The Campaign For DA

6.30.2015

Random Tuesday Morning Thoughts



  • The County Clerk for Hood County had national attention brought upon herself yesterday when she announced she would not issue same sex marriage licenses for religious reasons. Her name: Katie Lang. Please pronounce that name. If you now have "Constant Cravings" in your head and are overcome with a sense of irony, congratulations. 
  • A Lubbock Justice of the Peace says that if he has to choose between marrying gays or marrying no one, he will choose no one.  That's either a strong religious stance or a brilliant way of reducing his work load at the same pay grade.
  • Hey, I dog radio talk show host Mark Davis all the time but he had a segment yesterday where he debated Sally Kohn and the Supreme Court's gay marriage ruling. It was everything talk radio should be: Smart, respectful, left hooks, right hooks, and funny. (I had never heard Kohn before, but she was fantastic.) 
  • Davis is promoting a Libertarian theory of marriage: Keep the government out of it. Marry who you want and government's only role is to record that contract like they would a deed. I like the idea but feel like there are a million problems with it that I haven't thought about. I guess that theory would also make polygamy legal but, then again, it was good enough for Abraham, Isaac. King David, and King Solomon (who may be the leader in the clubhouse with 700 wives.)
  • Sports: (1) One month ago I wrote "Everyone can calm down about Joey Gallo. It is one game." He is now batting .218 and, with 87 at bats, he has struck out a remarkable 43 times. (2) Vegas has placed the odds of TCU winning a national championship at 9 to 1 and has already set the line on the Texas game where the Frogs are a 21 point favorite. 
  • Chris Christie joins the Republican field for president today. This is going to be like a good old fashioned cage match at the Sportatorium with bodies flying everywhere.
  • Bristol Palin: “This pregnancy was actually planned. Everyone knows I wanted more kids, to have a bigger family. Believing I was heading that way, I got ahead of myself.”  And you thought Supreme Court opinions were difficult to decipher. 
  • This morning in Dallas: A car gets destroyed in a wreck and ends up a couple of feet from a house which would not have taken the impact well. 

49 comments:

Anonymous said...

Please don't join the media hype about same sex marriage...let it die and wait for the divorces when most will find what that piece of paper does to their relationship.

Anonymous said...

Straight,Straight,Straight,Straight,Straight,Straight,Straight,
Straight,Straight,Straight,Straight,Straight,Straight,Straight,
Straight,Straight,Straight,Straight,Straight,Straight,Straight,
Straight,Straight,Straight,Straight,Straight,Straight,Straight,
Straight,Straight,Straight,Straight,Straight,Straight,Straight,
Straight,Straight,Straight,Straight,Straight,Straight,Straight,
Straight,Straight,Straight,Straight,Straight,Straight,Straight,
Straight,Straight,Straight,Straight,Straight,Straight,Straight,

NOW, celebrate me,celebrate me,celebrate me,
celebrate me,celebrate me,celebrate me,celebrate me,
celebrate me,celebrate me,celebrate me,celebrate me,
celebrate me,celebrate me,celebrate me,celebrate me,

Anybody want me on your talk show?
Anybody care? Anybody??
anything......................
see told ya.

Anonymous said...

(I had never heard Kohn before, but she was fantastic.)

Didn't you mean to write fabulous there, Bu?

Katy Anders said...

I have talked about "getting government out of marriage" a lot, and I no longer believe it's workable.

You'd have a choice, it seems to me: Either repeal any legal repercussions of marriage (survivor's benefits, joint tax filings, auromatic inheritance rights) or else start imposing requirements on it (which would lead you right back where you are now.

Don't forget that even with the recording of deeds example, the Supreme Court said that racial covenants aren't enforceable. Because government records them and courts enforce them, there's enough state action to invoke all the issues involving constitutional requirements.

The Estates Code, the Family Law Code, the Property Code, etc. would have to be completely re-written - all just because a handful of Christians don't understand the difference between religious matrimony and civil marriage.

It would be easier to pay for a basic civics class for the confused.

Anonymous said...

Skank trifecta! Yesss!

Anonymous said...

Sally Kohn,

I stopped reading her biography...

"One of the leading progressive voices in America today"

What a joke

Anonymous said...

I realize we have separation of church and state and can't apply Christian standards to everything, but it also occurs to me society started falling apart once we started removing religious influence in the early 60s (thank you Madalyn Murray O'Hare and the sexual revolution).

