text:
Reader comments are listed below. Comments are currently closed and new comments are no longer being accepted.
Then, again, maybe we won't always have Utah. SCOTUS edict today stopping gay marriages until appeals courts have ruled -- probably all t he way to the Supreme Court itself -- puts a stick in the spokes.
The NYT suggests the Court acted as it did because of the DOMA decision that left definition of marriage to the states. That should take the federal government -- including its judges -- out of the picture.
The WSJ thinks it is because the Court is leery of imposing a significant social change by ukase. The message here is "Slow down."
Who knows?
And thus the world became a bit more joyous.
One of my kids is gay (well, to be entirely honest, that child is my favorite. I know a parent isn't supposed to say such a thing but there it is.) This child is in a serious relationship and I have never seen the "youngster" (now approaching middle age!) happier. I have already volunteered my services, in writing, as a ring-bearer should it come to that.
I am not, on principle, though, a fan of gay marriage. "Civil unions," yes -- the same thing with a different name. I think that using the term "marriage" simply steals a sacramental term from the beliefs of others. It is rude. But, for the life of me, I cannot see the slightest harm that comes from it whether one calls it "marriage," a "civil union" or whatever.
I DO object when the courts stick their noses into something that the community should define for itself through the electoral process -- saw enough of that with Roe! And, I don't buy the circular argument that it is a "right" that the court must enforce because that makes the assumption that "gay marriage" is a priori a "right" -- which was, after all, what was in dispute in the first place.
Homosexuality has become modish. It is the new drug of choice in many of our schools (I teach and have been shocked that this is so.) For the most part, I think this is trendy emulation -- monkey-see, monkey-do. But, it is also true that the NYT and other bien-pensants opinion-shapers tout the gay lifestyle as if it were the norm. And, it is not. It is not "perverse" but it is also not the norm.
Bottom line? Being gay hurts no one, gay marriage hurts no one, love is love and we are all God's children. My kid has as much right to be happy as your straight son or daughter. My kid feels as deeply and loves as sincerely as your kid.
But . . . we'll all be better off if a change in mores is adopted by the community and not forced down our throats by unelected people in black robes who meet in secret.
So your objection boils down to semantics over the term "marriage"? I'm surprised you can justify this as you have a gay child. Separate is NEVER equal. We learned this a half a century ago. Civil unions have been shown to be demonstrably inferior to marriage and the courts agree. This is particularly true now as the Federal government now recognizes all lawfully performed same sex marriages regardless of state of residence for IRS purposes and federal benefits, but does NOT recognize civil unions. That one would argue over the semantics seems terribly petty. An argument could be made that ALL marriages should be simply civil unions in the eyes of the law, and marriages or holy matrimony reserved to the churches, but bear in mind that MANY churches and faiths support and do perform (or wish to perform) same sex marriages. Given how interwoven marriage is with U.S. civil law, the mechanics of that solution would be daunting at best, and certainly not worth the effort, given that it would still be a "marriage" in SSM accommodating churches.
The two are not "equal" because the situations are not equal. One involves an historically sanctioned union of different sexes and the other is a novel departure involving a sanction of the same sex. This does not, in itself, confer/deny moral legitimacy. It does mean that, factually, the situations are not identical and thus not necessarily equal.
I have a gay child whom I adore. So far as I am concerned, this child hung the moon. That does not mean I have to think the same on every issue as this child nor does it mean that as the parent of a gay I am obliged to adopt every facet of GLBT thought. I'll think for myself.
But, this is mostly semantics . . . if this child chooses marriage in a recognizing state then that is that, so far as I am concerned.
This is inherently false. Whether or not you believe they are equal, the law MUST treat them as such.
In terms of the law though, it should only consider the legal rights and obligations, and leave any of the spiritual or community aspects to the respective churches.
And also if there are churches just fine with ssm, isn't a ban on marriage a restriction on religious freedom?
Let churches bless any thing they want, but leave the legal elements to the state. Render unto Caesar and all that.
How can something be "historically sanctioned?" Sanctioned means "given official permission." Who is the official of history?
That is a pretty subjective remark. What makes my statement 'inherently false" -- and who died and made you the judge of such things/
Please give me an example of a civilization that promoted or permitted same sex marriage (and please don't bore readers with scholarly frauds such as 'Same Sex Marriage in Early Christian and Medieval History." )
A custom consistently adopted by humanity over millennia qualifies as historically sanctioned.
Ancient Greece and Ancient Rome. Boom.
Historically sanctioned means nothing. Slavery. Women not voting. Killing people over religion. Those have all happened for more than 1000 years.
Its legal in the United States, Canada, and several other countries. So I guess the answer is "western civilization."
Please provide a citation in a book NOT part of the gay lobby that documents gay marriage in the ancient world.
I did not say that historically sanctioned meant that something was right. I intimated that it was received wisdom for the human race for millennia. That gives it a certain legitimacy of custom. That is why certain institutions -- e.g. slavery -- endured for the millennia.
The universe does not revolve around our laws. We can pass a law stating that dropping bricks on your feet does not hurt, but yet it will, even if 100% of people approve it in hundred referendums.
We can pass a law saying that gay "marriage" is OK, but it will never be. Though I am not sure if it is a contributing cause or merely a sign of societal downfall.
The way LGBTYZO agenda is pushed now is disgusting - forcing it into school curriculums, making up fairy tales about a prince and another prince and whatnot. I do not favor prosecuting gays Russia-style, but homosexuality is something to be tolerated, not touted.
Reality does not change just because a group of people want it too. Gay marriage always has been and always will be 'okay' and legislating it any way you'd like doesn't effect that.
Being gay is older then the any human civilization and indeed even our species. There is no agenda to push; if you can't understand biology then you need to go back and get a high school education.
Since you mention biology - bear in mind that it takes a male and a female for humans to reproduce. That is the norm, homosexuality is a deviation.
The fact that things happen or have been around for a long time does not make them okay. Yes, homosexuality has been around for a long time. But so have many other things, like adultery or pedophilia.
I do not intend to interfere with private lives of anybody, but on a broad level it should be made clear that homosexuality is NOT the norm, and NOT equal to actual marriage.
It doesn't matter what it takes to 'reproduce' as we have never based marriage off whether as a couple they're fertile. You can get married just perfectly if you can't have children or don't want them. Not to mention a scientist can produce a baby or a gay couple can get a surrogate mother/father.
Yes, being heterosexual (and gay) has existed just as long as adultery and pedophilia. That doesn't how ever make being straight(or gay) the same. If you don't understand the difference between sexual oration, cheating on your partner and having sex with your family...then I have bad news for you.
I'm glad you don't intend to enter peoples private lives. Lets keep it that way as you obviously have no idea what you're talking about. Being gay happens at the same 10% rate in almost every species and will continue to do so until there stops being life. Gay marriage is marriage; get over it or don't - either way it'll become legal in every state soon enough.
Prosecusion of gays in Russia is a myth perpetuated by the Western media. Putin did sign the law recently that bans propaganda of gay lifestyle among the underage, but the only penalty for it is a fine of 3,000 - 5,000 Rubles (roughly 90-150 USD at current exchange rate). It's not like anyone is imprisoned for it or penalized in any other way.
