The American Spectator

reads1| 4.10.09 @ 8:22AM

Mr. Antle III; With all due respect to your obvious sympathy with a homosexual leading State Legislature, this is also the same group of lunatics that refuses to pass "Jessicas Law." It appears to me that Vermont, by this act, is shutting children completely out of their society. This could be good for the country as there will be fewer Idiots to worry about! You and other supporters of this farce should consider that G_D proclaimed heterosexual marriage and let NO man put asunder, including divorce, adultery, murder, etc.

Michael L. Hauschild| 4.10.09 @ 8:32AM

Now that is why I read the material produced by Tyrrell et. al. Logical, perceptive, non-biased and contemporary. Most of what will follow here, of course, will not live up to that criteria.

Mike| 4.10.09 @ 8:46AM

They didn't just pass it, they overrode the Governor's veto despite his vigorous political efforts to sustain it!

Even my own daughter (a Vermonter living in a two-Reaganite parent household) thought it was "mean" to withhold marriage from gay couples. Even my own Catholic pastor thinks that gay marriage is probably for the best if it keeps gay men away from destructive promiscuous behavior (apparently Cardinal Ratzinger - now the Pope - then advised priests to council stable single parter relationships to gay confessioners).

Unfortunately, there's no turning back.

Crusader| 4.10.09 @ 9:54AM

Here's a radical idea.

How about the gubmint get out of the marriage business once and for all, like it used to be before about 1850 or so? Leave marriage to the Churches, where it belongs, and get out gubmint.

john| 4.10.09 @ 10:38AM

cultural suicide---as darwin said "survival of the fittest" means reproduction and those with unique traits in their DNA that withstands changes in enviroment or gives 'em an advantage (it's not creationism---it's chromosomes--dogs have over 70 and why such a wide range of breeds).
Gays not reproduce. Others do.

Jordan | 4.10.09 @ 10:46AM

As a gay guy who occasionally muses about eventually settling down and starting a family myself, I found this article a pleasure to read. One of the legitimate questions it brings up are about what constitutes an ideal family; while I can't deny that a loving mother and a loving father are probably better than two of one and none of the other, the reality is that many people grow up without either.

Paul from SA| 4.10.09 @ 10:53AM

I think gay people just want respect and acceptance (public affirmation) from society, similar to the way feminism was started to provide ugly women the same respect and benefits that good-looking women get from men [as Rush says and which I partially agree with] .

I understand that California legalized same-sex unions, providing all the commitments, financial and visitation benefits of traditional marriage. This should have satisfied all their initial complaints. This still didn't satisfy the gay-rights community. No, it had to be called 'marriage.'

And that is the part I and many others object to. Marriage has a definition that can't be changed, much like 'up', 'down', 'left', 'right.' I don't care if gay people sign some legal contract to promise a lifelong commitment and everything else included, they just can't call it marriage.

No, I don't believe they (liberals) really care about marriage at all. This is just a ruse to impose their beliefs upon us. Just as environmentalists don't care about global warming (or else they wouldn't pollute the planet); animal rights activists don't care about animals suffering (or else they would be protesting lions, hyenas and sharks); vegetarians don't care about plants (or else they wouldn't murder or eat live plants); NAACP members don't care about blacks (or they wouldn't treat conservative blacks the way they do); feminists don't care about women's rights (or they wouldn't treat conservative women the way the do). You get the picture....

The people of each state must decide this issue by amending their constitutions, otherwise a couple of judges will decide it by themselves, or the legislatures will vote against the will of the people.

Jordan| 4.10.09 @ 10:54AM

John you make an interesting point. I believe the underlying genetic causes of gayness and lesbianism are probably different. It is not unreasonable to suspect the reason lesbianism has persisted is simply because, let's face it, females had little say in breeding until relatively recently. The reason I believe gays are here and not going anywhere is because we provide such an advantage to our sisters and their children--and the gay gene(s) are probably on the X chromosome. I, for example, probably won't have any kids of my own BUT will probably work my ass off to help put any nieces or nephews I wind up with through college. Similar sibling behavior has often been observed in primitive peoples, although I do not believe it has ever been directly linked to male homosexuality.

Roy| 4.10.09 @ 11:10AM

I've always pretty much thought this was inevitable. And it won't lead to "unceasing litigation", either - a decade, maybe two or three and it will be the law of the land. It's the media, most of the churches, the entertainment industry and the judiciary against a massively attenuated sense of what is normative - no contest.

My personal belief is it will lead to the collapse of government marriage. I could be wrong. It will certainly lead to polygamy and in fairly short order(I'll bet a resolution legitimizing polygamy would pass the exact same Vermont legislature).

If this stops causing supporters of the unborn to link to this cause it will be all to the good. I don't believe the lives of the weak should be protected for reasons of "social conservatism" and in fact I don't think the unborn have a chance as long as their defense is considered "social conservatism". "Social conservatism" is understood as a rearguard action whose job is to lose slowly and gracefully. The unborn need offense.

Paul from SA| 4.10.09 @ 11:30AM

Roy, I think it's worse than just polygamy, especially when a judge rules it's a constitutional right.

A 'right' means a person can marry anybody -- their children, their parents, brothers and sisters, co-workers, etc.... Imagine an entire subdivision, corporation or commune, all married!

Roy| 4.10.09 @ 11:38AM

I agree, Paul, which is why I've pretty much written off government marriage. An institution which is less important than some people's "self-esteem" to the majority is an institution the majority do not value.

I used to be fairly sanguine about this prospect but Maggie Gallagher's series at NRO made me realize that it will cause problems. But I still don't regard it as a cause that can be won. Anybody want to volunteer to go to Vermont and campaign to "take away gay rights"? So you hate gay people, you religious wacko? You're lucky if we don't burn down your church or at least strew condoms all over it to the roaring cheers of the media and immediate acquittals as brave, bold, champions of "civil rights" from the judiciary. Hollywood movie out in a year at best - "Vermont: How a few brave, bold rebels Stood Up to The Religious Right for the Right to Love".

The real way to look at the question is: What special protections should exist for the unique man-woman relationship that creates children and all non-ideologues agree is best for them? But again I can't imagine it has a chance in today's world. Maybe I am too much of a pessimist.

Bob| 4.10.09 @ 11:38AM

I can't believe I'm saying this, but I agree with Crusader and Roy that government should get out of the marriage business. If we get away from the religious argument, we can see why "traditional" marriage is in trouble. The divorce rate is over 50% and not 41% of all children are raised in single parent households. "Traditional" marriage is clearly not working. If it were, there might be a societal based argument for it.

Furthermore, in Massachusetts, gay marriages number under 1000 each year. It is just not a big deal in the big scheme of things.

Crackerjack Joe| 4.10.09 @ 11:39AM

Since over half of American couples are not married now, this is only a financial issue. Over half of all children born are born out of wedlock. Perhaps it's a popular political hot potato, that affects fewer and fewer people. Wouldn't that equate to a waste of time?

Roy| 4.10.09 @ 12:00PM

Bob/Crusader - it's not what I think should happen as much as what I think is inevitable. When marriage becomes about the self-esteem of the married couple the absurdity of asking society to subsidize it will grow sharper and sharper. Maggie Gallagher and Jennifer Roback Morse both point out that every retreat for marriage is an advance for government in the form of "family courts" regulating the living tar out of parents relationship with their children. I agree but I don't think it can be changed.

It's pretty much a non-sequitur to say that because people aren't getting married, "traditional marriage is not working". It works for those that actually do it. That does not include people whose primary focus is on a fancy dress and who might as well vow "till divorce do us part".

Big Leo| 4.10.09 @ 12:20PM

I'll continue the fight against gay marriage where it should be decided-- in the State legislatures. This is a defeat, no doubt about it. But nowhere else has the gay marriage lunacy prevailed except this one place.

If I thought it would stop with civil marriage, I wouldn't be so concerned, but there is also a campaign to coerce churches into condoning gay marriage by use of tax exemption challenges and other means. When there is an attack on a religious sacrament, it's not just the church's business, it's the business of everyone who truly supports the Constitution.

mark in wv| 4.10.09 @ 2:05PM

I think if you ask the average gay person why they vote democratic, they really can't tell you why, only that they hate conservatives, that they're bigots and homophobes. As a gay male, I don't believe that conservatives are against gays; what conservatives are reacting to is far left radical liberalism, which has nothing to do with sexual preference. And as for gay marriage, I've never understood what gay people were getting so upset about; if you want to pledge your love and commitment to your significant other in a public setting and invite all your friends and get lots of free stuff, WHO'S STOPPING YOU? We're not talking about night raids on bars or the wearing of pink triangles anymore. People who equate the "denial" of the "right" to marry with institutionalized bigotry and supression are beneath contempt. Gay people in America have it pretty good. Surely they can find other things to get ginned up about.

dcd| 4.10.09 @ 2:49PM

This is more support for the seperation of church and state. One religous group wants special consideration for their institutions, other religious groups demand equivalent special treatment. The result is everyone gets upset. If the government had not been enlisted into the position of defining marriage it would be unable to redefine, now would there be an incentive to do so.

Big Leo| 4.10.09 @ 3:23PM

dcd. "special consideration?" I'm unaware of any special consideration the churches get. What did you have in mind?

Michael Tomlinson| 4.10.09 @ 3:31PM

Thanks to blue dog Democrats like Jim Webb and Obamacons like the moronic Christopher Buckley and tiresome Peggy Noonan Barack will not only shred the Constitution, destroy free enterprize and make America a nation of unhealthy invalids, but traditional marriage will be a thing of the past. Welcome to the bankrupt and socially perverted Obamanation of Desolation. Happy days are here again Sieg Heil!

Alan Brooks| 4.10.09 @ 10:30PM

Mike,
its a new ball game now,
free enterprise died on jan 1st 2006, with the mega-billion prescription drug program to keep granpa alive so he can get extra bucks to buy a new car.

Alan Brooks| 4.10.09 @ 10:32PM

look, you dont take politricks seriously-- do you?

gays are just being exhibitionistic:

"look at me! I'm here and queer!"

Jeff| 4.11.09 @ 1:00AM

The best solution is for government to get out of the marriage business altogether. Do not let the government acknowledge any relationship whatsoever.
This way men will start to get a fair shake in dissolving heterosexual relationships and homosexuals will get a fair shake in starting them.

No benefits,no penalties.

Glau Montgomery| 4.11.09 @ 5:35AM

There reason marriage between gays and lesbians is on the rise is that more and more people are realizing there's no reasonable argument against it.

"It breaks tradition" Because marriage has never, ever changed. Oh wait, arranged marriages.

"They can't reproduce" Can a post-menopausal woman? What if one hetero partner is infertile? Or what if they just don't want children? Should this couple not be allowed to marry? Should a newly-wed couple fill out a form of when they will conceive children? Will their marriage be nullified if they do not produce on time?

Conservatives don't care about "traditional values," they care about ensuring that which makes them uncomfortable is kept far away.

