Re: Another Case of Judicial Overreach


Regis, this is indeed an appalling abuse of judicial authority, but it hardly comes as a surprise. Certainly not in California. Traditional marriage has been teetering on the edge of political and moral collapse in the Golden State for several years now. The San Francisco mayor started his own rebellion a few years ago, and I believe Gov. Schwarzenegger has already vetoed a couple of bills that would have accomplished some or all of what the court has now done.

What is perhaps more distressing, though, is that the statute being overturned by the court is one that was affirmed by a large majority of California voters in 2000. Not that popular opinion is the final arbiter of right and wrong, but it's at least as legitimate as the opinion of four judges.

As for the ruling itself, it seems to be full of the same contrived logic the Supreme Judicial Court used to alter the definition of marriage in Massachusetts (incidentally, though the Massachusetts decision is mentioned repeatedly, it is almost exclusively to note it as the exception to U.S. marriage law). The legal argument is all over the place, and certainly not convincing that such a vast constitutional breach exists. And the extensive moral argument simply restates the notions that traditional marriage is discriminatory out of date and that people should have the "right" to marry whomever they please -- ideas that are unconvincing in the public conversation, and greatly presumptuous coming from a court bench.


Comments:

Total: 72 << Previous Page     Next Page >>
How about Gina getting some of her Italian friends to smuggle an equestrian head into one of the beds of the spammers?
Putin 'em in their place
Well, while it is a good brainstorming idea, I just don't think antibiotics are the solution to spam.

But, Rolley, what if we didn't go directly at the spammers? What if, instead, we targeted the ISPs who enable this? Perhaps some social pressure could overcome the economic benefits.

That, or perhaps visitations from spirits of Christmas Past, Present and Future...
Airing Their Dirty Lenin
.
So now “dafetgtew” decides to get in the act and join “daxtgtrfbz” and “Heibiaciveano” in their tawdry and despicable little exercise.

I don’t know about you, but I think some clever software engineer (calling SBK/Travis/Shane/Alan/et al (and they are legion)) ought to figure out a way to “reverse charges”, as it were, and post back something equally vile (in its own way) on the spambot that’s generating all these unwanted and unsavory digital doodles.

Reciprocating with a volley of recycled “Dorcas and Nimrod” tracts comes to mind. But then, I suppose, such a tactic would amount to fighting evil with evil rather than overcoming evil with good.

Still, if there were an acceptable way to YOD-pummel these scoundrels that, wolf-like, prowl the Internet seeking whom they may devour with their filthy propaganda……

Seems to me that would be just the thing for Sasha time as this. I mean, we all like happy endings, right?

I know I do.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQWkGiD0kyM
Anna Karenoff to find out
Well, Rolley my dear friend, my college roommate was the son of a salesman for World Book. The family lived in a mansion so spacious that one time my roomie came downstairs to discover a party of 100 raucous-with-liquor adults; up in his room he'd heard none of it. Clearly there's dollars in them thar sales.

Oh, and before I forget: http://www.encyclopediacenter.com/Encyclopedia-Britannica-s/83.htm?Click=36&gclid=CKjh4776mK0CFcYZQgodnTwxmw

;-)

One of my favorite rejoinders to the "million monkeys" questions is "OK, but who'd add the paper, replace the ribbons and unjam the keys?" But only when I'm in a particularly Puckish mood.

Which as we all know is quite rare. :-)

Alas, the advent of the Internet has done away with the need for paper and ribbons, and computers do not suffer from key jams. Sigh.

On the other hand, even Wikipedia is asking for assistance to keep their enterprise going: https://wikimediafoundation.org/w/index.php?title=L11_1222_R5_GW/en/US&utm_source=B11_1222_R_GW&utm_medium=sitenotice&utm_campaign=C11_1221_PDR&language=en&uselang=en&country=US&referrer=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FSpecial%3ASearch%3Fsearch%3Dmillion%2Bmonkeys%26go%3DGo

Hmmm - maybe in terms of being socially acceptable online, “Heibiaciveano” could benefit from some, (cough), "coaching"...

...or maybe just a good whack from a purse.