Glad to hear that. Sorry for repeating the cliché.
Gay "marriage" will never be marriage. Unfortunately, societal decline has reached a point where it might be legislated as such in our law, as you say. But our law is just our arbitrary construct, nothing more, and as such has no bearing on whether things are right or wrong. Once it was law that black people can only ride in appointed parts of buses, that women have no voting rights - not that I want to advocate any of these things, just to point out that many nonsenses have been made law in the history of mankind.
In Utah:
One man can marry four women.
But the four women cannot marry themselves and just leave out the man.
One man can marry one woman
But one man cannot marry another man.
So one man can marry two women in a three way.
Question: Can one man marry a woman + another man in a three way?
Wacky Utah marriage rulings makes marriage endlessly rich with fun possibilities.
Where is polygamy legal in Utah? The federal judge struck down co-habitation bans, not the bans on polygamy.
"Meanwhile, the court of public opinion appears to have reached its verdict; in July 54% of voters said gays should be granted the same marriage rights as heterosexuals, 12 percentage points higher than when Utah passed its ban."
In a democratic society, isn't the court of public opinion intended to be effected through the duly elected legislatures and not imposed from on high by the legal bench? "Clearly" it's what the public wants, why the end run? Am I missing something?
Yes, you are missing something. Civil rights have always been granted by courts. Rarely by legislators and even more rarely by vote of the people (which should never happen anyway since no one should vote on someone else's rights). But lots of people seem to think Brown vs. Board of Education was somehow a legislative decision or the result of a referendum. This is exactly why we have legal benches and put them "on high". Any questions?
There is a fundamental problem for those opposed to gay marriage. In case after case, they have failed to advance a single shred of a legally sustainable argument to deny law-abiding tax paying gay U.S. Citizens equal treatment under civil law. Further, to their chagrin, they have had to explicitly admit under oath that they can think of no harm caused by allowing equality, to the contrary, the lead anti-gay expert in the Prop 8 trial testified that individuals, families and society as a whole will be better off with gay marriage the law of the land.
They're waging increasingly futile battles with absolutely no ammunition, and are destined to continue to lose.
Are you suggesting we should subject SOME citizens' (formerly?) "unalienable" rights to liberty and the pursuit of happiness to a popularity contest?
Re: "In a democratic society"
America isn't a democracy, but a Constitutional Republic. (You know that, though.) And, the Constitution promises the "equal protections of the law" to all citizens. It is the part of the Constitution that protects minorities from the tyranny of the "majority". And the legislatures are there not to "make an end run" around anything, but to ensure the laws they pass are Constitutional. The Judicial branch ensures this happens too. Because, sometimes "the people" get it wrong. Just ask the Lovings.
Civil rights are inherent in our humanity. Courts do not grant them, but have mandated honoring them when statutes or custom attempted to stop civil rights.
Gay people have civil unions and have legal protection from discrimination and hate (thought) crimes. But liberals won't be happy until they shove their sexual behavior down people's throats, esp. children's (see: required LGBT studies in CA public schools).
Whenever homosexual sexual behavior is wholeheartedly accepted, religious freedom is always attacked and marginalized.
To hear the idiotic comparisons made by activists that Gay marriage is similar to the struggles of black Americans to live within the Jim Crow laws enforced by the Democratic Party in the South all the way to the Reagan Revolution is ludicrous in the extreme.
Nothing prevents interracial couples from fulfilling the basic essence of marriage — a public, lifelong relationship ordered toward procreation. Because of this, the anti-miscegenation laws of the 1960s were wrong to discriminate against interracial couples. Yet same-sex couples are not biologically ordered toward procreation and, therefore, cannot fulfill the basic requirements of marriage.
It's important to note that African-Americans, who have the most poignant memories of marital discrimination, generally disagree that preventing interracial marriage is like banning same-sex marriage. Likening same-sex marriage to interracial marriage is puzzling and offensive to most African-Americans, who are shocked at such a comparison.
"Civil rights have always been granted by courts."
I must admit, I have never heard this explanation of the courts before. I always thought that the courts existed to interpret the law and the highest court performed the function of interpreting the highest law of the land- the US Constitution. If they're there to grant civil rights, it's nothing that I have ever heard of before. May I ask who taught you this? It sounds fairly novel.
To believe that homosexual individuals have the same legal protection in practice or under the law is to grossly mischaracterize the situation in much of the US. Although passed in the Senate the House has not passed the Employment Non-Discrimination Act. This means that technically a gay person may be fired for being gay.
As well, in states with marriage bans this actively prevents gays from achieving the same legal, social and financial benefits as heterosexuals. You do not need to accept the comparison between homosexual and inter-racial marriage struggles to acknowledge that disenfranchising people and their rights is inappropriate in any society but especially one which prides itself on its individual liberty and freedoms.
"In case after case, they have failed to advance a single shred of a legally sustainable argument to deny law-abiding tax paying gay U.S. Citizens equal treatment under civil law."
So, in your mind, "equal treatment under civil law" leads into a thing called "gay marriage"? Now, as far as anyone knows, "gay marriage" has never existed before but to you, it's an avoidable consequence of "equal treatment under civil law"? You believe that society cannot define/recognize a relationship between two adult members of opposite genders, which it has for as long as anyone can remember, without necessarily also defining/recognize a relationship between two adult members of the same gender, which nobody has heard of until recently?
I think a society can have equal treatment under the law without forcing it to recognize relationships that it chooses not to recognize. You simply demand otherwise. Not all relationships require official recognition for their to be equal treatment. I believe society gets to make that decision, not a court bench. You demand that it be imposed upon society.
What you're seeking is not equal treatment but rather that society conform to your demands as to how society ought to be constructed.
"Are you suggesting we should subject SOME citizens' (formerly?) "unalienable" rights to liberty and the pursuit of happiness to a popularity contest?"
I'm sorry- what part of "life", "liberty", or "pursuit of happiness" is being denied? Your post wasn't clear about this. It was kind of meandering in fact.
Absent a compelling state interest, the US Constitution guarantees equal treatment under civil law to all citizens, including gay citizens. By denying marriage to law-abiding tax-paying gay citizens they are depriving gay citizens of the more than 1100 federal rights, responsibilities and benefits that flow from marriage via civil law. This is undeniably unequal treatment under civil law. Justice Scalia - the most anti-gay Supreme Court justice, has himself predicted the inevitability of 50 state equality in his dissents on Lawrence and Windsor, which effectively removed any way to construct a compelling state interest argument as well as any ability to show harm caused by gay marriage. I demand nothing except our constitutionally guaranteed equal access to and protections of civil law. You will certainly still be free to disapprove of gay marriage, just as many some still disapprove of interracial marriage. And no church will ever be required to perform nor recognize ANY marriage it does not wish to.
Do you contend that there is demonstrable harm caused by allowing same sex couples to marry? That there is compelling state interest in denying marriage that overwhelms the constitutional mandate to equal protection of the law? As my initial comment pointed out, NO such argument has yet been produced and, despite all the Chicken Little fear campaigns we've seen by organizations like the grossly misnamed National Organization for Marriage, when asked in court, the anti-gay lawyers and experts have had to admit that there is no harm caused by gay marriage, only benefits to individuals, families and society as a whole.