Timothy L. Pennell| 4.11.09 @ 7:57AM

Remember life in America, when things made sense? Pornography was virtually invisible, there were a thousand words you couldn't say on T.V., and the Blue Laws forced families to spend at least one day a week, together. Remember the SUNDAY DRIVE? Remember SCHOOL SPIRIT? Remember when a MARRIED COUPLE was a MAN and a WOMAN? Do you remember SODOM and GHAMORRA? And what happened to them? This Gay Marraige abomination, can only lead to madness. Example: If the idea is, that as long as you have CONSENTING ADULTS, and they want to MARRY, then they have that RIGHT. 'Equal Protection Under The Law'. Can BROTHER marry SISTER? What about, FATHER and DAUGHTER? MOTHER and DAUGHTER. Can't THEY get Married, if they're both Consenting Adults? And who says that it can only be TWO people? Why not THREE? Why not FOUR? If THIS Abomination is allowed, then the other ones HAVE TO BE, as well. This isn't that hard to figure out. There's Traditional Marraige, and then there's the FREAK SHOW Marraige. And we SPIT IN GODS' FACE, at our own peril.

Michele San Pietro| 4.11.09 @ 10:44AM

I wonder why Vermont doesn't try to break away from the United States: it has thrown all American values into the sea by now.

Alan Brooks| 4.11.09 @ 12:05PM

All sex is being yakked to death.

it is all becoming as tasteful as a used douchebag.

Mary| 4.11.09 @ 12:12PM

One thing is for certain, if marriage meant what it meant even 50 years ago, gays would want no part of it.

Heteros threw it away, and homosexuals caught it, attenuated and meaningless, historically speaking.

Just read that Log Cabin republicans suffered a split. The "schismatics" are called GOProud. They're patriots. Hard not to be fond of a patriot:

"If your main issue is hate crimes or [federal anti-discrimination legislation] or marriage, you're probably not a Republican," Barron said, saying that while he backs gay groups on those other issues, they shouldn't be federal priorities.

H/T: Politico and Gay Patriot.

Mary| 4.11.09 @ 12:26PM

I do think polygamy will regain a certain amount of purchase once gay marriage is RvWaded. Why not?

As might Kissing Cousins.

Before you know it, it's likely to go all pre-Moses. We'll be studying the Bucholic, Roman pagans for upward inspiration.

Mary| 4.11.09 @ 12:29PM

I could have sworn that bucolic was spelled with an H!

Paul Crowley| 4.11.09 @ 1:42PM

=>“cultural suicide---as darwin said ‘survival of the fittest’ means reproduction and those with unique traits in their DNA that withstands changes in enviroment or gives 'em an advantage (it's not creationism---it's chromosomes--dogs have over 70 and why such a wide range of breeds).Gays not reproduce. Others do.” [john|]

I don’t believe that it’s “cultural suicide.”

Rather, it is cultural reformation.

One element of one aspect of it: Eugenics.

One element of the Human Husbandry that our reformed, and reforming, society is implementing.

The reformation is facilitated by what Darwin referred to as “survival of the fittest” (“natural” husbandry via INTRA-species struggle and competition, struggle between members of the same species, RATHER than inter-species competition, struggle between members of different species. The species in this instance is Homo sapiens).

INTRA-species struggle and competition: Human Husbandry, under the guise of a “natural” order, resulting in a “process” of “culling” of the “dregs” from society.

An environment formed to implement and regulate “survival of the fittest,” since the old advocates of eugenics’ argument of identifying and then physically ‘culling’ the ‘dregs’ directly required brutal methods that would never be accepted by the majority of normal human beings, who would perceive it as being too “inhumane” (even though a bullet to the back of the head is faster, but also a waste).

These are every bit as brutal, if not more so, but not as blatant, or obvious, to the majority of the population.

In this case, among those “culled” are those susceptible to be formed as “homosexuals” (a term first coined in the mid 19th century).

As you say, homosexual couples do “not reproduce. Others do.”

To be clear, the “others” are the non-sterilized people: Heterosexual couples, who wish to have children, and can now AFFORD to have children (or have as many children as they can afford, but have no direct influence upon what determines what they can, or
cannot, afford, if you prefer).

Which brings up the matter of artificial insemination.

Artificial insemination is now the dominant practice in the husbandry of domesticated food animals and is increasingly being applied to human beings, via the term In-Vitro-Fertilization (IVF).

IVF is expensive enough that the majority of human beings, susceptible to formation as homosexuals, or not, cannot, and will not, be able to afford the technolgoy, whether they want it or not. It can be regulated so as to be made even more expensive.

Does anyone really believe, that so-called “Health Care” reform, whether dubbed “nationalized” or “private,” or more likely, a hybrid, will result in making IVF technology available to everyone!???

Personally, I suspect that the majority of those who have been formed as homosexuals have been used in the manner of the popularized-term: “Useful idiots.”

The same applies to tens of millions of other people, in other ways, as well.

Read the old DSM criteria of homosexuality, and ask yourself if it describes people who constitute “the best and the brightest?”

It, and Kinsey’s descriptions in his sensationalized reports, describe to me people who are prone to infantile behavior, who possess high-sexual desire, and who are susceptible to pornography (something that induces sexual desire in a human beings). The prone to infantile behavior is something I’ve observed in many that I’ve known, or known of.

That such people may fit into the “dregs” category, where “reproduction” is concerned, doesn’t mean that they can’t be useful.

The Homosexual Rights activists began derisively referring to heterosexuals, publicly, as “breeders,” at least in the mid to late 1980s.

Those prone to formation as homosexuals, and heterosexuals prone to be induced to self-sterilize themselves (childless), can also be said to be the perfect human equivalent to the “workers” of hive insect species.

The rationalizations didn’t make any sense at the time, but in hindsight, I’m not surprised that it was the large corporations that Led The Way, beginning about 20 years, circa 1989-94, in providing “benefits” to “same-sex” couples in their employ.

No wonder the large Multi-National Corporations (MNCs) have been Leading The Way, 1998 onward, with the so-called Trans-Gendereds, by funding the operations to physically reform a person’s genitals (a penis reformed as a vagina or a vagina reformed as a penis), and the associated ‘plastic surgery’ and hormone injections.

The surgery is complex and sophisticated.

However, “Sex-change” operations (now re-dubbed Gender Realignments”) do not exist. They are physically impossible, as the technology to change the sex that a person is, to the opposite, does not exist. No male can be made into a female and no female can be made into a male. No change in sex takes place: The male remains a male and the female remains a female.

I believe that only fools would believe that resources will be employed to even attempt the development of technology capable of an actual "Sex Change."

The MNCs can’t afford to cover the cost of an employee’s eye glasses, never mind corrective eye surgery, but they just HAVE to cover the costs of this!

(obviously, given the MNCs biggest political party cheerleader, 1989-2008, then in like manner to those susceptible to formation as homosexuals, no few members led astray by the post-2001 reformed “Pro-Life Movement” have also been used in the manner of the popularized-term: “Useful idiots.”

Again, I don’t believe that it’s “cultural suicide,” but, rather, a part of the cultural reformation.

One element of eugenics.

Paul Crowley| 4.11.09 @ 1:46PM

"I do think polygamy will regain a certain amount of purchase once gay marriage is RvWaded. Why not?" [Mary]

Texas, obviously, began to establish the new precedent last year.

Paul Crowley| 4.11.09 @ 1:52PM

=>“cultural suicide” [john|]
In short, it’s been cultural murder by the "fittest” of the species, using the "less fit" (by standards of "fit," utterly foreign to normal human beings).

the_raptor| 4.11.09 @ 2:30PM

It's time to boycott Vermont for real. The state is in bad fiscal shape and the legislature JUST had to pass a gay marriage bill. It's time to shove all the tourist businesses down the toilet and let this state go bankrupt. This is the only way to drive in the final nails in the coffin of Vermont and let the state become a wilderness again.

It's too bad Bill O'Reilly did not have the guts to do this the first time. Better late than never...

Paul Crowley| 4.11.09 @ 2:42PM

=>“even if originally imposed by judges”

Perfidy: Betrayal by Faith (or “trust”).

Essays like this by James Antle, only serve to misdirect and leave many people clue-less regarding how the reformation of the American legal codes have been performed.

Contrary to “even if originally imposed by judges,” then the reform of the American legal codes, especially federal and state, and municipal, it has not merely been via the Federal and State Judiciaries, but it has been through all branches of government, Legislative, Executive, and Judicial, especially State and Federal, and facilitated by so-called non-governmental organizations (NGOs). It has also been via the members of both major political parties, neither of which has enjoyed a sufficient majority in the past 40 years to force these reformations by itself.

Reformation of American legal codes, in numerous ways.

The most obvious, more or less, were the purging of specific statutes (and, thereby, the associated legal precedents that had served to define them).

More subtle, but with the same effect and consequences, has been by replacing existing statutes with new statutes, often under the guise of protecting” something. . . [such as the ones providing what is a radically new, due to its minimalism and vagueness, definition of “traditional marriage” as being only between a man and a woman (but why? And for what purpose?), and the Federal Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003, that was
used to overturn the Virginia ban on late-term abortions that was enacted later, and after the Republican Party returned to a “states rights” rhetoric and stance). New statutes, usually with obscure-enough wording in sufficient quantify to guarantee that legal challenge, necessary for clarification and definition, will follow, thereby establishing the
new precedents of the new acts.

Reformation of municipal codes were primarily of municipalities, small towns and cities, that were being incorporated into the newly forming metropolitan areas. Now the last of those un-reformed municipal codes are being purged and reformed, on precedents set.

Reformation of the municipal codes of the small towns and cities that were left to “die on the vine,” due to their being by-passed by the new interstate highway system, unless providing critical precedents of some kind, were not of importance. Those places are going through their final ‘death throes’ and ceasing to exist.

The first test-run legal cases calling for “same-sex marriage” in California, in the early 1970s, were thrown out as a contradiction of terms. Too many statutes, and the precedents that defined them existed for it to be otherwise.

That’s no longer the case.

“Democracy” (which there has never been in any of this), mentioned in this article is actually now a weakness, since the arguments for this "unprecedented” redefinition of “traditional Marriage” are painted into the “Separate but equal” corner.

Sufficient marriages between self-sterilized heterosexual couples now exist, and the idea of marrying so as to have children and raise a family, purged from so many, that what arguments can be made?

A sufficient proportion of Americans who identify themselves as “heterosexual” have been taught the techniques of sodomy (dubbed with the euphemisms “oral sex” and “anal sex”), 1972-98, that the last, and toughest of the anti-sodomy laws was able to be
overturned.

The advent of pornography in 1953, precedents set by the Civil Rights movement, the placing of the elderly into the rest-homes, re-dubbed “retirement homes,” or whatever else, the advent of The Pill, the explosion in divorces, 1969 onward, the advent of the
‘liberation movements, the Federal legalization of abortion, ,’ the advent of so-called XXX Porn, 1972 onward, the advent of “No-Fault Divorce,” that caused a sharper rise, the remarriages (effectively sequential polygamy) resulting in what’s now dubbed the “composite family,” the ‘return of the prodigals’ to the reformed religions, 1989 onward, and their use by them to further degrade them, . . .

