Zach Wahls, 19, is a University of Iowa student who gave a remarkable presentation at a public forum on House Joint Resolution 6 in the Iowa House of Representatives concerning same-sex marriage. Wahls has two mothers and came to tell legislators about his parents and his life.
Despite such a striking presentation, the resolution passed the Iowa house 62-37.
Here is the language:
House Joint Resolution 6 – Introduced HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION 6 BY ALONS , ANDERSON , ARNOLD , BALTIMORE , BAUDLER , BRANDENBURG , BYRNES , CHAMBERS , DE BOEF , FRY , DEYOE , DOLECHECK , DRAKE , FORRISTALL , GARRETT , GRASSLEY , HAGENOW , HAGER , HANUSA , HEATON , HEIN , HELLAND , HORBACH , HUSEMAN , IVERSON , JORGENSEN , SHAW , KAUFMANN , KLEIN , KOESTER , LOFGREN , MASSIE , MOORE , PAULSEN , PAUSTIAN , PEARSON , PETTENGILL , SANDS , RASMUSSEN , RAYHONS , ROGERS , SCHULTE , SCHULTZ , SODERBERG , SWEENEY , WATTS , UPMEYER , VAN ENGELENHOVEN , VANDER LINDEN , WAGNER , WINDSCHITL , L. MILLER , J. SMITH , S. OLSON , J. TAYLOR , and WORTHAN
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION
A Joint Resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution 1 of the State of Iowa specifying marriage between one man and one woman as the only legal union that is valid or recognized in the state.
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE OF IOWA: 5 TLSB 1109YH (7) 84 pf/rj
H.J.R. 6 Section 1. The following amendment to the Constitution of 1 the State of Iowa is proposed: 2 Article I of the Constitution of the State of Iowa is amended by adding the following new section:Marriage. SEC. 26. Marriage between one man and one woman shall be the only legal union valid or recognized in this state. Sec. 2.
REFERRAL AND PUBLICATION. The foregoing amendment to the Constitution of the State of Iowa is referred to the general assembly to be chosen at the next general election for members of the general assembly, and the secretary of state is directed to cause the same to be published for three consecutive months previous to the date of that election as provided by law.
EXPLANATION. This joint resolution proposes an amendment to the 16 Constitution of the State of Iowa specifying that marriage between one man and one woman shall be the only legal union valid or recognized in this state. The joint resolution, if adopted, would be referred to the next general assembly for adoption a second time before being submitted to the electorate for ratification.
Jonathan Turley
RE: Woosty’s still a Cat, February 7, 2011 at 11:05 am
Purrfect!
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=30xspies8Eg&w=480&h=390]
I am vividly aware that I am using a lot of words. Yet I am vividly aware that, for my intended meaning to be understandable, because of its actual intrinsic extensional simplicity and the inherent impossibility of communicating extensional meaning via connotation, I have not come close to using enough, well enough chosen, words to begin to usefully share my actual concern to such extent that it can be understood to the degree and extent which would allow it to be either accepted or rejected as of useful science.
S. I. Hayakawa, in the title of his book, in every edition I have found, “Language in Thought and Action,” clearly gives me to understand that he very well grasped, understood, and knew the structures and relationships of declarative (thought) and procedural (action) brain function.
Again, as best I can yet observe, the adversarial system as a societal and social construct, equivalences thought with action, to the present detriment of the public safety of humanity.
In passing, I here note that most who here comment are demonstrably capable of reasonably decent civil discourse in the presence of serious foundational disagreement.
My own personal list of those who here commented within my sense of civil discourse include, but are not necessarily limted to (in arbitrary sequence):
Woosty’s still a Cat
Chan L.
Bob,Esq.
Lottakatz
Jill Chavez
Blouise
Elaine M.
mhatso
Bdaman
Tootie
Gyges
rafflaw
PaulThomson
eniobob
HenMan
Socrates
Buckeye
Stamford Liberal
It now appears to me that many people are quite capable of civil discourse, even in the presence of strong disagreement. This, I experience as beautiful indeed.
