| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
08 Sep 2005 09:19:14 AM |
| Object: |
California And Gay Marriage |
http://www.useless-knowledge.com/1234/sept/article102.html
California And Gay Marriage
By Nicholas Olson
Sept. 7, 2005
It was announced today that California is sending a bill to the governor
approving the rights of gays to marry. I say hurray for ending another form
of discrimination.
Republicans and their bible-thumping constituents can hem and haw all they
want about their sanctity and that it is against the nature of humanity and
whatever. All I have to say is that I am sick to my stomach that this form
of discrimination is even up for debate.
The stupidest argument I have heard in this whole ordeal is the one where
they have men and women marrying their pets. Let's be logical about this.
If a man wants to marry a woman, he needs her consent, at least in this
country. Since when does your dog ask you to marry it? I can see it now. It
gets down on one knee and pulls out this ring... Wait, that never happened.
The next argument is about sanctity. You know, when two heterosexual people
divorce at over 60 percent of all marriages and infidelity runs rampant and
don't get me started on alimony. Besides, if you want to get married in
this country, shouldn't gays have the same right to be as happy and
miserable as a hetero couple?
The most controversial reason why I am happy about this decision is because
it opens the door for the secular part of our culture to go for the jugular
of the religious right. You see, if you want to call marriage a religious
ceremony or a representation of their love before a spiritual being, then I
can go to the words of James Madison where he specifically noted that there
is a distinct separation of church and state. If religious people want to
keep their precious word "marriage," then they can do without the rights
afforded by our government to married people by having an equitable
separation of this right for all citizens. This would mean that you could
be married but get no benefit by it. After all, if it only matters in the
eyes of God that you are married then be married with no benefits.
Anti-homosexual sentiment is born out of need to discriminate against
something. At once mixed race marriage was looked down upon, so will we
adapt to gay marriage.
Americans are going to have to start realizing that change is going to come
in the form of the future youth, those that feel that the current adults
are messing things up, will not tolerate the indignities of the past. It
happened in the 1860s, it happened in the 1960s and it will happen in the
not-so-distant future. Learn to deal. California is on their way. Why not
in your state?
------------
About the author: Nicholas Olson is a long-time journalist who has been a
columnist at his college newspaper and is currently a military journalist.
***************************************************************
Posting and reading from alt.politics.usa.constitution OR alt.education
You are invited to check out the following:
The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm
American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
Church and State in general, listed below]
HRSepCnS · Hampton Roads SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
[Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members]
***************************************************************
.. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why "a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
.. . .
****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************
.
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
18 Sep 2005 05:49:19 PM |
|
|
wrote:
thomas p wrote:
On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 15:59:44 GMT, Gary Eickmeier
<geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
chirabbit@gmail.com wrote:
Do not be naive, you call yourself whatever name you like. What you
might not like when someone else will call you a wife even if you think
you are husband.
It is very simple if you don't like definiton of marriage then go and
create new alternative. I just do not understand what gay people want.
They want to normalize homosexuality.
They want the same legal rights as everyone else. You have given no
reason why they should not beyond your bigotry, a bigotry reconfirmed
by your above statement.
They have the legal right to marry ONE person of the OPPOSITE sex.
But, what if they want to marry ONE person of the SAME sex? You remind
me of the people who were against interracial marriages of yesteryear:
"They have the legal right marry within their own race just like whites."
--
****************************************************
* DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226 *
*--------------------------------------------------*
* "I swear to tell the truth, the whole truth *
* and nothing but the truth; so help me me." *
* --George Burns as God *
****************************************************
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Altarriba" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
18 Sep 2005 12:11:04 PM |
|
|
wrote:
thomas p wrote:
On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 15:59:44 GMT, Gary Eickmeier
<geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
chirabbit@gmail.com wrote:
Do not be naive, you call yourself whatever name you like. What you
might not like when someone else will call you a wife even if you think
you are husband.
It is very simple if you don't like definiton of marriage then go and
create new alternative. I just do not understand what gay people want.
They want to normalize homosexuality.