“Traditional Marriage” redefined as “between a man and a woman.” But for what purpose?

“Sodomy” redefined as “Homosexual Sodomy,” why?

“Abstain from sex” until marriage. Define “sex.” and “sex” for what purpose?

To Just Get Started . . .

In short, among the most useful have been the movements whose leaders only lead their followers astray.

The post-2001 reformed “Pro-Life Movement” now advocates the Reduction of abortions. Which is all that one needs to see to know that the Pro-Life movement has been defeated and no longer exists (same name, different THING).

As I noted, essays like this one by James Antle, only serve to misdirect and leave people clue-less regarding how the reformation of the American legal codes have been performed.

It’s been a common practice on both the right, the left and the libertarian.

Mary| 4.11.09 @ 3:00PM

Paul,

Your post was a very interesting read.

From Plato to present day autocrats, offended sensibilities are integral to their science.

I wonder if designer babies will become affordable at some point? I've mixed feelings about the whole thing. If a mother can spare her child mental retardation or cerebral palsy, then why not? On the other hand we lose natural variation that may serve even sociological purposes we don't fully understand. In other words, maybe the variation keeps us more closely in touch with what differentiates us from quadrapeds.

If a gene can be found to cause homosexuality, I can imagine a lot of couples saying, no thanks, sodomy is not equal to coitus. I think we want a son who wants his own children, thankyouverymuch.

It depends who controls science.

The left is as anti-science as the right. If you've ever encountered GW fundamentalists who argue on sites like these, you'll find they run like frightened school girls when taken to task by those who understand climate.

Anyway, I think the study of genetics is fascinating. They've almost completed the genome for Neanderthal man. I understand he was likely a red-head with green eyes.

Big Leo| 4.11.09 @ 3:45PM

Genetic control of the qualities of your child does raise interesting problems, doesn't it? For instance, if homosexuality did turn out to be a genetically caused state, then almost zero parents would select for it, and homosexuality would disappear.
Gee, would that be homophobic? Any trolls willing to tackle that one? There has to be a way to blame George Bush for it.

Alan Brooks| 4.11.09 @ 4:20PM

saltpeter is a cure for peoples' yapping about sex forever.
Mencken, where are you-- please come back!

Paul Crowley| 4.11.09 @ 4:25PM

=>“One thing is for certain, if marriage meant what it meant even 50 years ago, gays would want no part of it. Heteros threw it away, and homosexuals caught it, attenuated and meaningless, historically speaking.” [Mary]

No. It’s the reversal of the last line of the Lord’s Prayers: All have been ‘led into temptation, and delivered into evil.’

As to the first, statement, then I’m not so sure.

But I am certain that if the Americans of 50 years ago could look at what this society is today, it would be seen as a horror and the overwhelming majority would “want no part of it.”

Hence the need for the constant propagandizing to the young about the “bad ole days.”

As to the people formed as homosexuals today, then 50 years ago, the majority of them wouldn’t have been so formed.

One thing is certain, if people understood the situation they’ve been led into, they wouldn’t want any part of this. It doesn’t begin to dawn on most until its too late, if at all.

YOU females have been indispensable to this, you know.

Seeing the “Pro-Life Feminists,” coming to the fore these past eight years or so, and reading the cheap propaganda, reminded me of the old Virginia Slims cigarette commercials: “You’ve Come A Long Way, Baby!”

Then Came Sarah Palin, giving new life to the Feminist movement of the 1980s:
‘You Can Do It All!’

Wow! You Really Have “Come A Long Way, Baby!”

Credit where credit is due: in the pre-reformed America, of “50 years ago:”

Women bore the majority of the responsibility of caring for the elderly members of family, and raising the children.

Family hadn’t been redefined as the so-called nuclear family” though, and the female members still included grand-aunts, aunts, nieces, and the host of cousins. . .

And the same with male counterparts, who provided the income and other assistance (heavy lifting and such. . . ).

The neighborhoods hadn’t been torn apart yet, and the small towns and cities destroyed, or transformed into “bedroom communities” in the new metropolitan areas (such as Wasilla, Alaska is to Anchorage). The majority of females hadn’t been taught to enter the work force, with the expectation of never leaving it, and the American Dream still included the expectation of laborers elevated to lower middle class status, able to raise a single family (average size 4.5 kids) on a single paycheck.

Women had the “Right To Reproduce” (obviously, with average family size at 4.5 kids).

45 years ago, McDonalds hired only teenage adolescent males, managed by young men.

In truth, today:

Women still bear the majority of the responsibility of caring for the elderly and children (just members of other people’s families and raising other people’s children).

Yeah, there are some male nurses and such, in the new reformed medical system, but not that many proportion wise, where these trades are concerned.

But what exactly WAS a “hospital orderly?”
The females are taught lifting techniques and human dignity has been purged, in the new, post-1989, reformed veterinary-medicine like hospital system.

“Soccer Moms?”
Auxiliaries to the Public Education System (glorified drivers).

A boy punch someone in the mouth for making disparaging remarks about his mother?
Forget, those days are gone. Why should he? It would only get him put on drugs, by the school “authorities” anyway.

But, hey, McDonalds and other fast food joints hire females now, and have since about 1969!
Wow, teenage adolescent females working in the kitchen!
Boy, that kind of ‘one small step for woman,’ but ‘one Giant Leap for Woman-kind” 'makes ya proud to be an American!'

From what I can tell, females continue to bear the burden of kitchen work also (just in fast food joints and restaurants).

It looks like they’re also becoming the majority of barbers! (Not the first women to cut men’s hair, just the first generation to do it in large numbers, All Day Long, cutting stranger’s hair).

“Right To Reproduce?”
A shabby euphemism for the “right” NOT to reproduce ("right" is also a euphemism, for "encouragement," since it's a right that women always had).

One can “reproduce” as much as she is able to afford, but has no influence, whatsoever, regarding what determines what she can afford.

“Right To Work For Women”

Show me the Female version of 'Jim Crow laws.'

I’m not aware of them, or of which ones had to be overturned to facilitate this.

I knew a mechanical engineer who worked at the Naval Weapons Engineering Station in California who was a female.

I learned Calculus from a female instructor.

I learned the statics portion of mechanics from a professor who was a structural engineer.

I learned Physical Chemistry from a professor who was a Chemist (and was one of my sponsors for entry to the American Chemical Society).

NONE of these women were so-called “Baby Boomers,” but were “Greatest Generationers.”

All are now either dead or in their late 70s/early 80s.

The Soviets cranked out female engineers and scientists of every kind.

The “Sovietization of American women doesn’t just refer to the menial laborers.

My speculation last year was that, whether Clinton, McCain or Obama won the election, American women will be pressed into national service (or registration for it).

This last vestige of the archaic old “female prerogative” (“Choice?”) needs to go.

The girls, having been “liberated,” need to stop dumping on the boys, and ‘step up to the plate’ and meet their RESPONSIBILITY as citizens.

We'll see what happens. . .

"You've Come A Long Way, Baby!”

And all at the “low cost” of the post-1969 boom in wife beatings, rapes, the post-1972 lessons in the technique of oral sodomy, use of females, including mothers, in war zones (where women do what women CAN be used for, some even doubling as a kind of 'comfort woman' to the troops), and the use of millions as “useful idiots”. . . What a deal!

For the first time in my life, I thank God for what would have seemed absurd to me until now, that I was not born a female.

I've thanked God for decades that at least I could be a kid in the pre-reformed America, when we could roam for miles in those days; no worries.

Bottom line:
Some women will attain positions of power.
Some women will have careers.
The overwhelming majority of women will be laborers, whether menial, trained, or educated.

The overwhelming majority of women will have NO Choice in this, What So Ever.

It is, however, shaping up as a more efficiently organized society and “Human Resources,” eminently more manageable and responsive to central direction.
Urbanized, rootless, and debauched, ripe to be “cleaned up” and be further reformed.

Frankly, I’m not surprised that young woman, and young men, look at what marriage means today, and where children are concerned, decide they “want no part of it.”

(even if those 35 years old and younger, hadn’t been taught, and weren't continuing to be propagandized
still).

My late mother had already made the observation, “I wouldn’t want to be a parent today,” back in 1981. I understood her point, and added, “I wouldn’t want to be a kid today,” (back in 1981: it's only gotten worse).

Another new "tradition" established in the 1980s:
A 39 year old woman, 1 year from entering middle age, told me 2 weeks ago, that when she was a kid: "We were taught that you married the first person you had sex with."

It’s a lousy society for children, the elderly and the physically and mentally infirm (and those prone to infantile behavior with a high sexual-desire drive?), but it is shaping shaping up as a more efficiently organized one and its “Human Resources,” eminently
more manageable and responsive to central direction.

And like that 39 year old, most don't realize it. It's been done "humanely." They won't realize it, until the economics change, or it slams them upside the head, due to ageing, and then it will be too late.

Alan Brooks| 4.11.09 @ 4:27PM

I DO think homosexuality is disgusting (and btw dont blame bush for it).
All sex is becoming disgusting, hearing people talk about it as like if it were elimination:"I had a bowel movement, and then sex, last night!" whoop de do dah day!

even a dog can have as much fun in your backyard.

Paul Crowley| 4.11.09 @ 5:18PM

=>“I cannot believe the lack of understanding of our form of government. Is it stupidity?”
[jharp]

Hi jharp:

I can.

How many have bought into the crude absurdity that black slaves were only considered “2/3 of a human being” at the time that the constitution was ratified in 1789?

I first heard that line from Al Gore, when he was doing one of his cheezy “preacher” acts in a Black church somewhere, during the 2000 elections.

I was surprised at the absurdity of the statement, and blew it off as nonsensical.

Obviously, I shouldn’t have. Today, nothing from an ex governement official, no matter how high, suprises me any longer, or do I just blow off, as such.

Even given the fact that the number of Representative districts have now been fixed, and, are, therefore, only redrawn as populations change, then one should still be able to at least be curious about this allegation.

I find this to be one of the more sobering examples of the American population, at this point in time.

By the same reasoning, then given the Democratic Party procedural reforms for last years’ primaries, and its practice of registering Americans overseas as a distinct bloc, then Democrats overseas are only considered to be "1/2 of a human being, per the party’s presidential candidate nomination procedures (there’s a ‘freebie’ for cheap shots, for anyone who wants to ‘pick it up and run with it’).

I don’t think it’s stupidity (with the exception of genuinely stupid people, which I don’t mean as a derogatory).

I think that its ignorance and confusion.

Definitely way too many ignorant people Have Been Taught, all too easily, to call others “stupid,” “idiot,” “moron,” . . .

The other variation is people “don’t think.”

In my experience, the majority of people do think, but primarily about what is important to them, or made important to them: Work, hobbies, and improving their crummy so-called "sex lives" (just kidding about the last!). No question, work and hobbies eat up a tremendous amount of time and energy in this country (a lot like the British population had been reformed by the 1900).

After that, civics hasn’t been emphasized for at least 35-40 years now. No more of the old “We Are The Government” civics classes. Instead, Activism and Demonstration ("Power To The People"), which are useless, have been emphasized , at least 1969 onward, to the majority of us American peons.