...perhaps a purse weighted with garage keys - and maybe a bottle of gorzałka.
Raspukin
.
So, LeeQuod, what do you think motivates the impish engineers of all this mindless cyber graffiti generated by “Heibiaciveano” and others? What are they trying to accomplish? Or is this merely the random work of Darwin’s monkeys as they theoretically progress towards the production of the Encyclopedia Britannica on their infinite array of electronic, web-configured typewriters?
Indeed, Rolley - Tolstoy, Dostoyevski, Chekhov... and this??!?
Alas, Gina
.
But those bits of spam from “daxtgtrfbz” are ones you’ll definitely want to delete.

Seems there always has to be a spoil-sport in the crowd; or to be more seasonally-correct, a dog in the manger. “With liberty comes responsibility.”

Alas.
Thanks for putting a happy little grin on my face, you guys. I'm of Polish heritage on my mother's side. If I could raise a glass in a toast to you (but of course I can't since I was told mixing alcohol with my current parasite-killing anti-biotic would make me horribly ill - ha!, the medicine is making me ill all on its own) I would say, "Garajky*!!!" and chuck it down the hatch. Perhaps I would then feel like I'd been kicked by a duck. Do those webbed feet actually hurt? If the duck is in water, will swinging its leg through the water slow down the impact of the cute little webbed foot?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
* it's the Key that opens your Garage.
I don't know why that post was set to have no comment moderation, but our system makes it difficult to go back and fix it. Sorry for all the spam.

On the other hand, you guys do seem to be having fun . . .
I'm really, REALLY tempted to ask farmadisska if they have anything for parasites.

Of course, they might respond that I was being insulting to spammers...
Approved by Site Moderators!
.
If I didn’t know better (but of course I do) I’d be tempted to posit the idea that that last post came from the dripping “pen” of Kevin Peet who, a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away, told us of a street in Tijuana that had three consecutive s’s in the name.*

But who’d’ve dreamed (another opportunity to use a word having two apostrophes!) -- who’d’ve dreamed that street name would be ‘farmadissska’? Who’d’ve done?

‘Farmadissska’, as you may or may not know, is Polish shorthand for “Wrong Way”. It is usually spelled out all the way as ‘Żeby Cię kaczka kopnęła‘, which the Tijuanites succinctly translate as “Loser!!!” (three exclamation marks), but in the original simply means “you’ve just been kicked by a duck”.

(Note: I’m in a rare, silly mood tonight, impelled in part by the desire to inject some wholesome absurdity into Ellen’s life).

I’m sure by now you’ll’ve all figured out that ‘farmadisska’ isn’t Polish at all. I know I shouldn’t’ve been so naughty as to mislead, but it was all in good fun. I was just pulling your leg. Truth is, ‘Farmadissska’ is plain old everyday Borg for, ‘It's better to lose with a wise man than find with a fool’, or ‘Lepiej zgubić z mądrym niż znaleźć z głupim’ as the Poles would put it, and which the Tijuanites would succinctly translate as, “you’ve just been kicked by a duck”.)

Hi!

--
* http://thepoint.breakpoint.org/tp-home/blog-archives/blog-archives/entry/4/%2018319
Good One, Jason
.
Next question, of even more profound cosmic implications: How long do you think we can keep up our transcendental badinage before Gina plugs this wormhole in the warp and woof of Breakpoint blogdom with a YOD wallop? And more to the point, upon whose pate do you think the wallop will first descend? (Let the record show that Rolley Haggard expressly denies seeking to be first in all things).

Aside to Gina: As Mr. Lem would say, Everything is explicable in the terms of the behavior of a small child.
That depends. What does the cannibal use the knife and fork for, Rolley?
That Last Little Gem by Besplentile Reminds Me
.
Of the philosophical question raised by Stanislaw Lem: "Czy jeżeli ludożerca je nożem i widelcem - to postęp?"

(“Is it progress if a cannibal uses a knife and fork?”)

--
Stay tuned. If anyone ever posts the answer, this would be the place.
"His usage in that context also implies that "married man with any other woman" was adultery, otherwise He left open the option for men to lust after single women, an interpretation I have not yet heard!"