This is why equality is winning in case after case, and will continue to prevail.
And what about the hundreds of thousands of children being raised in same sex households? How do you justify denying these innocent children the protections, rights, responsibilities and simple human dignity that can only come from allowing their same sex parents to marry? How about the many churches that either DO or, in non-equality states wish to perform same sex weddings? Where is their religious freedom?
What are you afraid of? What consequences can you enumerate that will be so dire as to overwhelm the mandate for equal treatment and the benefits of gay marriage to gay families, their children and society?
"By denying marriage to law-abiding tax-paying gay citizens they are depriving gay citizens of the more than 1100 federal rights, responsibilities and benefits that flow from marriage via civil law."
Nothing is being denied. You're flipping the language. What is happening is that an arrangement between two adults, which you have decided to call "gay marriage", is not being recognized.
"I demand nothing except our constitutionally guaranteed equal access to and protections of civil law."
No, you're demanding that society through the government, recognize an interpersonal relationship that it never has before. Not only are you demanding it from society, you're demanding that it be imposed upon society through its court system and if such recognition is not granted, you're demanding members of society be punished for failing to recognize it.
"You will certainly still be free to disapprove of gay marriage, just as many some still disapprove of interracial marriage."
There's nothing to disapprove of "gay marriage"- for traditional society it doesn't exist. It's like disapproving of 4 moons around the Earth.
"Do you contend that there is demonstrable harm caused by allowing same sex couples to marry?"
They can't marry because the definition of marriage doesn't include same sex couples. To enable such an act changes how marriage is defined. To the real question, do I think the courts, 7 unelected members sitting on a bench, should have the authority to determine the definition of marriage in our society- flat out NO! You believe otherwise. If you can convince society through other means to change its definitions, be my guest and go for it. Having it imposed I vociferously object.
"And what about the hundreds of thousands of children being raised in same sex households?"
Lots of children are raised in households where the adults are not married. More are every day. The government practically encourages it. I don't see how weakening the definition of marriage improves their situation.
"How about the many churches that either DO or, in non-equality states wish to perform same sex weddings?"
You can personally marry your hamster as far as I am concerned. You have all the freedom in the world to celebrate that "marriage". It's when you demand society via the government to recognize it is when you get push back.
"What are you afraid of?"
I'm afraid of having the courts define the basic building blocks of society and how society is to be composed when it is WELL beyond their jurisdiction.
"Absent a compelling state interest, the US Constitution guarantees equal treatment under civil law to all citizens, including gay citizens."
This is easy to refute. Roe established the "right" to abortion -- even though it affects the demography of the nation. That changed demography sabotages SS and other pension plans and has profound effects on the economy (if you doubt this, read recent articles on the effect of depopulation in Japan, Greece and Italy.)
In Roe the SCOTUS simply substituted its judgment for that of the people and their elected representatives. There IS a compelling interest on why abortion should be considered a matter of concern to the whole community and not just a "civil right."
I do not think that gay marriage fits this criteria anywhere near as well. Abortion does, in fact, affect all of us. Gay marriage does not really affect any of us (save those who are gay) and so your case here is stronger.
But, you case, overall, is not very strong to begin with.
As for churches that want to perform gay marriages, there is no statute forbidding this in any of the fifty states. Whether the polity recognizes these as marriages is a separate issue.
Re children: the habit of the human race has been to provide a male and female role model for these. Gay marriage does not do this -- and that is a matter of fact. It may produce children that are every bit as well-adjusted and useful to society as are those raised in heterosexual marriages. I wouldn't be a bit surprised. But, neither of us knows that -- we have no real experience from which we can draw conclusions.
My own horseback opinion is that gay marriage will be seen a century from now as not deleterious to anyone. But, neither of us has a shred of empirical evidence on which to base such a conclusion.
I'm not "flipping" the language...that's absurd. You're entitled to your opinions, and fortunately they're in the rapidly diminishing minority. All recent polls show a majority of voters now supporting legal same sex marriage. (The Washington Times/ABC poll shows 58% of voters in favor, 36% opposed). Not that any citizens basic civil rights should be voted on. And before you try to claim that marriage is not a civil right, remember that the SCOTUS has declared it to be among the most basic of civil rights at least 14 separate times.
I again challenge you to produce some sort of actually legally sustainable argument to deny equal treatment of law-abiding taxpaying gay US citizens under civil marriage law, because so far you've not come remotely close, and without such argument your ilk are destined to lose. This is undeniably a matter of civil law, and shall and must be decided as such.
Your positions are not borne out by the facts and the many cases to date. (Gee, has your side won ANY lately?) The courts by necessity and law rule on the constitutionality of laws and must strike down law that violates the US Constitution. Or are you trying to re-litigate Marbury v Madison?
You can bluster all you want, your arguments are total hogwash, and totally worthless legally, so good luck with them. The writing is on the wall. Same sex marriage will come to all 50 states, and guess what? It won't hurt heterosexual marriage or anyone except for the feelings of prejudiced sanctimonious holier-than-thou people who can't stand the idea of gays having the same right to enter into a lifelong civil legal contract to support, protect and care for each other and their families. These marriages strengthen society in the exact same way that heterosexual marriages do, and we're seeing that as some states have gained significant experience with same sex marriage. NONE of the ominous predictions of doom have come to pass. Far from it, the states with the longest experience with same sex marriage now have the lowest divorce rates in the nation, those states with the strongest resistance to it have the highest.
As I've said, you are trying to fight an increasingly futile battle with absolutely no ammunition. You will fail, but feel free to knock yourself out trying.
"I'm not "flipping" the language...that's absurd."
It's not absurd- it's precisely what you're doing.
"Not that any citizens basic civil rights should be voted on."
It's not a basic civil right. A basic civil right doesn't place demands upon the rest of society. Now you're redefining what are Rights.
"And before you try to claim that marriage is not a civil right, remember that the SCOTUS has declared it to be among the most basic of civil rights at least 14 separate times."
SCOTUS declares lots of things. SCOTUS has upheld slavery.
"I again challenge you to produce some sort of actually legally sustainable argument to deny equal treatment of law-abiding taxpaying gay US citizens under civil marriage law, because so far you've not come remotely close, and without such argument your ilk are destined to lose. This is undeniably a matter of civil law, and shall and must be decided as such."
I don't have to produce any such argument because that's what is not being discussed. What's being discussed is a demand on the government to recognize a relationship, that has hitherto never been recognized, as a marriage.
"Your positions are not borne out by the facts and the many cases to date."
The fact is that for as far as anyone can remember, especially in American society, marriage has been defined as being between a man and a woman. The fact is you want that definition redefined. The fact is you want it not just redefined by the democratic process but you want it redefined by an unelected body and imposed. Those are the facts.
"The courts by necessity and law rule on the constitutionality of laws and must strike down law that violates the US Constitution."
There's nothing in the US Constitution about marriage. What law is being violated? There's nothing banning "gay marriage" because the notion of "gay marriage" doesn't exist or is even contemplated by the law.
"Same sex marriage will come to all 50 states, and guess what?"