I think a new civics instruction is going to be implemented.

“How Stupid Are We?”

From some reviews of this book, then I understand that “the lack of understanding of our form of government,” and your question, are included as themes in the new book, “How Stupid Are We?”

As I recall, fewer than 25% surveyed (I don’t know the basis or standards) could list the three branches of government (legislative, executive, and executive). If true, and if that applies nation-wide, then that would explain a lot about how so many, so easily, accept, with such credulity, the assertion that black slaves were only considered “2/3 of a human being” in 1789.

I won’t comment on Iowa’s particular system, I’m not at all familiar with it. Given the hundreds of amendments that have been made to many of the state constitutions in the last 50 years (I don’t know about Iowa), who in the world is, I wonder?

Paul Crowley| 4.11.09 @ 5:26PM

=>How stupid am I?

“list the three branches of government (legislative, executive, and executive).” [Paul Crowley]

Honestly, it was a typo.

I meant to type: (legislative, executive, and judiciary).

Mary| 4.11.09 @ 6:34PM

Paul,

You wrote:

I knew a mechanical engineer who worked at the Naval Weapons Engineering Station in California who was a female. I learned Calculus from a female instructor. I learned the statics portion of mechanics from a professor who was a structural engineer. I learned Physical Chemistry from a professor who was a Chemist (and was one of my sponsors for entry to the American Chemical Society).

NONE of these women were so-called “Baby Boomers,” but were “Greatest Generationers.”

G. Gordon Liddy's autobiography documents his wife working at IBM in some critical position involving mathematics. I think Edison only attended school until he was 8, and then his mother educated him. C.S. Lewis' mother was a higher math girl, too.

I like a good rant, but I sense I ticked you off or something. I didn't mean to.

I'm a little past 50 and never married. And I don't regret it, either. Wife, mother, worker; that's a prison to me.

My opportunities to marry were to men who were smart and hard workers, but they weren't too keen on my ideas of what my role of wife and mother was. I decided I didn't want to be a man's wife and portfoglio diversification too. I'm not constituted to thrive under that combination of circumstances. And I'm not at all driven by a need for status.

Even though my roots are strict RC/Italian, my parents never pushed me to marry because they saw how dispensable it was becoming.

My father still tells me: 'don't you ever forget, you have your father and your brothers.'

Pater familias has been dissolved by the State, and if you need a head of household the State is where you'll find him.

Mary| 4.11.09 @ 6:36PM

Forgot to close my tag. My own thoughts begin with G. Gordon Liddy.

Paul from SA| 4.11.09 @ 11:08PM

.... Imagine an entire subdivision, corporation or commune, all married!

My bad guys -- I forgot about those Mormons!

Martin McPhillips| 4.12.09 @ 5:09PM

Winning the debate is easy.

For instance, start with "gay marriage" doesn't exist. That it's a postmodern fantasy. An attempt to force people to believe that 2+2=5.

Passing the Federal Marriage Amendment is hard.

But that is the way to settle the matter. Set the goal. Get at it. Get it done.

Alan Brooks| 4.12.09 @ 11:47PM

legislative, executive and executive.

hmm, sounds like more'n a typo.

a slip...

Paul Crowley| 4.13.09 @ 12:35AM

=>"I sense I ticked you off or something. I didn't mean to." [Mary]

Hi Mary:

Naw, not at all.

I apologize if the “tone” gave you the impression that you “ticked me of something.”

I was just addressing some of the aspects of how the cultural reformation, came about, especially in the past 46 years, that have facilitated the institutionalizing of “same-sex marriage.”

Your post brought to mind the contribution made By The Use of American females (I only touched on some aspects).

American females have been an instrumental part in bringing about the reformation of American society, and in facilitating the reformation of the American legal codes that have made possible the advent of “same-sex marriage.” Have been, and, due to precedents set, continue to be.

The reformations of the American educational system was also critical.

The first big college-level reformation completed by 1967, and the second by 1992, and now a third by 2005.

These have been critical, where women are concerned, as well.

=>“his wife working at IBM in some critical position involving mathematics. . .his mother educated him . . a higher math girl, too.”

As to women in science, math and engineering, among plenty of others who were in politics, or other who were “Career Women” of all kinds, prior to the Advent of the females born 1939 and later, then even I can list a good many who made prominent contributions from the mid 19th century through to the end of WWII, BOTH Americans and non-Americans.

I only gave a few examples of women that I’m personally familiar with in math, science and engineering, NONE of which fell into the social generations of individuals, born prior to 1939.

The simple truth is that American “Career Women” are not a post-1967 phenomenon due to the females born 1939-1973.

It’s no secret, this simple truth is that, until recently, its a truth that has not only not been emphasized in the popular-classes-teaching about women, 1967-2005, but one directly avoided.

For one to become aware of it, then he would have had to become so through familiarity by means other than instruction on the ‘history of women’ that has most commonly been provided to those of us in the ‘popular classes’ these past four decades.

APPLES AND ORANGES in Pop-Instruction about the history of women:
As to the few examples of women that I’m personally familiar with that I gave (a mechanical engineer, a mathematician, a civil engineer, and a physical chemist), none of whom fall into the social generations of individuals, born prior to 1939, then, all of these women received their education’s, prior to the advent of the reforms in American education in place today.

Like my own nieces, all of these gals left high school prepared to enter college-level study in mathematics, the physical sciences and engineering.

None of the remedial courses, ubiquitous to the American system today, were available when these women were young college students.

Entry-level “College Algebra” in their day was a junior-level college course with calculus and ordinary differential equations as pre-requisites. Calculus was still a 12-hour curriculum, taught in three 4-credit-hour courses.

I only emphasis this because the fact is that many comparisons that are made these days are purely the proverbial “apples and oranges” comparisons.

The titles may be the same, the content no longer is.

I had SOME disagreement with your statement that “one thing is for certain, if marriage meant what it meant even 50 years ago, gays would want no part of it. Heteros threw it away, and homosexuals caught it, attenuated and meaningless, historically speaking.”
[Mary]

“One thing is for certain,” however, if a college education “meant what it meant even 50 years ago,” then countless numbers of todays college students, MALE and FEMALE, “would want no part of it.” The same applies for some vocational training programs, as well.

Don’t confuse my statement as ‘moralizing’ about a decline in standards. I’m not.

The fact is that technological advances, and standardization, have facilitated the reforms in standards and education, especially those implemented about 1987-91.

There a great many things “attenuated,” which bear the same title as before, and, even if not “meaningless,” then are not nearly as substantial or as impressive as before.

This applies to professions, trades, and both females and males.

Both men and women have been used.

It's just that women have been especially more useful.

Paul Crowley| 4.13.09 @ 12:40AM

“legislative, executive and executive.
hmm, sounds like more'n a typo.
a slip...” [Alan Brookes]

Hi Alan:

Not at all.

It was a typo.

Sometimes a ‘typo is just a typo.’

Paul Crowley| 4.13.09 @ 1:05AM

=>“Passing the Federal Marriage Amendment is hard.
But that is the way to settle the matter. Set the goal. Get at it. Get it done.” [Martin McPhillips|]

Back to the issue of ‘how our system of government works.’

As I noted before, this tactic has been a common one: Social Revolution advanced under the guise of “conservatism.”

This is the most destructive of the techniques.

In a single step, it wipes away most all statutes, and their associated precedents, and establishes something completely and utterly new, that will require clarifications and definitions that will establish new legal precedents.

Anyone notice the popularization of the term Unprecedented,” in the past few years, that "We The People" Are BeingTaught?

It followed right on the heals of the popularization of the phrase:

“Rule By Law,”

that "We The People" Have Been BeingTaught, about 2002-present (2009).

As I've said elsewhare, the Revolution, escalated past 45 years, has actually been a Counter-Revolution.

The erasing of American principles, and the resetting of our laws right back to 1774.

Paul Crowley| 4.13.09 @ 1:24AM

Droning on about The Contitution. . .

One can recognize how far the American Counter-Revolution has advanced from the rhetoric, being
popularized via the (now) well-known libertarian politicians, like Ron Paul, their 'fellow travelors', like Pat Buchanan, and Republicans like John McCain (the "constructionalist”), and by the explosion in snippets from articles of our constitution being circulated, especially since 2005.

Looking at what is flowing out of the Mass-Communications Medea (so-called “mainstream,” or otherwise), then one could be forgiven for thinking that the American Constitution had just recenty been ratified in 1998, rather than in 1789.

So many experts on the constitution, not to mention the foreign policy of the Washington administraton, and on such miniscule information, among the population of us American peons these days!

Paul Crowley| 4.13.09 @ 3:02AM

=>“Even though my roots are strict RC/Italian” [Mary]

Hi Mary:

Your “roots,” like those of hundreds of millions of Americans, are now all-but completely severed (which includes the newly-formed “Scots-Irish” Americans).

Most people haven’t figured this out.

Paul Crowley| 4.13.09 @ 3:29AM

=>“Even though my roots are strict RC/Italian” [Mary]

I’m aware of the stereotypes, but, still, “strict RC/Italian,” really doesn’t really tell me much.

I grew up in the pre-reformed religions.

I also grew up prior to the Reformation of the Races” in America (“USia?”): Creation of the White, African-American, Asian, Hispanic (Latina, Chicano, . . .), Arab, Native-American, . . .

So did you, at the tail end of it.

Use of the stereotypes, and the reformed religions, have been invaluable to the reformation of the America and to creating “same-sex marriage.”

Paul Crowley| 4.13.09 @ 4:40AM

=>“my parents never pushed me to marry because they saw how dispensable it was becoming.” [Mary]

It sounds like your parents held some radical ideas, given that you should have graduated from high school sometime about 1972-76.

Where marriage is concerned:
“Dispensible” is a peculiar choice of term and this peculiar phrasing.

If this was their phrasing, then who taught them this?

I grew up in a family of practicing Catholics (We heard Mass as a family every Sunday, and on Holy Days of Obligation, and kept the precepts of the Church).

My parents (born 1919 & 1921) thought of marriage as something normal, as in some people do and some people don’t, and would never have thought of it in terms of being “dispensable” or “indespensible.”

My grandparents, both sides of the famliy, were the same.

The marriages of my two brothers who did marry were happy occasions for my parents.

The wedding anniversaries were happy occasions for my parents (the 38th and 30th annivesaries this year would please them, if they were still alive).

The only thing that my parents believed to be in-dispensable for their children, 3 boys and 1 girl, was an education.

That regardless of our sex, male or female (which they would not even have thought about, as such to begin with).

Their goal was to see ALL of their children get a college education.

The thought of a college education for only the boys, and not for my sister, would have been a COMPLETELY foreign one to my parents.

As far as what to study, then the choice was entirely left up to us as to what to major in.

That resulted in: One son majoring in education, and a master’s thesis in modern European history; another son majoring in petroleum enginering, the third son majoring in chemical engineering, and a daughter majoring in economics, with all completing their
studies and awarded degrees in their respective majors.

My parents were very happy with, and proud of, that.