That WOULD save a remarkable amount of trouble! Actually I have heard that interpretation. On the other hand guy who wrote it also was for homosexuality.
[b]where to buy azithromycin zithromax for bronchi
where can i buy azithromycin zithromax tri pack


buy azithromycin no prescription nedeed - where to buy azithromycin zithromax 250mg



buy azithromycin without a prescription buying zithromax
Walter, Your commentary is wrong on practically every point. There is a vast body of theological commentary beginning in the first century explaining the difference between moral law and ceremonial rules in the OT, and what does and does not apply in the Church age. You should take the time to familiarize yourself with it rather than blindly accepting the opinions of discredited outliers like Crossan. If you really agree with Crossan, you're wasting your time quoting Scripture because for him there is no reliable revelation from God. Your interpretation of the woman caught in adultery relies on an unfounded assumption - it never says she was married. In the Hebrew of the OT "married woman with other man" was adultery, "married man with unmarried woman" was fornication. However the precise definition of the Greek word was variously applied at the time of Christ, so we may never know the exact details. The command was to stop sinning. Period. Ten commandments thing, you know. Jesus did not redefine adultery. He didn't even broaden the definition. He declared that to fantasize of adultery was also a sin, as morally significant as acting out that desire. (His usage in that context also implies that "married man with any other woman" was adultery, otherwise He left open the option for men to lust after single women, an interpretation I have not yet heard!) The dynamic of your own mindset is that you choose the commentators who support the interpretations you prefer, and in virtually every case dismiss the mainstream of Christian thought spanning two millenia. Perhaps it's because you were never taught any of it to begin with. If you ever care to go down that road, we can always talk about how successful your version of Christianity has been in your own denomination (which in deference to Gina I shall not name, though you are free to do....)
Katharine, Forgive me for not responding to you "sin no more" comment in more detail. One thing I learned from Crossan - and respondants may dismiss him out of hand because they disagree with him, but they can't dismiss his integrity and scholarship - is that Jesus was a Jew and he spoke with the authority of a learned Jew. Jews celebrate Yom Kippur each year. For ten days, they atone for their sins, and ask for forgiveness from each person they have harmed. At the end of the ten days of atonement, after all is forgiven by their fellow humans, they ask for God's for every sin imaginable, whether they committed that sin or not. When Jesus ordered the adultress to "go sin no more", the expectation was that she would 1) break off the relationship with the other man; 2) stop having feelings for the other man and 3) confess to her husband, regain his trust and allow him to grieve and finally forgive. With respect to 2, we know how Jesus defined adultery: But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. (Matt 5:28) "Go sin no more" was not an order to stop a "sexual behavior", it was an order to heal the broken marriage. Those are two very different things, and without getting too long winded about it, I'd like you to think about the meaning of marriage. Is it the law of Leviticus that separated the priests from the lowly who would "desecrate His sanctuary"? " 'The woman he marries must be a virgin. He must not marry a widow, a divorced woman, or a woman defiled by prostitution, but only a virgin from his own people, so he will not defile his offspring among his people. I am the LORD, who makes him holy.' " The LORD said to Moses, "Say to Aaron: 'For the generations to come none of your descendants who has a defect may come near to offer the food of his God. No man who has any defect may come near: no man who is blind or lame, disfigured or deformed; no man with a crippled foot or hand, or who is hunchbacked or dwarfed, or who has any eye defect, or who has festering or running sores or damaged testicles. No descendant of Aaron the priest who has any defect is to come near to present the offerings made to the LORD by fire. He has a defect; he must not come near to offer the food of his God. He may eat the most holy food of his God, as well as the holy food; yet because of his defect, he must not go near the curtain or approach the altar, and so desecrate my sanctuary. I am the LORD, who makes them holy.' " (Lev 21:13-23) Or is it not the law (works), but the heart (faith)? Please be open minded about the meaning of the gospel. Read the testimonials of the litigants for marriage equality all over the world. Are these not committed couples who by faith are not "looking at another person lustfully"? Is it possible that opponents of marriage equality are actually advocating the divorce of these happily married couples?
Walter, I am quite familiar with Crossan. He was an active member of the so-called "Jesus Seminar", that over-hyped exercise in historical and theological revisionism. He has no credibility within the Christian community. Thanks, anyway.
Total: 72 << Previous Page     Next Page >>




BreakPoint Blog

Banner