syllables in place of notes. You may take it as "bullshit," "nonsense," or "absurd abstraction," just as you might anything else on the internet. This video has the advantage, however, of being a dramatic representation of so many of our internet interactions.
Color me unsurprised that Althouse's son went to "massage school."
Ah, the homophobic slurs from Groundskeeper Larry come out.
I'm sure your son in law is very proud of you. Actually, he probably resents some good for nothing lawn jockey eating into his inheritance.
Does Althouse know about your throwing around gay as an insult, Larry?
You wouldn't want your allowance to get cut or for you to have to sleep out in the yard tonight. I hope she doesn't read what you post on this site.
See this is the thing with uneducated trash like Laurence Meade. He gets to live in the professors house, he gets to pretend that he isn't some worthless domestic help, but he is really not one of them.
Little incidents like this where his lack of sophistication and ability comes in, and next thing you know he is throwing around "gayness" as a slur.
It's not going to end well for you Larry. You can take the loser out of the garden, but you can't take the garden out of the loser.
Post a Comment