If it comes via the Roe V Wade route and be imposed, it will cause division. It's why we have elections. I understand your enthusiasm for the issue. I suggest you go about it by building support for it and doing it through the ballot box. You yourself suggest that eventually you'll get it through the ballot box anyways.
I completely disagree that our case is weak, to the contrary, it is strong, a fact demonstrated by the many recent court cases, which also reveal that arguments against same sex marriage are non-existent or, at best, essentially worthless legally.
Roe in no way negates the 5th & 14th amendments. You're really making no sense here.
To compare SSM to depopulation is transparently absurd. SSM will in no way cause the decline of population rates. And as far as children, EVERY professional organization related to the medical, psychological, legal and social welfare fields strongly supports SSM, as does the body of evidence in peer reviewed studies on child rearing. Children in 2 parent same sex households fare at least as well as those in heterosexual 2 parent households. However, denial of marriage obviously and clearly disadvantages and demeans the dignity of the hundreds of thousands of US children in same sex households.
I'm sure you're right about your "horseback opinion", although it won't take a century for gay marriage to be thoroughly proven to not be deleterious to anyone. I contend that a decade or two from now everyone will wonder what all the fuss was about and many who opposed gay marriage will try to claim that they were for it all along.
I did not "flip" any language, please explain your contention that I did.
SCOTUS is inarguably the ultimate arbiter in determining civil rights under the law. Your incredibly casual dismissal of SCOTUS declaring marriage among the most basic of civil rights at least 14 separate times is ludicrous, and clearly denial of reality.
As a matter of fact, gay marriage HAS passed at the statewide ballot box in 3 states Maine, Washington and Maryland) and been enabled by statewide vote in a fourth (Minnesota, which repealed by popular vote its prohibition on SSM, and the legislature then immediately passed SSM) However, as I stated, the concept that ANY group of citizen's civil rights should be subject to popular vote is reprehensible.
"What law is being violated?": See the 5th and 14th amendments. And refer to the Utah decision, among others.
Your contention that "I don't have to produce any such argument because that's what is not being discussed here." is another clear example of denial. Marriage is undeniably a matter of civil law, and must and shall be decided as such. Without such an argument, the anti-equality forces are absolutely destined to lose. And your not providing one certainly underscores the fact demonstrated in the many cases to date: There ISN'T one.
"Tradition" is certainly not a compelling argument, or we'd still have slavery, and women would still be chattel and unable to vote.
You argued that absent a compelling interest the courts have no right to meddle in private affairs. I retorted that demography IS a compelling interest and that the court blew it off. In short, the court's judgment on these issues deeply flawed. That is why such community-changing issues belong in the hands of elected legislators and not a cabal of unelected individuals who meet in secret.
Whether children in SSM "fare at least as well as those in heterosexual 2 parent households" is impossible to judge. The phenomenon is so recent and the extended impact so unknowable that we must wait in see.
I suspect you are correct in your last paragraph. But, "suspect" is not the same as "know."
You misrepresent what I said. I said: "Absent a compelling state interest, the US Constitution guarantees equal treatment under civil law to all citizens, including gay citizens"
And how is demography a compelling interest? What? Further, exactly HOW does allowing gay couples to marry affect demography? The notion that same sex marriage will cause a decline in population is absolutely absurd. Exactly how would that happen?
And again, I contend that denial of equal treatment under civil law by popular vote or legislative action is unconstitutional under the 5th and 14th amendments and is, frankly, anti-American and reprehensible. Our Constitution, arguably the greatest document ever written, was expressly designed to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority.
Andros is arguing the same point that I am- no need for you to double type.
That said- I appreciate your spirited and positive advocacy of your view point and, if for nothing else, should be respected.
McGenius - Your reference to "traditional society" indicates that you're in denial and holding on vainly to a notion of society that is no longer a reality.
A. Andros - Your claim that "The phenomenon is so recent and the extended impact so unknowable that we must wait in see." is ridiculous. Sixteen countries have legalized SSM over the last 13 years...we have 13 years of experience in the Netherlands, a full decade in Massachusetts so if demonstrable harm from SSM could be proven it certainly would have been by now (which it hasn't). You can determine within months (certainly years) if a parental relationship is detrimental to children...the over 10 years of evidence for SSM shows nothing of the kind.
As an active member of the LDS church I was asked in 2004 to co-sponsor an amendment to the Oregon state Constitution to disallow gay marriage...my knee-jerk reaction was to agree (which I did). Over the ensuing weeks of actually considering the issue seriously I realized I'd made a huge mistake. Since 2004 I've actively fought both within my community and the LDS church in support of gay marriage.
Legalizing gay marriage throughout the U.S. will have only positive effects on our youth, our families and society as a whole.
How does gay marriage do anything to the nation's population? It's not like they would procreate otherwise. So what am I missing?
It doesn't. It is just another lie that people state because the opposition to gay marriage is dishonest.
Also, fuck TE's spam filter.
The reason I ask is that at least some of those who say there will be damage are, I think, sincere. But either they haven't thought it thru, or they have thought of a kind of damage that I (and you) haven't imagined. If it's the latter, I'd like to know what it is. And if it's the former, maybe they will think it thru (rather than just walking away from the discussion).
P.S. I'm at least glad to hear I'm not the only one being driven nuts by the "new and improved" spam filter. I even send a message via the Contact Us link, in the hopes of getting the messge across With luck, they will have someone spending this week getting it fixed.
I guess we are the spam to be filtered, philosophically speaking...
On polygamy, it would be rather difficult to justify allowing something not entirely common in nature (long-term gay relationships) while outlawing a behavior that has been commonplace throughout history.
With the mothers-in-law I have had to deal with (...in the past) let´s just say let each man take his chances.
I'm hoping that enough of us take the trouble to click on Contact Us down (at the bottom left) and complain. Then maybe it will get fixed.
The difficulty with the argument that it "has been commonplace throughout history" is that so have lots of other things that we no longer accept. Slavery. Military dictatorships (including most of the monarchies throughout history).
I seem to have been unusually blessed on the mother-in-law front. I always got along great with my wife's parents. And she commented once: "If we ever get divorced (we haven't) and divide up assets, *I* get your mother!" Unusually blessed, indeed!
Yes, our Pearson friends need to be a bit more careful and mindful of their readers-bloggers.We´ve all read here ideas and even numbers that surpass the print edition article they theoretically complement. They will be missing out on lots of aggregate experience and thoughtfulness if they are not as user-friendly as they probably should.
BTW, a crazy(and more or less unrelated) trivia: on the top of the London HQ of Pearson(parent company of TE and the FT), which resembles in design a more classic version of MI6 central by the Thames, there are two large, symmetrical flagpoles, flying in a totally equal position the Union Jack...and the Stars and Stripes.
The original Pearson was an engineer from Yorkshire or thereabouts who made his money...grabbing Mexican oil and selling to Shell just before the Mexican Revolutionaries nationalized it.The value of on-the-ground information.
Regarding your in-laws, you have been lucky and thoughtful in your choices, congratulations.On the other side, any number of former mother in-laws inferior to four is not necessarily statistically significant.
Regarding historical precedent of sexual mores I was kidding.I am not advocating the practice of the most popular and veteran sexual practice: kidnapping prospective wives among the most desirable young females from other tribes.
Let me see...on second thought...