They want the same legal rights as everyone else. You have given no
reason why they should not beyond your bigotry, a bigotry reconfirmed
by your above statement.
They have the legal right to marry ONE person of the OPPOSITE sex.
Yes, and black men had the legal right to marry one woman of the same
"race."
The analogy is exact. Gays and lesbians don't have the legal right
(everywhere except Massachusetts, that is) to marry the consenting
adult of their choice. Straight people do.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
18 Sep 2005 01:22:55 PM |
|
|
Gays and lesbians don't have the legal right
(everywhere except Massachusetts, that is) to marry the consenting
adult of their choice. Straight people do
How come right to write drug prescription is given exclusively to
doctors?
Why only military personnel have a right to blow the bombs?
.
|
|
|
| User: "thomas p" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
18 Sep 2005 03:10:29 PM |
|
|
On 18 Sep 2005 11:22:55 -0700, wrote:
Gays and lesbians don't have the legal right
(everywhere except Massachusetts, that is) to marry the consenting
adult of their choice. Straight people do
How come right to write drug prescription is given exclusively to
doctors?
Perhaps because writing prescriptions is not a civil right. Your
analogy is absurd.
Why only military personnel have a right to blow the bombs?
Can you possibly get any sillier?
Thomas P.
"Life must be lived forwards but understood backwards"
(Kierkegaard)
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
18 Sep 2005 03:46:46 PM |
|
|
Perhaps because writing prescriptions is not a civil right. Your analogy is absurd.
same as ***** that you trying to promote.
Definition of civil right - the common consent of society at large to
the rules under which its members live.
So everyone agreed a long time ago what the marriage is, it is a system
that includes definition and structure, that serves as incentive to
preserve families. Your has nothing to do with civil rights you just
want to destory the system.
.
|
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
18 Sep 2005 07:29:25 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Perhaps because writing prescriptions is not a civil right. Your analogy is absurd.
same as ***** that you trying to promote.
Definition of civil right - the common consent of society at large to
the rules under which its members live.
So everyone agreed a long time ago what the marriage is, it is a system
that includes definition and structure, that serves as incentive to
preserve families. Your has nothing to do with civil rights you just
want to destory the system.
Since when does marriage have anything to do with "preserving families?"
What if two people that get want to get married DON'T WANT KIDS?
--
****************************************************
* DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226 *
*--------------------------------------------------*
* "I swear to tell the truth, the whole truth *
* and nothing but the truth; so help me me." *
* --George Burns as God *
****************************************************
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
18 Sep 2005 07:59:07 PM |
|
|
Since when does marriage have anything to do with "preserving families?"
since ancient times was the only way of human society to survive.
.
|
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
18 Sep 2005 09:20:15 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Since when does marriage have anything to do with "preserving families?"
since ancient times was the only way of human society to survive.
Since when does the "preservation of families" have to do with the
survival of the human society?
--
****************************************************
* DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226 *
*--------------------------------------------------*
* "I swear to tell the truth, the whole truth *
* and nothing but the truth; so help me me." *
* --George Burns as God *
****************************************************
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
18 Sep 2005 08:29:22 PM |
|
|
What if two people that get want to get married DON'T WANT KIDS?
perfectly fine to me, if those two people are man and a woman, by
getting married they support an idea of a marriage as a union of one
man and one woman, so kids in other families will not get confused.
.
|
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
18 Sep 2005 09:28:04 PM |
|
|
wrote:
What if two people that get want to get married DON'T WANT KIDS?
perfectly fine to me, if those two people are man and a woman, by
getting married they support an idea of a marriage as a union of one
man and one woman, so kids in other families will not get confused.
Kids in other families will get confused if a man and a man marry? What
is your evidence of this?
--
****************************************************
* DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226 *
*--------------------------------------------------*
* "I swear to tell the truth, the whole truth *
* and nothing but the truth; so help me me." *
* --George Burns as God *
****************************************************
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
18 Sep 2005 09:48:29 PM |
|
|
Kids in other families will get confused if a man and a man marry? What is your evidence of this?
we are not in the court to present the evidences, plus burden of proof
is totally on you. Once you created a source of confusion, many people
will get confused especially kids.