Unless we were talking about the mafia, you never saw mass shootings, especially of innocent bystanders. You never saw illegitimacy, and all of its accompanying problems, run amok. You never saw vulgarity in public, not at THIS level. Not this many people had deep emotional problems. And you could leave your doors unlocked when you left home.

I've never been more convinced that Christianity is the one true religion. To quote one of the Duck Dynasty people, "Where there is no Jesus there is no peace."

You liberals may be screaming "Love wins" right now, but there will be negative, unforeseen consequences to this Supreme Court ruling, I promise you. And when it happens I expect you will all be in denial about the situation and your solution will only worsen the problem, not make it go away.

Anonymous said...

909 is missing a lot of much-needed factual citations in that second paragraph.

Anonymous said...

Total idiocy. How can a gay-Christian wedding be less Christian than a Hindu, Muslim, whatever wedding?

Anonymous said...

Prove it 9:22

Anonymous said...

Since when did freedom of speech become hate speech???

Anonymous said...

Please Barry....no Bible references now...your high court has overthrown states rights and the moral code upon which our laws were founded. I suppose we can sub contract our elections out to other countries since non citizens can now vote in our elections.

Anonymous said...

Let's see if I can do this comment thing...

- Make broad statement condemning decades-old actions that differ from my opinion, which clearly means those actions caused the current state of affairs.
- Make multiple "factual" assertions that are vague and unverifiable, but support my opinion.
- Make statement that literally alienates 5.1 billion people, and quote a pop-culture figure that supports my opinion.
- Make dire prediction for the future while claiming actions not in line with my opinion will only make things worse.

Did I do it right?

Anonymous said...

A college balks at Hillary Clinton’s fee, so books Chelsea for $65,000 instead for 10 minute speech.

Anonymous said...

Barry
On the JP you missed the boat. They make a ton of money marrying people because of the honorarium they collect.

Anonymous said...

Wonder if she issues licenses to the divorced. Remarrying is also a sin.

Anonymous said...

Barry's website doesn't allow us to hyperlink, but what I said is such basic common sense that I'm not sure it needs citations anyway.

9:09

Anonymous said...

SCOTUS ruling, GOP presidential race, Abbott, Paxton, Perry. The content gods have provided you with a silver platter of content for the rest of your blogging career. Some days, I think they make it too easy for you.

Anonymous said...

The conservatives won't be happy until we are all forced to follow religious laws and punishment. You know, Sharia Law!

Anonymous said...

Thank you 9:09!!

Anonymous said...

100% of male gay relationships are not monogamous.

Anonymous said...

Because of the Supreme Court your country is gone, done, finished. You are weak and your enemies are strong.

Anonymous said...

Edit: Most

http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2013/06/26/most_gay_couples_aren_t_monogamous_will_straight_couples_go_monogamish.html

Mr. Mike Honcho said...

Day 4 and still just as married as before.

DF "IDGAF" Guy

Anonymous said...

10:11 - leftist won't be happy until they have shut down all dissenting views. You know, like communist.

Anonymous said...

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2015/06/isis-mocks-scotus-gay-marriage-decision-with-video-tossing-gays-off-a-roof-lovewins/

Anonymous said...

It's amazing how liberals can pollute the atmosphere with their moral and cultural filth yet they tell me to mind my own business when I also have to breathe in that same air the've corrupted.

Anonymous said...

10:23 you must not have kids to worry about

Anonymous said...

The radical left has won again.
And the thing about it is that all liberals are on the radical left.

Anonymous said...

Katy is right there is no way to simply abolish marriage because so many government benefits, veteran benefits etc are based upon marriage. This too shall pass as did women having equal rights, slavery abolished, etc.

Anonymous said...

10:53 -- good observation.

Anonymous said...

10:16 confirms what is true. This has nothing to do with equality under the law for lgbt couples. All dissent will be crushed. We are no longer americans who disagree but are enemies. 10:16 said it. 10:16 sounds like Tempest Teapot.

Katy: I disagree, while I still can. The definition of what constitutes a married couple has now changed under the law. I don't see what specifically would have to change under the codes you mentioned.

County clerk: should resign if unable to perform duties under the law for any reason including violation of religious beliefs. Period.

Anonymous said...

10:32, I hope the irony of your statement sinks in.