As far as work was concerned, then the choice was left up to us.

As far as marriage was concerned, then the choice was up to us.

Paul Crowley| 4.13.09 @ 5:30AM

=>“Pater familias has been dissolved by the State, and if you need a head of household the State is where you'll find him.” [Mary]

There’s some truth in this.

And this has led to facilitating the implementation of “same-sex marriage.”

Again, American Females were INDISPENSABLE.

But let’s be clearer than merely the vague phrase: “the State.”

Contrary to the assertion that “New Deal” programs, established during the Roosevelt administration, are responsible, they’re not.

The programs of the Roosevelt administration actually strengthened Family, in the pre-reformed America sense of term (what are now dubbed extended families,” and not just what are now dubbed the “nuclear family”).

It was the reformation of “New Deal” programs, 1967 onward.

Especially the reform of Aid To Families With Dependent Children (AFDC), 1967-96.

Aid To Families With Dependent Children (AFDC) reforms, 1967-96:
AFDC Reforms enacted beginning in 1967, during the Johnson administration.
AFDC Reforms enacted in 1981, during the Reagan administration.
AFDC Reforms enacted in 1996, during the Clinton administration.

These were especially critical.

"To Be Independent" was propagated, 1969 onward.

Where American Females are concerned, then these are what gave Tens of Millions the “Sense” of the “Independence” that Americans Were Taught to be.

The kind of "independent" women this facilitated, and the consequences, have facilitated implementation of "same-sex marriage."

Paul Crowley| 4.13.09 @ 6:00AM

=>“I'm a little past 50.” [Mary]

Hi Mary:

You fall into two age groupings that are now, or have been, designated as “generations.”

The “Baby Boom” (born, 1946-59).
The “Me Generation” (born circa 1953-73).

The “Me Generation” is comprised of the tail end of the “Baby Boom” and the so-called “X Generation (born 1960-73).

The “Baby Boom,” was viewed as an event, up until Brokaw was used to create the so-called “Greatest Generation,” and to transform the “Baby Boom” into a “generation”

(the tactic of using a “journalist,” made into a celebrity, for purposes of propagandizing).

After the birth of these two new “generations,” then the newly invented Baby Boomers were rapidly made into The Cause Of All Evil, in America, 1969-today.

Don’t worry, you won’t hear any of that nonsense from me.

Transformations of Americans began with the so-called “Lost Generation” that preceded the so-called “Greatest Generation.”

Tens of millions of the so-called Boomers were used.

No question the so-called “Me Generationers” were used.

Neither are the CAUSE of anything, as such.

Tens of millions of the “Losters” and “Greatesters,” were also used.

Where facilitation of same-sex marriage is concerned, then it was members of the “Greatesters” who actually kicked off the first bout of promiscuity, the first boom in adultery and the first boom in divorces.

The “X Generation” (born 1960-73) was dubbed just about right where this “American Experiment” of the 45 years is concerned.

“X marks the spot:” Of the beginning of a radically new and different ‘breed’ of 'born and raised' Americans.

The “Me Generationers” were the most self-destructive, and therefore the most critical to
facilitating the reformation of the American legal code and culture, and, therefore, in implementing “same-sex marriage” (even though it's the age range with the most who still oppose “same-sex marrige” in the opinion polls).

The right-leaning “Me Generationers,” especially the Xers among them, were critical to electing G.W. Bush in 2000, and, especially in 2008.

The “Me Generationers” are clearly the target of the next “Generation Gap” being set up.

Personally, I believe that this bunch will be ground up, like hamburger.

Paul Crowley| 4.13.09 @ 6:22AM

=>“The right-leaning ‘Me Generationers,’ especially the Xers among them, were critical to electing G.W. Bush in 2000, and, especially in 2008.”

Hi Mary:

Another typo.

This should have been:

The right-leaning ‘Me Generationers,’ especially the Xers among them, were critical to electing G.W. Bush in 2000, and, especially in 2004.

G.W. Bush (an upper-end “Baby Boomer”) was cast in the ‘image and likeness’ of these people, by both the ‘for’ & ‘against’ propagandists. The upper-class ivy-league educated WASP sounded Just Like tens of millions of them and the shabby image of his life was Just Like tens of millions of their real lives.

It was millions in the so-called “Y Generation” (born 1974-87) and un-named “Z Generation” (born 1988-2001) that were critical in 2008.

B.H. Obama (an upper-end “Xer”) was a man ahead of his time: He grew up in the same shabby manner and same kind of “composite family,” as some have dubbed it, that millions of Yers (especially the Yer & Zer children of the “Me-Geners) had to endure.

Who facilitated the reformation of the American legal code, and the transformation of America into what it is today?

Who facilitated "same-sex marriage?"

About a little less than half of "We The People." (including many of them who delude themselves as being "moral").

Paul Crowley| 4.13.09 @ 6:36AM

=>“even if originally imposed by judges”

Again, FACILITATED is not the same as caused.

Teaching women how to perform acts of sodomy, like masturbating a man with her mouth, was not the CAUSE.
As I said before:

Perfidy: Betrayal by Faith (or “trust”).

Essays like this by James Antle, only serve to misdirect and leave many people clue-less regarding how the reformation of the American legal codes have been performed.

Contrary to “even if originally imposed by judges,” then the reform of the American legal codes, especially federal and state, and municipal, it has not merely been via the Federal and State Judiciaries, but it has been through all branches of government, Legislative, Executive, and Judicial, especially State and Federal, and facilitated by so-called non-governmental organizations (NGOs). It has also been via the members of both major political parties, neither of which has enjoyed a sufficient majority in the past 40 years to force these reformations by itself.

Reformation of American legal codes, in numerous ways.

The most obvious, more or less, were the purging of specific statutes (and, thereby, the associated legal precedents that had served to define them).

More subtle, but with the same effect and consequences, has been by replacing existing statutes with new statutes, often under the guise of protecting” something. . . [such as the ones providing what is a radically new, due to its minimalism and vagueness, definition of “traditional marriage” as being only between a man and a woman (but why? And for what purpose?), and the Federal Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003, that was used to overturn the Virginia ban on late-term abortions that was enacted later, and after the Republican Party returned to a “states rights” rhetoric and stance).

New statutes, usually with obscure-enough wording in sufficient quantify to guarantee that legal challenge, necessary for clarification and definition, will follow, thereby establishing the new precedents of the new acts.

Martin McPhillips' suggestion:

“Passing the Federal Marriage Amendment is hard.
But that is the way to settle the matter. Set the goal. Get at it. Get it done.” [Martin McPhillips|]

Would result in just this. A final Erasure.

Even if Mr. McPhillips is sincere, what he suggests what has been a common tactic, used due to the form of government we have, to advance Social Revolution under the guise of “conservatism.”

It is the most destructive of the techniques.

In a single step, it wipes away most all statutes, and their associated precedents, and establishes something completely and utterly new, that will require clarifications and definitions that will establish new legal precedents.

Michael L. Hauschild| 4.13.09 @ 9:16AM

Dear Lord Paul, you have entirely too much time on your hands.

JP| 4.13.09 @ 9:37AM

Mary,
I think you totally miss what marriage is all about -at least from a Catholic perspective. Feminism, in its most modern form , is anti-female, in that is consistently defines women and thier dignity in relation to Men.

The RCC constantly points out (at has for 2000 years) that Christ chose to come into the world through a woman (more specifically a poor teen girl), and Christ submitted himself to her, and Christ blood that would be shed would also be hers. Yes, Christ was God, but he got his humanity from Mary. It is from this context that we must frame the dignity of women. God came into this world as a Man, but he did it first and foremost from a humble, obedient woman.

Marriage now takes on a sacremental nature that mirrors Christ love for humanity. The physical union of women and men (sex) within the confines of this sacrament mirrors the union of Chirst to His Bride (the church). The salvation of the world is the fruit of the Christ's union with his Church (through the Body and Blood of the Communion), but the fruits of a couples union is children.

So, whether women can do all the things men can do immaterial (they obviously cannot, and vice versa). Women's dignity comes not from thier intellect ( which is a gift from God), but from Christ Himself. That is why the Church cannot marry homosexuals, ordain women as priests, or allow artificial contraception.

How this ties in with the state's involvement in marriage is simple. Marriage is a religious sacrament that goes back 2 millenia and more. The Church and its flock can never give its consent to even gay unions, anymore than it can give consent to abortions even in the case of rape.

Vermont's decision was a case of judicial fiat, which shouldn't be surprising. Vermont has a Progressive history going back all the way to the 1890s, when anarchists ofr Europe setteled there. It is hard to believe that this state once was a bastion of pious Congregationalists

Dave| 4.13.09 @ 10:07AM

Homosexual behavior is sinful.

Regardless of how any government body attempts to legitimize such behavior.

Regardless of a majority of voters' approval.

And this is why the gay movement will still be screeching and wailing and agitating long after government and a majority of voters do everything possible to legitimize sexual deviancy. Because you see, they will be threatened and shamed as long as there remains a single person reminding them of their sin.

Paul Crowley| 4.13.09 @ 2:08PM

=>“Dear Lord Paul, you have entirely too much time on your hands.” [Michael L.Hauschild]

Hi Michael:

Thanks for giving me a good chuckle!

You’re right.

Paul Crowley| 4.13.09 @ 2:43PM

=>“artificial contraception.” [JP|]

The Reformed religions have been EXTREMELY useful in facilitating “same-sex marriage.”

JP sounds like a reformed Catholic, heavily influenced by the writings and Church leadership of the late Pope John Paul II.

Pope John Paul II, during his reign from 1978-2005, probably did more to facilitate the destruction of Catholicism, then any single human being in Church History.

The Cranmer of the Universal Church.

Pope Paul VI (1963-78), in spite of his Herculean work in the effort, was a midget in comparison.

Which is probably why Pope John Paul II is being dubbed “The Great.”

We’re to know them by their fruits, right?

Well, by the explanation, then JP is clearly one of the “fruits,” so:

We have a “Catholic” speaking about “sex” (which means what, precisely?), with no mention that the primary purpose of sexual intercourse (by definition, between a individuals of the opposite sexes: between a man and a woman) is for the purpose of procreation (A term understood by pre-reformed Catholics, Protestants, Jews, and still by most Muslims).

Begin with that, as Pope Pius XI did, and by default, it restricts marriage to being between a man and a women, and negates the necessity of any explanation about “chastity,” or why a homosexual should abstain,” or any of the rest of the tortuous nonsense one is subjected to by John Paul II-Gregory XVI era reformed Catholics.

“artificial contraception” is not OK, but natural contraception is?

When I was in the navy, I was taught various methods of contraception, as all in the military are, and have been at least since the 1930s (my father received instruction, just after he joined: He enlisted in the army in 1939).

A method of “artificial contraception” was included among the various methods covered in the lecture in recruit training (A.K.A. “boot camp”): It was dubbed the “Pull Out Method” (seriously, this was the first method mentioned).

The late Pope John Paul II is said by many to have “pointed to the book of Genesis,” in his writings, and the VOLUMES of writings that bear his name.