This spam stuff is inconvenient and January will be a hectic month, let me apologize (preemptively) in case I do not participate as much as I would like to.
Would you really care how sincerely a Nazi believed that Jews were inferior sub-humans to be rounded up and thrown in jail or even killed out right?
Christian fundamentalists have gone to other countries to show their support for legislation that would throw in jail any homosexual and anyone seen not reporting all known homosexuals.
As such, I would argue that there is little difference between a Nazi's views on those of Jewish faith and a Christian fundamentalist's views on homosexuals.
Both would say that their hated minority group is an evil group of sinners, both spread lies about them and willingly fool themselves in to "sincerely" believing that they aren't lies, and both willingly use both nationalism and religion to support their views whenever they can.
I also complained about it to two of the "contact Us" links.
Actually, I would care whether someone was sincere in their beliefs. Because someone who is sincere may be persuaded to change. But with someone who is not (who is merely espousing it for expediency) there is no point in trying.
Someone who sincerely believes that the government is out to get us can be persuaded otherwise. Perhaps not easily, but it is at least worth trying. However there is no point in wastng time and effort trying to persuade Rush Limbaugh when he says it -- because he already knows better.
Good point.On the other side one could pay Rush Limbaugh to shut up.It is a matter of finding his figure and start a fundraiser.Count me in.
Perhaps he would be willing to retire to lake Titicaca for the right price, or that Bounty mutineers island in the South Pacific, Pitcairn or something?
Limbaugh's got enough money by now that I doubt he really has a monetary price. At this point, I suspect he is doing it more for the feeling of power. Hard to subsstitute for that.
If he's getting exiled I'd rather find an uninhabited island -- why subject anyone else to him? But I suppose Pitcairn would do in a pinch.
Right.Demagogues are like mosquitoes: killing them one by one is hopeless.The solution lies in draining the swamp.
Speaking about insects and demagogues I was reading a few pages the other day of a book by Goebbels no less.The man was so ordinary it is clear he would have been a harmless nobody under most circumstances: it took the extraordinary conditions of the Weimar Republic, Great Depression and apparent triumph of early Soviet Collectivism for such pathogen to have his day under the sun.
Draining the Washington Swamp (to misquote whoever, a place that traded Malaria for politics) is kind of a day-to day civic obligation, a bit like recycling or preventing people from littering highways.Step by step until the narrative changes and they look like the dinosaurs for hire they are.
Those who "honestly believe" are the first to lie to themselves to convince themselves that other people aren't really people.
You can't really treat them like mosquitoes and make them go away by draining the swamp. Because the problem is the rain will come again, and there will be another swamp, this time with more deadly DDT-resistant strain of mosquitoes.
I think a better way to do it is treat them like bees - you get the queen bee and all the worker bees will go bonkers.
Hi, ashbird, happy new year.
What I meant was that in the right(actually wrong) socioeconomic circumstances demagogues will spring forth like mushrooms after the October rains.
If Goebbels or Hitler hadn´t been there somebody else would; in fact similar political phenomena took root in Italy, Spain, Romania, Hungary...even England had her Oswald Mosley.
Today´s socioeconomic set in the EU is giving birth to a series of strikingly similar spontaneous political attitudes and leaders channeling them, from Golden Dawn to Ms. Le Pen´s movement, from the Indignados to Stephan Hessel´s Indigné-vous.
That´s why I voiced the opinion that for American politics to be more civil, realistic and constructive, it is society itself that has to change, just changing the leading faces will be insufficient, in the same manner that a drug addiction by a certain number of people will create a market that will be satisfied never mind how many times the ephemeral drug lords are disposed of.
Same happy new year to you!
Very nice reply. Thanks.
Absolutely! I don't know EU well at all (although I have relatives living in Spain, Germany, Austria, and UK). I can't comment specifically on it. But what you said is totally true regarding pervasive societal ills.
For American politics to be more civil, realistic and constructive, we need to start from the next generation's education from ground up. It is already too late in this one, in my view. Perhaps from there their children's generation will begin to show the changes we need to see in all sorts of attitudes about the world and the people in it. Attitudinal change takes generations. There is no quick fix.
My queen bee example was half in jest, referring, of course, to Mr Limbaugh in your exchange with jouris. I was just thinking if and when he retires, what his worker bees will do? They may becomes disoriented and go away instantly. It is like canceling a bad Reality Show. Some of those do get canceled, you know. He really is a curse for America.
" Attitudinal change takes generations"
And that when you get lucky...
Oh, I am untroubled my gay marriage -- although it should be brought about by communal consent as expressed through legislation.
I segued into abortion, not gay marriage, a "something: that unquestionably DOES affect the population -- and hence the rest of us. And, I used Roe as an example where (such as with recent court decisions re SSM) unelected courts usurped democracy.
But, I do not mean to equate SSM with abortion. The first harms no one and the second affects us all.
The Economist explains: Why Indians love world records
The Economist explains
Mortgage subsidies: A false friend
Business and finance
Solothurn festival: Welcome to the Swiss film industry
Transport in Atlanta: Driving Miss Daisy
Democracy in America
Daily chart: Pegger thy neighbour
Graphic detail
Poverty and empathy: Hard problems
Democracy in America
Non-communicable diseases: Russian roulette
Graphic detail
Have you listened to The Economist Radio on Facebook?
The Economist Radio is an on-demand social listening platform that allows you to listen, share and recommend The Economist audio content
Test your EQ
Take our weekly news quiz to stay on top of the headlines
In Other Words
Try our new audio app and website, providing reporting and analysis from our correspondents around the world every weekday
Want more from The Economist?
Visit The Economist e-store and you'll find a range of carefully selected products for business and pleasure, Economist books and diaries, and much more


text:
noun plural but singular in construction \ˌklī-ə-ˈme-triks\Definition of CLIOMETRICS
: the application of methods developed in other fields (as economics, statistics, and data processing) to the study of history
— clio·met·ric \-trik\ adjective
— clio·met·ri·cian \-me-ˈtri-shən\ noun
Origin of CLIOMETRICS
Clio + -metrics (as in econometrics)
First Known Use: 1960
Rhymes with CLIOMETRICS
(Concise Encyclopedia)Application of economic theory and statistical analysis to the study of history, developed by Robert W. Fogel (b. 1926) and Douglass C. North (b. 1920), who were awarded the Nobel Prize for Economics in 1993 for their work. In Time on the Cross (1974), Fogel used statistical analysis to examine the relationship between the politics of American slavery and its profitability. North studied the link between a market economy and legal and social institutions such as property rights in such works as Structure and Change in Economic History (1981). See also econometrics.
Learn More About CLIOMETRICS
Ask The Editor Videos
Seen & Heard
What made you want to look up cliometrics? Please tell us where you read or heard it (including the quote, if possible).

subset: commoncrawl


text: As inveterate film enthusiasts, we can't help but have crushes on the guys who make some of our favorite movies. Double that, when they're as cute and cool as the indie filmmakers on this list. We've rustled around and found 10 of the coolest indie film directors around. And they happen to be rather easy on the eyes, too.


text:
Baseball And Softball At The Pontiac Silverdome
How do you play baseball in a nippy Michigan fall and snow-white Michigan winter? Bring it inside.