.
|
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
18 Sep 2005 10:33:42 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Kids in other families will get confused if a man and a man marry? What is your evidence of this?
we are not in the court to present the evidences, plus burden of proof
is totally on you. Once you created a source of confusion, many people
will get confused especially kids.
Really? The burden of proof is totally on me, eh? You're the one that
asserted that kids will get confused. I did not. You prove it.
--
****************************************************
* DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226 *
*--------------------------------------------------*
* "I swear to tell the truth, the whole truth *
* and nothing but the truth; so help me me." *
* --George Burns as God *
****************************************************
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
18 Sep 2005 10:54:31 PM |
|
|
Really? The burden of proof is totally on me, eh? You're the one that
asserted that kids will get confused. I did not. You prove it.
You are the one who wants to marry a man, so you should present an
evidences that it is not going to confuse kids. Logic is on my side so
I do not need to prove anyting. Kids know that the only way to
replenish human population it is marriage and a family, but if someone
like you come to the school and assert that same thing can be reached
by legalizing sodomy between two man that will create a confusion at
very least.
.
|
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
18 Sep 2005 11:02:04 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Really? The burden of proof is totally on me, eh? You're the one that
asserted that kids will get confused. I did not. You prove it.
You are the one who wants to marry a man, so you should present an
evidences that it is not going to confuse kids.
Say what?! I want to marry a man?! HAHAHAHAHA.
I'm straight. I want to marry a woman.
You asserted that it's going to confuse kids. Now, please, evidence
your assertions or admit that you have no argument.
Logic is on my side so
I do not need to prove anyting.
Then, please explain the logic.
Kids know that the only way to
replenish human population it is marriage and a family, but if someone
like you come to the school and assert that same thing can be reached
by legalizing sodomy between two man that will create a confusion at
very least.
So, sodomy will replenish the human population? Really? I think I see
now why you think that the children will be confused.
--
****************************************************
* DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226 *
*--------------------------------------------------*
* "I swear to tell the truth, the whole truth *
* and nothing but the truth; so help me me." *
* --George Burns as God *
****************************************************
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
18 Sep 2005 11:27:37 PM |
|
|
Then, please explain the logic.
here is defintion of confusion from
http://www.new-york-lawyer.ws/law-dictionary
The concurrence of two qualities in the same subject, which mutually
destroy each other.
So marriage is intstrument to create a family, the family is an
instrument to create and bring up kids, kids replace those their
grandparents and create more families.
You are saying that gay marriage is the same as real marriage. Now we
have gays get married and create kids (let me ask you how? - it looks
like confusion to me)
.
|
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
18 Sep 2005 11:30:42 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Then, please explain the logic.
here is defintion of confusion from
http://www.new-york-lawyer.ws/law-dictionary
The concurrence of two qualities in the same subject, which mutually
destroy each other.
So marriage is intstrument to create a family,
....and it's not...
the family is an
instrument to create and bring up kids, kids replace those their
grandparents and create more families.
You are saying that gay marriage is the same as real marriage. Now we
have gays get married and create kids (let me ask you how? - it looks
like confusion to me)
No, you are the one that says that gays get married to create kids, not me.
--
****************************************************
* DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226 *
*--------------------------------------------------*
* "I swear to tell the truth, the whole truth *
* and nothing but the truth; so help me me." *
* --George Burns as God *
****************************************************
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
18 Sep 2005 11:43:49 PM |
|
|
...and it's not...
I am not playing this game, go and educate yourself. As far as I know
to there is no other way to create a family other then to get married.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Peacenik" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
19 Sep 2005 09:23:33 PM |
|
|
<chirabbit@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1127105029.253378.265700@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
...and it's not...
I am not playing this game, go and educate yourself. As far as I know
to there is no other way to create a family other then to get married.
People can have children without being married.
People can be married without having children.
Them's the facts.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
19 Sep 2005 08:38:32 AM |
|
|
<chirabbit@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1127105029.253378.265700@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
...and it's not...