Well, he didn’t point to the part in Genesis that gives an example of natural contraception via the “Pull Out Method,” and God’s response to it: The incident between Onan and a female he “knew,” as phrased in the older translations.

Onan engaged in what when I was a young man was still known as Debauchery (sexual intercourse for the sake of one’s gratification, only).

Even if it's normal sexual intercourse between a man and a woman, then contraception perverts the natural act by preventing procreation.

It reduces sexual intercourse to an act of debauchery (effectively an act of mutual masturbation).

Heterosexual who engage in nothing more significant than mutual-masturbation are committing sin, but homosexuals, who by their nature are sterile, are not?

Why?

The reformed Protestants and Catholics, Jews, and sundry others, are now Being Taught the phrase, “recreational sex” or “sex for recreation,” or whatever variation on the theme (a complicated way to say engaging in debauchery).

My guess is that they Are Being Taught this so as to facilitate their tortuous explanations of why what they do is something other than being the same as what others do that is the same thing: I.e. To facilitate the tortuous ‘Explanations That Only Attempt To Explain
Away,’ no matter how sincere the person doing providing the explanation, or how much he truly believes that his logical-contradictions make sense.

As Christ said to the scribes and the Pharisees, who excelled in this tactic of attempting to make white into black and black into white, "logically:":

“You strain at gnat and you swallow a camel.”

To which I can only respond, with all my of heart and all of my soul:

Laudetur Jesus Christus!!!
(“Praised Be Jesus Christ!).

-Marriage and Reformed Catholics.

Marriage is one of the 7 Sacraments.

The marriage bond is formed by God, between a man and a woman.

The marriage bond is indissoluble.

“What God hath joined together, let no man put asunder:” The words of Jesus Christ (quoted in the gospels), which Catholics used to hear at every Marriage Mass.

(Back in the pre-reformed Church when priests Said Mass, and lay Catholics Heard Mass.

Now, in the reformed Catholicism, EVERYBODY Celebrates Mass).

About 1989 onward, reformed Catholics, in Catholic dioceses around the world, have been taught that the “Annulment Process” results in the “dissolving” of the marriage bond.

Annual annulments granted (by the new reformed “Annulment Process,” which by then had moved the procedure to the local dioceses) increased at least 3-4 orders of magnitude, 1989 onward.

Less than 300, word-wide in 1969.

Averaging 50,000 per year, in the U.S.A. alone, 1990 on through the 1990s.

But it wasn’t a gradual buildup and increase. They Soared, especially 1989 onward:
Just as the ‘prodigal-son’ Boomers and Xers were returning to the churches of a religion so radically reformed, already, so different, that it had mostly ceased to exist.

The ‘prodigals,’ who had left their religions while still adolescents (12-20 years old) or in the first years of their youth (21-39 years old), during the Culturally turmoil of 1969-87,returned to, or entered, the reformed Catholicism, after having lived their lives of
dissipation, severed their roots, been through one failed marriage or “relationship” after another, or humiliated themselves, in countless ways, just as they were fast-approaching, or in, middle age (40-59 years old) and beginning their “mid-life crises.”

Is anyone surprised by this?

Is anyone surprised that these are the people, left and right reformed religions, who helped facilitate propandizing of the phrase “People Need Boundaries?”

True. But what sets the boundaries?

At the very moment they probably saw more clearly, as they ever had, or would, what they were (as in what all human beings are, the bad and the good), and what they had made of themselves, when they could have received redemption, did they receive it?

No.

They were “Welcomed Home” (with “rejoicing,” no less). The Great Papa In The Sky, they were told that he was soooo happy to see his little darlin’s that he didn’t care what pieces of ‘human excrement’ they had formed themselves into and reduced themselves to the level of.

The Great Papa In The Sky, LOVED each and every one of them, Just As They Were.

One bishop, at a Christmas Day Mass in 1994: “Don’t be so hard on yourselves.”

One priest, a Monsignor, “facilitating” an ‘adult formation’ class: “you weren’t that bad.”

Yeah.

I knew these people.

I remember the U.S.A., 1967-87.

By pre-reformed Catholic standards, they were WORSE than “That Bad.”

-Marriage & Evangelicals (Reformed Congregational Protestants).

These people claim to follow the bible.

Ask one about the words of Christ in the gospels, regarding divorce and re-marriage.

Then ask how he can justify the wide-spread practice of divorce and remarriage in “Evangelical” churches?

I did, about 1996. Not as a challenge, but curious to hear the response.

An unintelligible, drone, about “spiritual maturity,” whatever in the world, that means?

I've noticed how many have been taught the "spiritual maturity" pap since. . .

In truth, it is the "Evangelical" (Reformed Congregational Protestant) version of: The Explanation That Only Seeks To Explain Away.
At least it wasn’t as tortuous as the nonsense which one has to endure from educated reformed Catholics, formed during the pontificates of John Paul II and Benedict XVI.

The Congregational Protestants experienced the Youth Bust of 1967-87 too.

But it’s harder to recognize because of the consolidation of all of the tiny congregations
into the Southern Baptist Convention and Assemblies of God, the renaming of the batch as “Evangelical,” and the Jesus Movement conversions during the period of so many Catholics, Lutherans, Methodists, and Presbyterians fleeing the terrors being imposed on
them from above in their churches. . .

The reformed Congregational Protestants also experienced the Prodigals Boom of 1987 onward too.

Their prodigals get to to the Step Up And Testify.

Does that help to facilitate a mindset of the filthier the prodigal was, the more celebrity he becomes in the congregations “celebrations?”

Over 50 percent of Americans are now in a religion different from the ones that they were born nto.

In ALL of the reformed religions, Catholic and Protestant, select prodigals were used, in most parishes and congregations. The ‘sons & daughters’ who had stayed were told not to be Judgmental toward their prodigal ‘brothers and sisters’ but, rather, to Rejoice at their “Return Home!” (Just as The Great Papa in the Sky did, right?).

Apparently, this was to continue “Forever and Ever, World Without End, Amen.”

Because then, select prodigals were chosen to be ‘the ones who do everything’ in the parishes and congregations.

I’ll call these select ones the Chosen Prodigals.

The groups of Chosen Prodigals usually included large numbers of individuals formed in the Maslow-Rogers Pop-Psychology, and M-R based Group Therapy and Self-help Movements of circa 1960-89.
Since these pop-psychology movments had become ‘spiritualized,’ about 1979-89 (with select elements of Eastern religions: bits and pieces of Hinduism and Buddhism especially), then those Chosen Prodigals came with experience.

Ex nuns were especially useful. Laicized in large numbers, 1969-79.

They Just Wouldn’t Leave.

Every parish seemed to have at least one (on the payrolls) by 1989.

From 1979-89 just about ALL parishes and congregations had their self-help addiction groups (ALANON etc. . .).

The Reformed religions, the self-help groups, the Chosen Prodigals, subversives and factions not mentioned, and. . . by 1992-95:

The Self-Help Church was being born!

Churches that facilitate the wrecking and destruction of other peoples lives and then ‘take in’ those wrecked and “help them.’

Reformed religions that look like caricatures of Marxist propaganda of the late 19th century through to the 1930s.

Nonsense when considering the American religions and Catholicism THEN.

To True and descriptive of them all TODAY.

Which will facilitate the work of the reformed Marxists movements, that began reforming about 1994. The youth of today and the future will read it and believe it was always this way.

In 1993 I noted that there wasn’t anything to be found in the churches, that they were emphasizing, that couldn’t be found anywhere.

That’s not true today.

The development of the Self-Help Church has given it the monopoly.

'Where else can one go?'

Does anyone seriously believe that these people can facilitate the formation of a Christian Civilization, when in fact all that these reformed religions, Catholicism and Protestantism, and the split-off variations like Mormonism and Adventism and such,
have done is to facilitate the destruction of the last enclaves and remnants of Christian Civilization?

In 2004 the Catholic Church was releasing statements in the name of John Paul II speaking about building a new Europe on the “humus of Christianity.”

This parishioners and congregants are being further reformed to live their Purpose-Driven Lives’ and are no different from those Who Are Taught to Serve Something Bigger Than Themselves.

What, precisely is the purpose?

Who, or What, precisely, is being served?

I’m not mocking them.

I never have even while observing, these past few decades.

As a phemonmenon they're damn frightening and depressing though.

They’ve lived through an historic and momentous time:

The period that the very last remnants of Christian Civilization are being erased.

They didn’t/don’t even realize it. . . Many helped/are helping.

"Christian" neo-pagans.

The name is kept, the substance is gone: It's a new THING.

The Catholic Church facilitated the redefining of Homosexual begun by the APA from what a person IS to an “orientation,” whetever that means, with its new Catechism, released in 1984.

Catholicism, Anglicanism, and Lutheranism appear to be merging.

Congretational Protestants are entering another reformation, involving some fracturing (schisms of small elements).

Their new Old Time Religions didn’t last 40 years (1966-2005).

The Reformed religions have been EXTREMELY useful in facilitating “same-sex marriage.”

jaywhite| 4.13.09 @ 2:48PM

Vermont is an area which doesn't have enough people to even be a seperate state. It has been over run by hippies , and other misfits from the Northeast. The misfits have taken over the government of Vermont. They gave us our first socialist Congressman Bernie Sanders, and the democrat Presidential ex-candidate aka the screamer , both born in NYC. It's capital and largest "city" is Burlington which has a massive population of 32,000. Some high rise housing developments have more people. The Univ of Vermont is totally dependent on out of state students , many of whom stay. They also gave us native New Yorkers Ben and Jerry whose politics
are as bad as the ZERO. What would anyone expect when the inmates take control of the asylum.

Paul Crowley| 4.13.09 @ 2:53PM

=>“saltpeter is a cure for peoples' yapping about sex forever.” [Alan Brookes]

Hi Alan:

Naw. Saltpeter and Mencken, won’t do it (Mencken might make it worse).

Cutting off the pornography would be an absolute necessity.

By which I don’t mean only the so-called “XXX Porn,” that first went public in America,
beginning in 1972.

Just to be clear: The formal definition (dicitonary and legal) of pornography is ‘something that induces sexual desire in a human being’ (i.e. something that induces lust, one of the Seven Deadly Sins).

The definition is constantly attempted to be blurred and confused, with great success, as usual.

My guess is that most people really don’t have a clue of the cause of what is often probably effecting them.

Obviously this is not going to happen, Just The Opposite.

They’ve been ramping it up again, especially since 2005.

Just like during and immediately following everyone of the crisis periods of the past four decades.

You'll just have to put up with the yapping and disgusting behavior, until they ramp it back down a bit and whatever event or news release about disease or something, acts like a bucket of cold water.

Paul Crowley| 4.13.09 @ 3:31PM

=>“And this is why the gay movement will still be screeching and wailing and agitating long after government and a majority of voters do everything possible to legitimize sexual deviancy. Because you see, they will be threatened and shamed as long as there remains a single person reminding them of their sin.” [Dave]

I don’t believe this to be true.

I don’t think they’ll give a Tinkers’ dam about one man accusing them of sinning.

I do know the people in this country.