Plans Unveiled For State-Fair Replacement
The Michigan State Fair is returning — under a different name, and at a different location.
Plans For A Great Lakes Agricultural Fair
Plans to be unveiled Monday for the Great Lakes Agricultural Fair to be held at the Pontiac Silverdome.
The Super Fight
Tonight at the Silverdome a big time HBO boxing match is taking place. Timothy Bradley (26-0-11) vs. Devon Alexander (21-0-13) in a match for the unified WBC/WBO belt. This should be an exciting hard hitting […]
Stoney's Blog: Missing The Silverdome
Tuesday I had the pleasure of MC'ing the press conference for the big Jr.Welterweight unification fight between Tim Bradley and Devon Alexander at the Silvedome. That's right the Silverdome. The last time I had been […]
Medical Marijuana Convention Called Off
A Halloween pot convention planned for the Pontiac Silverdome has gone up in smoke.
AC Milan Wins Game At Silverdome
Daniele Bonera's goal gave AC Milan a 5-3 penalty-kicks victory over Panathinaikos after a scoreless draw Friday in a preseason exhibition, the first major sporting event at the Pontiac Silverdome in seven years.
Vuvuzelas To Buzz In Silverdome
The Pontiac Silverdome will be buzzing tonight as officials are turning the former home of the Detroit Lions into a horn aplenty.
Karsch And Anderson-What Can We Expect From A Cannibus Convention At The Silverdome?
Doug and Gator react to the hilarious responses from our listeners.


text:
Is the "Not-all-men" meme making us look silly? (self.TwoXChromosomes)
188 ups - 133 downs = 55 votes
As I opened my mouth to respond to "all women are horribly manipulative" with "hey, that's not true of most wo..." it dawned on me that we might be the problem here.
Not-all-men seems to be framed as a derailment argument but is it possible we just hide behind that rhetoric to allow ourselves to say "men" instead of "around 0.0001% of men". If that's the case then perhaps it's us that need to change.
243 comments submitted at 12:36:27 on May 19, 2014 by readdingit


text:
Friday, November 2, 2007
© Copyright 2015
Gwinnett Daily Post
I started to write a piece about the shape of the economy this week, what with oil and gold hitting record highs and foreclosures doubling again, but that's just depressing and I'm no economist.
Plus, I'm still too happy about beating the evil south of the state line. Make no mistake, the Florida Gators are evil. Wicked. Villains. They're the cowboys in black hats, the guy tying the screaming woman to the train tracks. They were led for many years by the devil himself, Steve Spurrier. I've heard if you played football for him that you can't get into heaven. Well that's what I heard. I hate them. Hate them, hate them, hate them. I wouldn't pull for Florida if they were playing the all-dictator team with Stalin at quarterback. I wouldn't pull for them against aliens if the fate of the world hinged on it. No kidding. You'd see me in a Go Martians T-shirt before you saw me doing that stupid gator chomp thing with my hands. And yes, it's mostly a product of losing to them for so many years. But it's also a product of having the score run up so high by The Ol' Ball Coach (more appropriately named Old Scratch) and then having to listen to their fans. Auburn turns fire hoses on us. Tennessee plays "Rocky Top" until you want to put ice picks in your ears. Georgia Tech people always want to tell you how smart they are. (If they're so smart, why couldn't they figure out how to win more than half a national championship in 1990? How is a half equal to a whole? Must be some super-secret science formula only Tech grads know.) But Florida wasn't happy just beating us. They wanted to crush us, humiliate us, make us their whipping boys. For years, they've done that. They killed us in our home stadium. They got the phantom timeout in 1993. They took away a good chance for a national title shot a few years ago. They made us a laughingstock. And then bragged about it. I can't stand bullies. Florida bullied us for years. Spurrier scored 40 when 30 was enough. He wasn't happy with 45 in Sanford Stadium. He had to have, in his own words, "half a hundred." In 1995, already winning 45-17 late in the fourth quarter, he called a trick play just so he could score the most points ever in Sanford. For that very reason, I usually hate demonstrations of poor sportsmanship. I don't like guys who stand and admire home runs. I don't like touchdown celebrations. You should do like Herschel Walker and act like you've been there before. But when I saw the entire Georgia team, every single Bulldog, run out on the field Saturday after Knowshon Moreno's first touchdown, I couldn't help but cheer for it. Any other time, against anybody else, I would have been embarrassed and a little ashamed. But not this time. I cheered. I shouted. I laughed. I clapped. I made a familiar hand gesture at the TV when they showed the Florida fans. I said some words I can't repeat here. I wanted Florida to feel it. I wanted them to know the Dawgs were out for blood. I cheered even more when Mark Richt told the sideline reporter at halftime that he'd told the team he would be mad if they didn't get a penalty after the first score. That's what I need from our head coach when playing the evil. I wish he hadn't apologized. We beat Florida. Soundly. That they are the defending national champions made it better. But the celebration - the one at the beginning of the game, not the end - made it the best. After all, we've beaten Florida before. But Saturday, we Dawgs got what we really wanted. Revenge. I know it's a deadly sin. But I didn't play for Spurrier. I can repent. But not just yet. E-mail Nate McCullough at email@example.com. His column appears on Fridays.More like this story
- Evil genius just another coach for Bulldogs ( September 11, 2009 )
- Falcons' VanGorder heading to S. Carolina ( December 20, 2007 )
- Georgia faces its albatross in the form of a Gator ( October 25, 2007 )
- SEC East teams overlooked in LSU-Alabama hype ( November 3, 2011 )
- Revamped UGA defense looks to keep it rolling against Spurrier, South Carolina ( September 8, 2007 )


text:
| Email | Full Article (TrendHunter.com/id/150294) |
There is something very stately about the boxy design of the Glorify Armchair. Its strong lines and lively color palette give it a regal presence. Although its aesthetic is rather bold, it blends in neatly with its surroundings. Perfect for both modern and traditional homes, the Glorify Armchair is a great decor addition.
Created by French design collective at-once, which is made up of Didier Codron, Maxence Boisseau and Nelson Alves, the Glorify Armchair is made out of a high density polyethylene material. Designed for The Pelican Distribution, it is an eco-friendly seat that can be used both indoors and out. Incredibly comfortable, the Glorify Armchair is available in seven different vibrant hues: green, orange, white, grey, purple, black and magenta.