I also have a suspicion that I have had a curiously different, within my own life experiences, tutorial as to what civil discourse is not. I find this to have been a very valuable tutorial in terms of my continuing work and I am grateful for every comment.
And yet, I have a little hunch that uncivil discourse may have a sneaky proclivity for assassinating civil discourse.
And I obviously remain infinitely ignorant, and,in my ignorance, allow that there is more light yet to break forth in this world.
I wonder if I may have learned enough to accomplish a definitive test of whether my work is of fraud, and if so, how, why, where, when, in what ways, and regarding whom it is of fraud.
I long ago gave up playing Frisbee with a fixed foot, because I quickly learned that playing Frisbee with a fixed foot spoils the game.
Carleton Students, so I gather, learned to play “Ultimate Frisbee.”
I was once on a time a Carleton Student.
And I remember. The turtle remembers.
I am as though a turtle in imaginary troll’s clothing, which clothing I do not imagine because I know and understand that it does simply not exist.
Only that one child was able first to understand and know that the emperor’s new suit simply was not there.
Turtles tend to live longer than children do.
Civil discourse, regardless of disagreement, I welcome. I simply am not an assassin of decency.
I have always faced the choice of total withdrawal into my perfectly impenetrable autism shell or having the ridiculous courage to stick my head, feet, and tail out and learn of my surroundings by exploring them.
Oh. Sorry.
I am getting ready for our company, expected areound 11:00 am. So, as no one has telephoned and spoken with me directly by telephone and no one has asked to talk and see using Skype, and as the Door County Sheriff has did not arrive to investigate whether a fraud is being perpetrated by me in Door County, I decided to call The Door County Advocate just a few minutes ago. The “receptionist” connected me to the phone extension for Warren Bluhm, the Editor, and I left an “answering machine” message giving my name, that I am a research scientist, that I went to school in Sturgeon Bay, and, if the Advocate would be willing to entertain a “local boy makes good” story even slightly, I would work at writing a press release for evaluation by the Advocate.
I have a fair use copy of the words of this thread saved in duplicate.
Said the dancing greed monkey who previously said, “Damn straight I intend to exploit the shit out of anyone I can. If I can make a buck off someone elses labor, I will be all over it. That is what they teach us here, exploit the commie workers and make them buy their work gloves at the company store.” (Chan L. 1, February 2, 2011 at 7:57 pm)
You only clearly understand one thing: your own selfishness.
Squirm, lil’ worm!
Your own words indict your character by exemplifying your very lack thereof.
oh, I understand just fine. It is you who are coming to incorrect conclusions. But understandable since you are unable to see the connection/similarity between the 3 forms of statism/collectivism.
Actually my entire life is built on the truth “the world is what we make of it.” Ergo, since the world is plagued by exploitive misery as evidenced by the nature of reality? It is our doing as a species. Just as such misery is created by human action, it can be corrected by human action.
And as to your books on logic, greed boy?
“Apes read [logic], Otto. The just don’t understand it.”
Much like you don’t understand, uh, everything you read from history to economics.
Dr. Harris:
dont mind Buddha, his entire life is built on the logical fallacy of socialism as a sound economic system.
Most of his ramblings er posts are the logical form/fallacy of irrelevant conclusion. In fact the 3 books on logic I have, reference him in the footnotes under this particular form.
“I have methodically structured my work to be of the form of a
purefalse dichotomy, to the practicable limit I find achievable. Thus, my work beingvalidinvalid necessarilyinvalidatesvalidates the adversarial system and the adversarial system being valid necessarily invalidates my work.”There.
That’s more accurate.