At any rate:

This country is already a culture of deviant perverts.

Easily up to 98% of this country have been formed into sexual deviants, by perverting the natural act of sexual intercourse.

Most don’t even know that they’re deviants.

But the courts do.

Some perverts have no problem answering the questions on 'sex surverys.'

“And this is why” many people who wrongly believe themselves to be “moral” or “Christian” will "still be screeching and wailing and agitating long after government and a majority of voters have FULLY legitimized sexual deviancy" of ALL kinds, and not only theirs, as to date. “Because you see, they will be" outraged at the thought that their perversion is a sin.

I’m a single person.

I’ll remind them:

Most of them are guilty of sin by using contraception.

In doing so, they pervert the act of sexual intercourse, and reduce it to an act of debauchery (nothing more substantial than "mutual masturbation" solely for the purpose hedonistic gratification).

It perverts the God-made purpose of sexual intercourse: For procreation (PRO-Creation).

Yeah. I know the rationalization. You’re “making love.”

And sailors who used to engage in debauchery as an R&R activity, were actually “making love” to the prostitutes they were with, right? Yeah. “Hard and dirty love,” just like the self-deluded “moral” people Have Been Taught, or attempted to be anyway (my guess is that most aren’t as skilled as the sailors were. Practice Makes Perfect, after all).

Sodomy is a worse sin:

Whether committed by homosexuals or heterosexuals.

"oral sex" is an act of sodomy.
"anal sex" is an act of sodomy.

Sodomy is one of the Four Sins That Cry To Heaven For Vengeance.

The other three:
Willful Murder
Oppression of the Poor
Depriving A Laborer of His Wages.

Given how some goofs have been formed these days, then they'll read the last two and start shrieking that God is a "socialist."

Paul Crowley| 4.13.09 @ 4:03PM

What is a “Queer?”

First “sex” was redefined as an act, rather than what one is.

Then “gay” was redefined.

Homosexual Rights Movement:

First it was Gay (male homosexual), 1969-1979

Then it was Gay & Lesbian (male & female homosexuals, with “homosexual” redefined
as an “orientation,” whatever that means), 1979-91.

Then it was Gay, Lesbian, & Trans-gender, 1991-1998

Then it was Gay, Lesbian, Trans-gender, & Bi-Sexual, 1998-2008

(Even 20 years ago “Bi-Sexual” wouldn’t have sounded right to the average person. More
likely it would have brought to mind the image of some exotic insect that had the weird
ability to self-procreate).

Now its Gay, Lesbian, TransGender, Bi-Sexual, & Queer, 2009.

Are Queers going to be formally defined as heterosexuals who are prone to being induced into committing acts of sodomy, something?

If so, then does that mean that homosexuals will be able took down on the the formally defined Queers as "perverts?"

Keeping in mind that:
What is called "oral sex" is an act of sodomy.
What is called "anal sex" is an act of sodomy.

Or is it an even broader category of perversity?

Or something else entirely?

Frank Tartaglia| 4.13.09 @ 7:21PM

As a small number of elites continue to turn traditionalism on its head, society's acquiescent majority--acquiescent in that, since they are working and busy raising two-parent households, they do not have time to demonstrate against the issues of the day--will grow frustrated and eventually rebel against the elites. Such frustration rears its head in democratic societies when such elites take advantage of that very same democracy and use it against the society. Witness Weimar Germany and its frustrations in dealing with the penalties imposed on Germany following WW1. The elites do not care about our society, they simply want to be in control.

Mary| 4.13.09 @ 9:38PM

JP,

Thanks for the response; your posts are usually well worth the read.

I’m not a practicing RC and haven’t been for a few years. I left Rome quite late, but the struggle and the desire to flee had been with me for years. I don’t believe some things Rome teaches. I won’t bore you with details, though.

The understanding of marriage that you present is not one I can attach myself to, in toto. I think it’s beautiful, but I also think parts of it are not the best understanding. Jesus does get his humanity from the Blessed Mother, but when I look to God and Scripture for guidance on union between man and woman I must look to Adam and Eve, fallen or not. Jesus and Mary are son and mother. Adam and Eve were man and wife. Rome’s take on all of this tends towards the docetic and when that happens, for me at least, God becoming truly man loses power, truth and beauty in very large measure.

And the question is, did God become Man? When you really begin to take in the implications of that, it's a wonder any theologian can summon up the courage to proceed.

I always thought that question would never lose the center I thought it held. When I do go to church I go to a local Anglican chapel. Holy Thursday and Good Friday beckoned and I went. But on my way there on Good Friday it struck me, based on the faces of the City's crowds, that most of these young adults knew nothing of Good Friday. The Christian milieu almost completely dissolved.

If you’re a convert then you might not understand this, but if you’re not I’m sure you’ll understand what I mean when I say I can never really be an ex-Catholic. RCism is in my sinew. In some measure because I’m actually Roman, but mostly because of the influence of my parents, most especially my Mother.

On Good Friday, beginning when I was 5 years old and my older brother 8, my Mom used to ask us to maintain silence between the hours of 12 and 3. It was never done in an overbearing, authoritarian way and she knew we wouldn’t be able to stay silent for 3 hours. But, we would begin to pray in Latin and my brother and I would begin with such earnest desire to keep silent, but in our Latin prayers we would recite words like mulieribus and would strike us as odd and funny and we’d snicker trying to hold back a full laugh. My mother would put her finger to her mouth and bid us statevi zitti! My brother and I would look at one another with newfound resolution: this time we’re really going to do it! is what our eyes relayed to one another. Probably the best we ever did was close to ½ an hour. But the attachment to the Passion of Christ that that formed in my heart and mind is hard to put into words.

My parents and my grandparents and all the generations that preceded them propelled the faith forward. In misery, at odds with superficial and all powerful priests; they advanced the faith nonetheless.

I lost a brother. Patrick was 7 when he died, and I was 20 years old. He was hit by his school bus about 50 feet from our home. Both my mother and I ran to him, saw him and knew he was dead immediately. You’re in a fog when something like that happens. Perfect strangers who read about your woe, and have been similarly struck send you letters from across the Country.

The priest of our parish -who died a terrible death himself; he and another priest were found bound and knifed to death. IIRC, he was retired at that point. He was a good and kind man, as far as I know and can remember, but do you know what solace he offered my mother? He told her that maybe God had taken my brother to spare him an uglier fate, perhaps that of a criminal. How could he know the grief and love of a mother, a parent? He just didn’t know what to say. Yet, at the wake a Pentecostal minister whose little girl was in the same class as my brother paid his respects with his children in tow. One a head taller than the next. He hardly had to speak a word, his eyes told the whole story of commiseration and compassion.

Marriage and union and children are so manifestly Trinitarian to me. I think Rome would do well to allow for priests to marry, so they can know in practice and not just in theory what it means to belong to a woman, to be one with her.

Paul Crowley| 4.14.09 @ 6:45AM

“I'm a little past 50 and never married. And I don't regret it, either. Wife, mother, worker; that's a prison to me.” [Mary]

Hi Mary:

I don’t especially care for the all these so-called “generations” (the G, B, X, Y, Z, . .social generations) that much, and don’t even define myself by the attributes popularized about them.

Keeping in mind the numbers of people in all these groupings, then, of course, they are all quite heterogeneous in nature. However, individuals within the groupings, do tend to share certain things in common. And I find that many people do in fact attempt to form themselves by whatever attributes ascribed to them are popularized, at any given time. In similar manner to the old racial stereotypes of the white-skinned races of peoples, now transformed to ethnicity’s: German, Polish, Spanish, Eye-talian,
Irish, Anglo, French. . . and now extended to the new races being formed, White (‘European’), Hispanic, Asian, African, etc. . . If one were to engage in such self-formation, retaining all of the many changing attributes, then by the end of his life he would find himself to be a mix of mutually-exclusive-logical contradictions, with the final result of being thoroughly neurotic.

I think it’s usually more a matter of being quite ephemeral: adopt the new attributes, shed the old, but there are always mixes of some contradictions and the neurosis that accompanies them.

You Can Do It All

Anyway, given your age, being a tail-end boomer, and falling within the upper-end of the “Me Generation” age bracket, then you definitely place into the group of young American women, especially those in college, who were propagandized with the 1980s Super Mom theme, circa 1977-92. As presented at the time, it was: You Can Do It All (Wife, Student, Mother, Worker, all simultaneously).

That was back when American Motors advertised its Gremlin ‘hatchback’ with a ‘five member family’ packed in: young Mom, dad, 2 kids, and dog. Today the small cars that are that precisely the size & style of the old Gremlins (such as the Toyota Matrix and
Pontiac Vibe) are advertised for their ability to put a mountain bike in the back.

You should have been in college for the kicking off of the Party School phenomenon in American colleges in the 1980s, but missed the worst of it, since it was primarily an Xer age bracket ‘contribution to society’ (although for people who take such as National Lampoon’s “Animal House” as a serious example of how frat students actually behaved, then they probably think that it was a Boomer contribution of the “ ‘60s.” It was not).

The decision to stay single, due to “wife, mother, worker; that's a prison to me,”

I understand perfectly, but strikes me as primarily a 1980s Me-Gener response to the novel Super Mom theme, as it was presented at that time: The ‘You Can Do It All’ (Wife, Student, Mother, Worker, all simultaneously).

Your decision at least falls into the group that were perceptive enough to recognize that (actually) “wife, mother, student, worker,” all at the same time, was ABSURD to even try. I was also perceptive enough to recognize it, even though the issue didn’t apply to me (my sex being male, and all).

However, I rejected the notion that it was an “either / or” affair of either Stay Single or try the You Can Do It All simultaneously.

If you thought that those were the only two options, as tens of millions of American women were Taught To Believe, then I was more prescriptive than you were.

Millions of American women, in the Me-Gener age bracket wore themselves out, acquired absurd levels of debt, wasted large sums of student aid, and all for mostly just learning a lesson that should have been self-evident, to begin with.

In fairness to them, they were propagandized and every time an objection to the absurdity was raised, then such as the phrase, “there is no evidence” was useful.

Well, there’s plenty of evidence now, gathered as a consequence, 1971-89.

Large numbers of Yers (born 1974-87), that followed the Xers, Who Want To Have It All, and who had the advantage of the change in theme being propagated, with the addition of “Just not All At The Same Time,” learned from the less perceptive of the Me-Geners and have tended to go it at sequentially: Student, then wife, then mother, then worker, or a variation on the theme.

For my parents' age group (Greatesters) it wasn’t uncommon to be Student or Worker, then wife, then mother, then worker again.

OR, rather than worker, then mother again, later in life (I’m probably at the tail end of being able to remember, and knew, numerous families where the
youngest of the uncles and aunts were younger than the oldest of the nephews and nieces).

Children later in life has pretty much been purged out of the consciousness of American females as an option to even consider now (convinced that its ‘unhealthy’ and that their is ‘something wrong with them.’ How much is due to the “them” that were
studied having had to grow up during the onset of the “American Experiment” of 1969-2005, and its impact on young adolescents, should probably be considered, since it seems rarely to have been. That will be for future studies, I suppose).