I am not playing this game, go and educate yourself. As far as I know
to there is no other way to create a family other then to get married.
Sadly, you're wrong. You can still be a family without marriage.
--
------
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
#1557
Science doesn't burn people at the stake for disagreeing - Vic Sagerquist
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
19 Sep 2005 12:20:03 AM |
|
|
wrote:
...and it's not...
I am not playing this game, go and educate yourself.
I'm sorry, but I'm painfully educated in this subject.
As far as I know
to there is no other way to create a family other then to get married.
You can create a family where the parents are not married.
But, if you wish to go that route:
"Family" is created by "marriage," but marriage does not always create
family.
It's simple logic. A+B=C, but C does not always equal A+B.
1+2=3, but 3 can also be 1.5+1.5, 1x3, -1x-3,
1.7320508075688772935274463415059^2, and so forth.
Your logic states that 3 always equals 1+2 and that no other
mathematical formula could equal 3. And that is illogical.
--
****************************************************
* DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226 *
*--------------------------------------------------*
* "I swear to tell the truth, the whole truth *
* and nothing but the truth; so help me me." *
* --George Burns as God *
****************************************************
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
19 Sep 2005 01:29:26 AM |
|
|
It's simple logic. A+B=C, but C does not always equal A+B.
Very happy for you, so you know what the logic is, then why you are
fooling around trying to prove that union of same sex people is a
marriage, although it is totally different thing and serve completely
different purpose. Why people like you are trying to equalize physical
and behavioral characteristics such as race with homosexuality. If you
have a logic why are you doing such a dirty job, what the purpose? Just
to supress people, prove that you can change proven system at your
will. You people are sick, that all I can tell you.
.
|
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
19 Sep 2005 04:54:13 PM |
|
|
wrote:
It's simple logic. A+B=C, but C does not always equal A+B.
Very happy for you, so you know what the logic is, then why you are
fooling around trying to prove that union of same sex people is a
marriage, although it is totally different thing and serve completely
different purpose.
Except that it does not serve a completely different purpose. For many
opposite-sex couples, marriages are simply for love. This is exactly
the same for same-sex couples.
Other times, opposite-sex couples cannot procreate, due to sterility,
after reproductive age, or other reasons, so they adopt or go the
surrogacy route. This is exactly the same for same-sex couples.
Tell me, why is this a "completely different purpose?"
Why people like you are trying to equalize physical
and behavioral characteristics such as race with homosexuality.
Because it is.
If you
have a logic why are you doing such a dirty job, what the purpose?
Just because you cannot understand doesn't mean that it isn't logical.
Just
to supress people, prove that you can change proven system at your
will.
A proven system? Homosexual marriage has been around since before "Jesus."
You people are sick, that all I can tell you.
Ah, so you wish your opinion be taken as law. Gotcha.
--
****************************************************
* DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226 *
*--------------------------------------------------*
* "I swear to tell the truth, the whole truth *
* and nothing but the truth; so help me me." *
* --George Burns as God *
****************************************************
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Altarriba" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
19 Sep 2005 12:23:11 AM |
|
|
wrote:
...and it's not...
I am not playing this game, go and educate yourself. As far as I know
to there is no other way to create a family other then to get married.
A man and wife can live together, have children, and generally be a
family without being married.
A single mother can raise her child, and they are a family.
A same-sex couple can raise children, or live together without
childrne, and be a family.
It would appear that you are simply ignorant of the ways in which
families form besides the sort of family you have in mind.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
19 Sep 2005 01:03:47 AM |
|
|
It would appear that you are simply ignorant of the ways in which families form besides the sort of family you have in mind.
I agree that we see a world differently, in this case I was talking
about family as unit that participates in procreation, not as law term.
We are not discussing marriage strictly in legal prospective either.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
19 Sep 2005 08:39:46 AM |
|
|
<chirabbit@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1127109827.778809.59500@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
It would appear that you are simply ignorant of the ways in which
families form besides the sort of family you have in mind.
I agree that we see a world differently, in this case I was talking
about family as unit that participates in procreation, not as law term.
We are not discussing marriage strictly in legal prospective either.