text:
A storybook ending
Fate conspired to bring a bookstore, a former employee and local diehard mystery fans together
Photograph by Tracy Tucholski |
Gus is a regular, but he isn't Sara Barnes' best customer. In fact, he might be her worst. But you'd never know it as she flashes him her biggest gap-toothed smile when he barrels into the store, and you certainly wouldn't suspect it as she giggles when she hands him a sugar cookie and watches as he downs it in one hungry gulp. She even runs into the back room to fetch him some water, nodding approvingly as the wiry-haired mutt laps it up from a dish on the floor. Barnes then scoots over to Cynthia, Gus' owner, and begins offering reading suggestions, and it's clear that everyone—four-legged or otherwise—gets the same intimate treatment at Booked for Murder, Madison's only bookstore focusing solely on mystery and crime fiction. "I get excited when someone walks in the door," Barnes says with a grin. "I get to show them stuff, help them out and make them happy." Barnes' unwavering customer-first attitude is what's helped make Booked for Murder a twenty-year success story in a market where owning an independent bookstore is anything but a guaranteed proposition. According to Nielsen BookScan, the leading market research firm measuring retail book sales, mystery, detective and true crime titles account for only four percent of the total book-buying market share. Which is probably why, according to the Independent Mystery Booksellers Association, Barnes is one of only forty booksellers in the country who deals exclusively in crime and mystery. But despite the market share, business is steady thanks to a unique subculture of book lovers who depend on Booked for Murder not just for its offerings—most books are only a mouse click away—but for the community of like-minded readers who gather there. An unlikely story The day I visit Booked for Murder to talk shop with Barnes, we sit on the velvety maroon couch surrounded by a comfortable clutter of shelves, racks and tables in a brightly lit space. She's dressed comfortably in jeans, with silver earrings dangling below her close-cropped, graying hair. Dance music from the 1920s plays softly in the background, and I decline her offer of one of Gus' favorite cookies. "Up until recently, owning the store felt a whole lot like being on a horse with no saddle or bridle," Barnes says. "I don't know where the horse is going, and all I'm doing is trying not to fall off." Barnes laughs as she says this, and then launches into the story of how she became the unlikely fourth owner in the history of Booked for Murder. After a five-year stint as the manager of the Ivy Inn, Barnes lost her job when the longtime Madison hotel closed its doors. In the aftermath, she was feeling adrift and unsure of her next move. She unexpectedly came into some money, so her decision was one that did not require an immediate, life-changing plan. She sought out a job she thought might be fun, and ended up working part-time at Booked for Murder. She thoroughly enjoyed it, but it was only three months before her life U-turned once again. Her parents had been in a horrible car accident, and even though they both survived, they were in need of constant attention. Without any hesitation, Barnes packed up her life and moved to Aurora, Minnesota, to care for them. In order to pass the time during the ten stir-crazy months she was there, she began to dream up a bookstore in her mind. "I kept a scrapbook, a little daydream book," Barnes says. "If I had my perfect bookstore, what would we carry? What would it look like? What would it feel like?" When she returned to Madison, one of the first stops she made was at Booked for Murder. She saw the serendipitous "For Sale" sign in the window, and at that moment she knew what she was going to do. Even though she had completed all of her bookstore prep on a whim and had no bookstore experience save for her previous part-time position, she decided to purchase the store anyway. Booked for Murder's founder, Mary Helen Becker, still regularly frequents the store and often offers up her experience and advice. Terri Bischoff, the previous owner Barnes purchased the store from, has now flipped roles with Barnes and works there part-time. "It's a little odd, I guess," says Bischoff, "but I still get to be in the store and talk to the customers and recommend books." It's this kind of give-and-take that begins to explain the enigma of how a tiny 1,680-square-foot space has bucked the odds from the beginning and stood firm beneath looming shadow of its chain competition and the uncertainty of the Internet. Filling a Niche The store's inventory includes everything from Agatha Christie-type whodunits to thrillers to darker, bloodier ruminations on the human condition. This wide-ranging selection has certainly contributed to its long-term viability, but the store also offers something intangible: a feeling of community for its patrons, who often refer to the store as their own. The Notorious Canary-Trainers, a cult-like crowd who read nothing but Sherlock Holmes mysteries and parse them detail by detail, hold their book groups here, as do others. Many of Booked for Murder's customers avoid buying mystery books from any other outlet and often spend their free time reading and relaxing there. Unlike Gus, Gary Johnson is one of Barnes' best customers. Friendly and soft-spoken, his personal book collection is some 1,400 and counting. At any given time he can be found reading five or six books at once. More often than not, three of them are mysteries. Like a lot of mystery readers, for Johnson it's less about solving the puzzle than it is the connection he finds with the recurring characters and locations in a series. While he purchases from bookstores all over town he always buys his mysteries at Booked for Murder. "I don't know if people realize how great their customer service is, and how they have always been willing to do anything for anyone," Johnson says. Sara Steele, a retired UW professor, stops in Booked for Murder monthly and never leaves empty-handed. Barnes, like Bischoff before her, sets aside books she knows Steele might like, and then hands her a stack when she shows up. "They may have tired of walking me through the shelves and pulling out the new arrivals," Steele jokes. Well-known and respected Madison author Marshall Cook launched one of his murder mysteries at Booked for Murder concurrent with a blood drive. Barnes remembers the event well. "I don't think the restaurant next door liked that so much," she says with a smirk. Beyond local writers, some of the biggest names in the field—Janet Evanovich, Dennis Lehane, and Michael Connelly—have held readings at the store. Ben LeRoy, the publisher at Madison's multi-Edgar Award-nominated Bleak House Books, says these face-to-face events are vital to building relationships, but more importantly, for creating a sense of community around an individual book. And it's these kinds of connections that lead to a bookseller being able to make recommendations that go far beyond the newest and hottest releases. Alan Abramson, a serious collector with more than two thousand books, including many rare and first editions, has been shopping at Booked for Murder since the day it opened in 1988. "Everyone who works there is an addict themselves, and they have an incredible knowledge in the mystery book field. They've always had a sense of what I'll like," Abramson says. Barnes plans to keep Abramson, Gus and the rest of her customers happy just as long as she can with a vision for the future that includes website improvements, inventory changes here and there, attracting younger readers, and maybe even adding some more new carpet and paint. No matter what the future holds for a niche bookseller like Barnes, her intentions are clear. "You know, all I really want is for the store to be full of people talking about books. Their favorite books." Jason Albert is a Madison-based writer.
Madison Magazine - October 2008 |


text:
Bible in Basic English (BBE) | New International Version (NIV) |
62 But Jesus said, No man, having put his hand to the plough and looking back, is good enough for the kingdom of God. | 62 Jesus replied, "No one who puts his hand to the plow and looks back is fit for service in the kingdom of God." |
The Bible in Basic English is in the public domain. (The Bible in Basic English Version Online) | Scripture quoted by permission. Quotations designated (NIV) are from THE HOLY BIBLE: NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION®. NIV®. Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 by Biblica. All rights reserved worldwide. (New International Version Bible Online) |


text:
Appcore is exhibiting at the upcoming Cloud Expo in New York from June 10-13. CEO Jeff Tegethoff and Krishna Subramanian, VP, Product Marketing, Cloud Platforms Group at Citrix will be discussing the benefits of Citrix CloudPlatform for service providers.
We also have large supply of no cost attendee passes for customers, partners, and interested technologists. Please follow the steps below to obtain your no cost pass.
Sponsor "VIP Gold Pass" Guest Registration Easy Steps:
1. Go to our special registration page -
2. Fill out the Attendee Information form
3. Select the VIP Gold Pass Registration Option
4. Enter the Discount Code: appcoreVIPgold
5. Abracadabra! The price will re-set from $2,000 to $0 - what's not to like?
Your VIP Gold guests can choose from our 165+ breakout sessions, general sessions, industry keynotes, Power Panels and attend the Expo Floor. The upcoming New York event will be our biggest ever. It now includes Big Data Expo, DevOps Summit, WebRTC Summit, Internet of Things Expo, and SDDC Expo.