There Is No Evidence

Well, there’s plenty of evidence now, gathered as a consequence, 1971-89.

Which is why the sight of the right-wing, the "conservatives,” picking up the old Feminism under the new title of “Pro-Life Feminism” has been something to see.

Especially, Sarah Palin’s “Of course you can do it all” statement last year.

Obviously about 20 years’ is sufficient time to pass, to hit “reset” where screwing with the minds of the peons is concerned, no?

God help the right-wing, low-income, tail-end Y-Gener, and un-named Z-Gener, American females for which the likes of Palin is presented as a role model.

I feel sorry for them.

The Net Sum

So, the Super Mom Experiment of 1971-91, conducted within the “American Experiment” of 1969-2005, with the result that by the end it was concluded that American women should GO RIGHT BACK to where American woman were prior to
1971: To Do It All, just not simultaneously (the “should GO RIGHT BACK to where American woman were” part being omitted, of course, and the “To Do It All, just not simultaneously” presented as a new ‘discovery’).

The major DIFFERENCE by 1991 is that the number of American women who could AFFORD to have such a “choice” had DECLINED quite Sharply from the American women of the past. I suspect, never to return, again.

As I noted before:

SOME women will have positions of Power (as some always have).

SOME women will have “careers” (as some always have).

The MAJORITY of women will be peon laborers, whether menial, trained or educated (I include the majority in the science and engineering professions, and most certainly "social sciences" and new 'trade-school like college degrees,' in the latter).

Another result, is that it has certainly raised the standards of qualifications for many job positions. “College Degrees” required for low-level office and ‘service industry’ jobs, that never required them before (that vague "administrative" class in the Labor scheme that females, especially, dominate).

So, as I said before, then I believe that American women have been manipulated, used, and “led down” the proverbial “prim rose path.” The overwhelming MAJORITY have gained virtually nothing, but have lost more than will ever even have the hope of gaining
again.

The euphemisms of “Choice” and “Reproductive Rights” are a bad joke.

Both the “left” and the “right” are bad jokes where the welfare of women are concerned. "Socialists," "libersals" and "conservatives" are now fully united.

Hillary Clinton’s “Opiate of the Masses”

Sarah Palin wasn’t alone last year, of course.

Hillary Clinton, gave the perfect formulation for the “Opiate of the Masses” where “Liberation” movements such as these are concerned:

“Don’t Look Back. Just Look Forward.”

“Look Forward” at the fantasy of her “You can be whatever you want to be” cant.

‘Gazing’ ahead at the fuzzy, ambiguous goal prevents one from looking around, to see his situation, and what little he has.

But, equally importantly, it prevents him from looking back, to see what he has lost, and that he will never regain.

Paul Crowley| 4.14.09 @ 7:08AM

=>“survival of the fittest”

Hi Mary:

Which may bring us back to where the conversation began, but while considering the question of “cultural suicide” and “homosexuals.”

Not all women, American or otherwise, in the past, married.

And the same with men.

Until only less than three decades ago, the normal expectation of marriage was to do and have children and raise a family.

The proportion that don’t, seems to be steadily increasing, in industrial societies, especially 1780s onward.

The problem is what to do about those who marry and reproduce (traditional known as procreate) that one would rather they didn’t, but continue to anyway? How to at least limit the numbers?

ENVIRONMENT

What Darwin referred to as “survival of the fittest” (“natural” husbandry via INTRA-species struggle and competition, struggle between members of the same species, RATHER than inter-species competition, struggle between members of different species.

The species in this instance is Homo sapiens).
INTRA-species struggle and competition: Human Husbandry, under the guise of a “natural” order, resulting in a “process” of “culling” of the “dregs” from society.

An environment formed to implement and regulate “survival of the fittest,” since the old advocates of eugenics’ argument of identifying and then physically ‘culling’ the ‘dregs’ directly required brutal methods that would never be accepted by the majority of normal human beings, who would perceive it as being too “inhumane” (even though a bullet to the back of the head is faster, but also a waste of an individual who can still be useful).

The present-day colloquialism, I believe, is "Intelligence Test.”

Is there any reason why this can't be applied to men and women, other than those who meet the criteria that defines “homosexual.”

Homosexuals, after all, are obviously not the only effectively sterilized “Worker Bees” of post-reformed America, no?

I certainly don't believe that all of this energy and effort has been expended just to establish "same-sex marriage" for a group of people, that the old DSM standards, and the studies resulting from the American Experiment of 1971-2005, in any way show themselves to be what one would view as 'The Best & The Brightest."

Paul Crowley| 4.14.09 @ 10:06AM

ENVIRONMENT

We all live and die in one that is Man Made.

I haven’t stated it due to assuming it to be self evident.

However, the truth is that today, for countless numbers of people, it is not.

That’s a consequence of Urbanization and human formation (“Human Development”).

Hence my admitted contempt for the illusion of "independent."

"Un-regulated" is another absurd fantasy.

The fact that we live in a Man Made environment is the reson for my use of the term “guise” in:

“INTRA-species struggle and competition: Human Husbandry, under the guise of a ‘natural’ order, resulting in a ‘process’ of ‘culling’ of the ‘dregs’ from society.”

-“industrial societies, especially 1780s onward.”
For the U.S.A., this kind of industrialization is about 1946 onward, and especially 1960 onward.
(half the population was still rural in 1939; about 5% in 1970; less than 1% today).

-U.S.A. & Inter-dependent bloc-of-countries Development:

The distribution system (maritime, ports, road, rail, air, pipelines, Mass-Communications Media. . .)

Mass-Communications Media (print, audio, video, broadcast, close-circuit, submarine, satellite, Public Education, Military, Employer. Legal Code. . . )

towns, cities, counties, states, countries. . . .

Our bloc-of-countries distribution system has been developed, 1946-present.

Our national distribution system has been radically reformed, just 1956-present.

The vast new vast metropolitan areas have been developed around the new national distribution system, 1967-present.

Our Mass-Communications Media, has been moderized (Digital Electronics Revolution),
just 1979-present.

Paul Crowley| 4.14.09 @ 1:06PM

->“saltpeter is a cure for peoples' yapping about sex forever.” [Alan Brookes]

->“what it means to belong to a woman, to be one with her.” [Mary]

=>“If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.”
-Sun Tzu, “The Art of War”

Hi Alan:

Back to my comments on saltpeter, Mencken, and the need to cut off the pornography as an absolute necessity to “cure for peoples' yapping about sex forever.”

Quoting the old Chinese pagan may be a bit lame, but he’s been popular to study in the military for more than 75 years and became popular in Business these last past 15-20 years now.

This one, I believe, somewhat applies here.

The formal definition (dictionary and legal) of pornography is ‘something that induces sexual desire in a human being’ (i.e. something that induces lust, one of the Seven Deadly Sins).

Pornography For Females

Confusing pornography as only the industry-dubbed “XXX Porn” that’s been propagated since 1972, then it’s common for people to believe that pornography mainly effects males and not as much females.

Mary’s statement is a good example of the Technique to propagate pornograpy among females (whether written, audio or visual. . . ):

Add elements of romance.

It’s been common as dirt in Romance Novels since the mid-19th century.

Techniques applied in modern movies:

Conditioning For Debauchery

All those gauzy slo-moish lots of touching, bedroom scenes of couples engaging in debauchery (no close-up shots of genitals or breasts) in movies in the 1980s is an example of the early applications.

The motif of Ecstasy, stolen from centuries of religious art, on the face of the actress.

The stand-up comics had field days with this stuff, shortly thereafter, and the scenes of couples started shifting to more of the ‘hard & dirty’ variety, 1991 on.

Conditioning for Anal Sodomy

Now it’s gauzy slo-moish, lots of touching, bedroom scenes of groups of three people engaging in debauchery and anal sodomy (no close-up shots of genitals) in movies on cable and satellite: A female between two males. One male analy sodomizing her from behind, another copulating with her from the front, one man looks at the other and touches the other’s arm gently. . .

The female, of course, has that expression of ecstasy on her face.

I guess the ‘three become one?’

LOL!

I laugh, but really, there are people who will fail the 'intelligence test' because of this garbage.

Not to over-emphasize just 1 of the 7 deadlies, although it is one that is especially effective on a
broader swath of the population.

Propagation of Exposure To All to the temptations to all of the sins within the classes of the Seven Deadly Sins (Anger, Averice, Envy, Gluttony, Lust, Pride and Sloth) has been quite effective in the “American Experiment of 1969-2005.

And then, especially, 1991-present, the overt institutionalization of The Four Sins That Cry To Heaven for vengeance.
Willful Murder
Sodomy
Oppression of the Poor
Depriving a Laborer of his Wages.

In short, a re-formed, and reforming, culture that is the exact opposite of the concluding request in the Lord’s Prayer:
“Lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil.”

A Darwinian “survival of the fittest” culture that ‘Leads us into temptation and delivers us unto evil.”

All in the context of the truth of human nature found in the (much maligned and reformed Church ignored) Dogma of the Original Sin (and the effects due to the Original Sin: Fallen Human Nature).

Even purged of the belief in God, this constitutes more than 1,500 years of sound observation on human nature, that I’ve always believed to be foolish to throw out on little more than the basis of the very weak: “we used to think, but we now ” propagated
whatever the new variation-on-a-theme was, 1960-89.

“We used to think, but we now ,” about every 5 years.

The first wiped out millennia of “used to think.”

The subsequent ones only wiped out the previous “but we now knows.”

Given the post-1991 changes at APA and in the emerging reformed ethics, I obviously wasn’t alone.

It’s amazing how Catholic so many BUT Catholics have been increasingly sounding, especially the past 10 years.

Of course, only elements of Catholic doctrine, with a great deal purged, as usual (the "boundaries" without the freedoms; The rules without God).

Paul Crowley| 4.14.09 @ 1:39PM

=>“Propagation of Exposure To All to the temptations to all of the sins within the classes of the Seven Deadly Sins (Anger, Averice, Envy, Gluttony, Lust, Pride and Sloth) has been quite effective in the “American Experiment of 1969-2005.”

I grossly understated this.

Without this propagation by the Mass-Communications Media there would have been no
“American Experiment” of 1969-2005.

No constant distractions, no fractioning of the population, no fraction-fights, all facilitating the Counter-Revolution reforming the American legal code, culture, distribution system, industry and "Human Resources."

No institutionalization of The Four Sins That Cry To Heaven for vengeance:
Willful Murder
Sodomy
Oppression of the Poor
Depriving a Laborer of his Wages.

No reformed "Human Resources."

No "humane" Eugenics

No Darwinian “survival of the fittest” culture that ‘Leads into temptation and delivers unto evil.”

NFL jerseys| 8.15.09 @ 10:09PM

It is a wonderful article,I like it!Welcome to read following news: NFL jerseys.

Wholesale Lingerie| 9.5.09 @ 10:11PM

sexy lingerie lingerie

Wedding Dresses| 9.9.09 @ 8:34AM

This handbag is just come out thisWedding Dresses
Designer Wedding Gowns
spring show, it’s a totally new style of fashion, worth to buy.