Hate to break it to you, but my parents were incapable of procreating,
though I'm sure it was for lack of trying ;)
Are we not "family"?
--
------
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
#1557
Science doesn't burn people at the stake for disagreeing - Vic Sagerquist
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Douglas Berry" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
19 Sep 2005 07:36:35 AM |
|
|
What's so funny about peace, love and posting the
following on 18 Sep 2005 23:03:47 -0700 iin alt.atheism?
It would appear that you are simply ignorant of the ways in which families form besides the sort of family you have in mind.
I agree that we see a world differently, in this case I was talking
about family as unit that participates in procreation, not as law term.
We are not discussing marriage strictly in legal prospective either.
Actually, we are speaking in legal terms because that is the entire
freaking point of the thread!
--
Douglas E. Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as
when they do it from religious conviction."
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), Pense'es, #894.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Douglas Berry" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
19 Sep 2005 07:35:44 AM |
|
|
What's so funny about peace, love and posting the
following on 18 Sep 2005 21:43:49 -0700 iin alt.atheism?
...and it's not...
I am not playing this game, go and educate yourself. As far as I know
to there is no other way to create a family other then to get married.
It's called "sex" and the sperm and eggs don't care if there's been a
marriage.
--
Douglas E. Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as
when they do it from religious conviction."
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), Pense'es, #894.
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
19 Sep 2005 11:25:17 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 19 Sep 2005 12:35:44 GMT, Douglas Berry
<penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:
What's so funny about peace, love and posting the
following on 18 Sep 2005 21:43:49 -0700 iin alt.atheism?
...and it's not...
I am not playing this game, go and educate yourself. As far as I know
to there is no other way to create a family other then to get married.
It's called "sex" and the sperm and eggs don't care if there's been a
marriage.
MMMMMMMMMMMMIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIRRRRRRRRRRRTTTTTTTTTHHHHHHHH
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
"As democracy is perfected, the office of president
represents, more and more closely, the inner soul
of the people. On some great and glorious day the
plain folks of the land will reach their heart's
desire at last and the White House will be adorned
by a downright moron." --- H.L. Mencken (1880 - 1956)
Religion is the original war crime.
-Michelle Malkin (Feb 26, 2005)
.
|
|
|
| User: "thomas p" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
20 Sep 2005 09:03:55 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 19 Sep 2005 09:25:17 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
On Mon, 19 Sep 2005 12:35:44 GMT, Douglas Berry
<penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:
What's so funny about peace, love and posting the
following on 18 Sep 2005 21:43:49 -0700 iin alt.atheism?
...and it's not...
I am not playing this game, go and educate yourself. As far as I know
to there is no other way to create a family other then to get married.
It's called "sex" and the sperm and eggs don't care if there's been a
marriage.
MMMMMMMMMMMMIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIRRRRRRRRRRRTTTTTTTTTHHHHHHHH
You mean to say that it is not the ink in the license?
Thomas P.
"Life must be lived forwards but understood backwards"
(Kierkegaard)
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
21 Sep 2005 04:56:37 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 16:03:55 +0200, thomas p
<tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote:
On Mon, 19 Sep 2005 09:25:17 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
On Mon, 19 Sep 2005 12:35:44 GMT, Douglas Berry
<penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:
What's so funny about peace, love and posting the
following on 18 Sep 2005 21:43:49 -0700 iin alt.atheism?
...and it's not...
I am not playing this game, go and educate yourself. As far as I know
to there is no other way to create a family other then to get married.
It's called "sex" and the sperm and eggs don't care if there's been a
marriage.
MMMMMMMMMMMMIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIRRRRRRRRRRRTTTTTTTTTHHHHHHHH
You mean to say that it is not the ink in the license?
heheheheh.
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
"As democracy is perfected, the office of president
represents, more and more closely, the inner soul
of the people. On some great and glorious day the
plain folks of the land will reach their heart's
desire at last and the White House will be adorned
by a downright moron." --- H.L. Mencken (1880 - 1956)
Religion is the original war crime.
-Michelle Malkin (Feb 26, 2005)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