**VIP Gold passes are available to qualified delegates only - IT professionals engaged in the development and/or purchase of Cloud/BigData/DevOps/WebRTC/Internet of Things/SDDC solutions.
**Not valid on previous registrations.
We look forward to seeing you at Cloud Expo and talking with you about our new product!


text:
Users Online Now:
Who's On?
Visitors Today:
Pageviews Today:
Threads Today:
Posts Today:
Join Our:
GLP Poker Rooms
Check Out:
GiveMeGossip.com - Gossip Forum
Donate To GLP
Adv. Search
Back to Forum
Back to Thread
Message Subject
PROOF -- BP Deepwater Horizon Drilled TWO Wells That Blew Out on FEB 13 and APR 20
Poster Handle
Post Content
I'll ask this one last time, where is the source document for this language, where did this originate from?
OP, where did you get this info (highlighted), as it is not in the document you linked to:
WELL #A (the first well that blew and was abandoned)
Latitude 28/44/17.277 N
Longitude 88/21/57.340 W
On location in Mississippi Canyon Block 252 in the Gulf of Mexico, the Deepwater Horizon semi-sub commenced exploration drilling at the Macondo prospect on 03FEB10.
This exploration well had been partially drilled by Transocean in OCT09. The Marianas semi-sub was damaged by hurricane Ida and was removed for repairs in late NOV09.
BP immediately experienced serious problems with its Deepwater Horizon semi-sub operation on 03FEB10. They were unable to seal large cracks at the base of the well for ten days.
BP informed the U.S. Minerals Management Service Dept. of the Interior on 13FEB10 that the cracks were causing uncontrollable bursts of natural gas and they filed a permit to abandon the well immediately.
President Obama was notified of the well blowout on February 13, 2010.
A little touchy there AC or Tony or whoever you really are. you just signed up with glp 6-15 during the oiol crisis. Who do you work for that you are demanding just one last time what op posted and where he got the info from>. if you knew how to read you would see all the other posts here verfying what he wrote from lots of links.Are you a spook? Sure act like it. A paid shill for sure.
Shut up cunt.
Did he write it or did it come from a document?
It's a simple fucking question and he never answered it.
Go read my fucking threads, many of which have been pinned and tell me I'm a fucking shill you fucking cunt.
Don't listen to that cunt. I want to know the answer to this to and I have noticed how your question has gone ignored.
Also, if thses sites are indeed 96 meters apart, then this whole premise goes to shit.
And I ain't no goddamned shill!
Please verify you're human:
Reason for reporting:
Smoking gun' Benghazi documents finally obtained
Your home appliances will soon be remotely controlled by the government
The Shemitah: The Biblical Pattern Which Indicates That A Financial Collapse May Be Coming In 2015
Plan C: The Top Secret Cold War plan for Martial Law in the USA
Vitamin D combined with exercise is crucial for reversing insulin resistance in type 2 diabetics, study shows
$100 Trillion American Economic Collapse
New Strain of Pig Virus Affects Minnesota Farmers
Scientists Debate Whether Solar Lull Could Trigger Another 'Little Ice Age'
CDC's Own Data: Vaccine-Infant Death Link
Global Warming Mounting Weird Comeback in 2015 - Agenda 21 Looming
Millennials: Escape the Credit/Debt Matrix
Public Water Fluoridation Being Challenged in Dallas
Cali Doctor Says, Don't Vaccinate Children
Supreme Court: Cops can do illegal things if it's an honest mistake
Ferguson Scared the Super-Rich So Bad They're Planning Exits
Obamacare program costs $50,000 in taxpayer money for every American who gets health insurance, says bombshell budget report
As The Middle Class Evaporates, Global Oligarchs Plan Their Escape Form The Impoverished Pleb Masses
Justice Dept spying on millions of US drivers - report
2.7 Magnitude Earthquake Shakes Up Downingtown, Pennsylvania
US Pacific Fleet Commander Drops Bombshell About Obama and Muslim Brotherhood
"Communist Party USA" Leader Drops Bombshell About the Democrat Party
State Of Maine Kicks 6,500 People Off Of Food Stamps
Think the New Underwear You Buy Hasn't Been Worn Before? Think Again.
Anchor Gives Obama The Finger and looses her job
If You Question Authority, You Are Mentally Ill


text: 7 Rappers Who Played High School And College Ball The GameThe 6'5'' Jayceon Taylor laced up for Compton High School. According to him, he averaged 14 points, 6 rebounds and 4 assists. These stats were good enough to earn him a basketball scholarship to Washington State University. Unfortunately, Game only lasted one semester at WSU. ‹ ›


text:
Featuring a 27mm LOOP and a 25 inch Italian leather chain this La LOOP is sure to be a great accessory, if not necessity to your wardrobe. La LOOP was the first necklace for eyewear, establishing this category after having been awarded a patent on the loop's swivel hinges. As with each La LOOP, a signature gift bag is included with the designer necklace.
La LOOP was invented in 1999 - out of necessity. How many times can one look for ones glasses? And wearing those granny leashes-not an option. Why can't something be functional and stylish and well made? That was the question and La LOOP is the answer. The magical hinges on either side of the loop enable the glasses to stay in place when in the loop.
868P - Animal Print with Matte Gold LOOP
795P - Smooth Black with Gunmetal LOOP
VIEW A PDF OF THE La LOOP CATALOG
Read more about La LOOP Necklaces
Watch a La LOOP Designer Necklace Video
Don't see what you're looking for? Click HERE!


text:
Sat, Feb 2, 13 at 12:04
Mamatoad, I noticed you are from Arizona. I retired here about 9 years ago from Colorado and live in Sun City West. Just wanted to say hi to another AZ KT lady. Carol |
Follow-Up Postings:
Carol, I am also from Arizona down in the far SE corner of the state, Sierra Vista to be exact. We travel over to Goodyear a few times during the year to visit my husband's aunts who live in Sun City. We were just there after New Years. Maybe sometime we could meet if you would be interested. |
Hi Carol! We've lived just outside the city limits of Tucson for over forty years and love it! I think we should have an Arizona get-together this Spring. I'm not sure how many of us are still around but I think it would be fun. Hi Nita! |
Hi Bettye!! Mike and I are heading East the middle of March. Going to be gone for at least 4 months. Would love to see you again. We were in Tucson yesterday and I thought about you. |
Please Note: Only registered members are able to post messages to this forum. If you are a member, please log in. If you aren't yet a member, join now!
Return to the Kitchen Table Forum
Information about Posting
- You must be logged in to post a message. Once you are logged in, a posting window will appear at the bottom of the messages. If you are not a member, please register for an account.
- Please review our Rules of Play before posting.
- Posting is a two-step process. Once you have composed your message, you will be taken to the preview page. You will then have a chance to review your post, make changes and upload photos.
- After posting your message, you may need to refresh the forum page in order to see it.
- Before posting copyrighted material, please read about Copyright and Fair Use.
- We have a strict no-advertising policy!
- If you would like to practice posting or uploading photos, please visit our Test forum.
- If you need assistance, please Contact Us and we will be happy to help.
Learn more about in-text links on this page here