Anonymous said...

9:51 -

"Barry's website" is actually Blogger, which does allow links (or "hyperlinks," as you put it).

Click here for instructions on how to include links in your comments.

I look forward to reading your citations.

DF Guy With No Common Sense (but enough sense to figure how to include links in comments)

Katy Anders said...

12:33: I tried, badly, to explain why in my prior comment. if the government is out of marriage, then it is out of marriage, and if it is in it is in.

If the government is out of marriagem, then you don't have automatic intestacy rights, presumtin of paternity, etc.

If the government is in, then it's in, and you do.

You can't have the legal benefits of marriage and not have the government involved.

I now belive I might have said it better the first time. Read that again instead of this....

(Frankly, it's probably all academic, because once the initial freak-outs about the decision die down, no one is going to waste the time to change the laws. We'll be moved on to the next political fire.)

Anonymous said...

I want my country back! The good old days when men and women were the only ones to be married, niggers were lynched from the tree on the edge of town after sunset and you could beat the shit out of faggots with an axe handle like God intended.

I want my country back!

Anonymous said...

The K in K.D. Lang is for Kathryn.

Anonymous said...

12:47 - I was saying that the left are like the communist. 10:11 was comparing conservatives to radical Islamist.

Anonymous said...

JPs get paid more if they do weddings. $1000 a month, I believe.

Rage

Anonymous said...

1:24 -

Don't forget - you could beat the hell out of your wife if she got mouthy. Plus, thanks to the lack of those pesky spousal-rape laws, you could have sex with her any time you wanted, regardless of her wishes.

Oh, those were the days...

Anonymous said...

Apparently the points flew over 11:55's head as well.

The Last Sane Man in Wise County

Anonymous said...

Katy: I think I figured out what you said earlier. I do agree with you that government is either in or out. I agree, too, that you cannot have the benefits (cannot come up with a better term at the moment) you listed of marriage without government involvement. Your reply cleared up my confusion regarding the re-writing of the codes required to separate government from marriage. I thank you for your patience.

My solution attacks the problem from the other side. Why not get churches out the marriage sanctioning business as it pertains to the government? Weddings become religious rites, which they are, and not regulated by the goverrnment. No need to re-write the codes.

Anonymous said...

1:24, Are you Al Gore Sr., William Fullbright, Robert Byrd, or George Wallace come back from the dead? While you were gone, the Democrats built stautes, named bridges, schools and highways after you, and still hold you up as role models. You're not going to like the way your liberal policies have changed the country though.

Anonymous said...

We'll be moved on to the next political fire.


Katy, you said that like a true socialist!

Katy Anders said...

@2:36: We were talking about that in my office today. Someone suggested that's the way it is in Mexico (I don't know whether that's true or not). Basically, ministers wouldn't be among the people who could perform a civil marriage.

So if you wanted a governmentally-recognized civil marriage, you'd go to someone for that. If you wanted to get married in a church, you'd go to someone for that.

There'd be no more overlap.

Anonymous said...

Churches need to take action against law suits by making weddings a worship service and policies to only allow church to be used for worship.

Anonymous said...

Barry's website doesn't allow us to hyperlink - 9:51

Love it when Mr. Conservative Knowitall doesn't know it all and gets his ass handed to him in public.

Anonymous said...

Katy,

You do not have to repeal anything. The government just needs to stop issuing marriage licenses, and feds, state, local, stay out of any personal relationships between any consenting adults.

Legal questions concerning relationships will be answered as common law marriage questions are answered now, and have been for thousands of years. A marriage license from a US governmental entity need not be involved. Wills, POAs, DNRs, everything that is needed for the wishes of an individual would still take precedent over the wishes of any and all spouses.

Don't worry, the legal system will still be needed to settle disputes between any and all spouses, just as it is now.

How many people that have been married for more than ten years know where their marriage licenses are anyway? Has anyone ever dug theirs up for some use? Do you send in a certified copy of your marriage license when filing taxes?

Though marriage should not change tax implications. Should be the same, married or not. So that would be a plus.

Government out of marriage would really not be that tough. Easier than the next decade or so of cases before SCOTUS, with every oddball question that they will be asked to settle. This is going to be a trainwreck.

Mr. Mike Honcho said...

Mrs. Honcho and I have a few kids. And the same sex boogeymen haven't carried them away yet.