There is a term that describes “your work” in addition to the term “propaganda”. That term is circular logic or petitio principii. It’s a formal logical error and a form of begging the question. “Your work” in deciding that the adversarial process creates mens rea, which has nothing to do with your credentials by the way, is crap. Circular reasoning based on a faulty premise is still a formal logical fallacy, only doubly offensive to reason. History shows the value of law to society and indeed the history of law is the history of civilization itself dating back to the Code of Hammurabi. Without law, there is no civilization. Only the barbarism of the tyranny of the strong over the weak. One of the very things law acts to prevent.
The very thing you seek to usurp with your antisocial propaganda.
“Within the sense of dialogue as I find explained in that paper, the adversarial process as I, personally, have encountered it in my defendant and open-court-watching experiences, is as purely antithetical to accuracy of shared understanding as any communication process I have yet encountered or been able to imagine.” Dr. Harris
———-
I share this experience
____________________________________
“Authoritarianism needs to be its sole authority, else it is not authoritarian.”
~Dr. Harris
————————-
I find this statement to be profound, its sole authority indeed, it is the gateway to fascism…
No word has identical meaning for any pair of people, because no two people share the perfectly identical sequence of perfectly identical experiences through which the denotation (or intensional meanings) and the connotation ((or extensional meanings) are first created and subsequently evolve. Therefore, accurate communication of connotation and denotation requires a successive approximation sequence before the connotation and denotation of a word or a word sequence can covnverge to a shared array of symbols (words) and meahings (denotations and connotations).
The method in the literature which find facilitates such sharing is well described in the scientific and scholarly literature on the social communication process which has commonly been named “dialogue,” which process I find rather well explained in the readily available paper, “Dialogue – A proposal,” by David Bohm, Donald Factor, and Peter Garrett.
Within the sense of dialogue as I find explained in that paper, the adversarial process as I, personally, have encountered it in my defendant and open-court-watching experiences, is as purely antithetical to accuracy of shared understanding as any communication process I have yet encountered or been able to imagine.
As for the ridiculous thing about phishing, I only put in my comments that which is unambiguously public record information, and I did simple public record searches to be without possible doubt as to my not having shared anything anyone else cannot rather easily find. Thus, I have enabled no phishing of my private information such that someone seeking to inconvenience me would be helped in doing that through what information I have provided.
As every word has multiple meanings, I gather that my understanding of the denotations and connotations of “phishing” mutually exclude those of BiL.
And that is at the core of the curious exchange which I find has been happening. Put figuratively, it is somewhat as though someone has been tossing foam Frisbees toward me, and, if they come close enough that I do not have to move my fixed foot to catch them, I catch every one, and if too far to be so caught, they totally miss me.
Yeah, the Frisbee I inherited from my folks is so early in the game of Frisbee that the rules printed on the concave surface contain that “fixed foot” rule.
The game of Frisbee has evolved, and it has been years since I observed anyone, including myself, who plays Frisbee using the fixed foot rule.
As with any social game (in the transactional analysis sense of “game” as used by psychiatrist Eric Berne in his (become a classic?) “Games People Play,” any transactional human activity which can be fitted within that sense of interactive social game which is based on fixed rules (ignorance of the law is no excuse) may be obsoleted by the inescapable process of social and societal evolution.
Chan L.: That you do not agree with aspects of my dissertation is what I would hope you would do, for that informs me that you have the sort of personal integrity which I believe is critically needed for the sake of the future of humanity.
While I do not actually confront people and while I prefer to not be confronted, every idea, belief, and notion I can ever have (being of connotation and denotation and events external to me) are fair game for being confronted. I confront them incessantly.
Why? I am a skeptic who includes being skeptical of skepticiam among my skepticisms.
What has emerged from the figurative Frisbees thrown my way is become a very testable hypothesis.
I proceed in testing it.
The hypothesis I now set out to test?
“THE TRUTH ITSELF SPEAKS”
The corollary hypothesis which I also set out to test?
“The truth does not need me for it to be spoken; yet, to the extent that what I speak (in talking, writing or otherwise) will prevail to such extent as I speak of truth, for truth does not deny itself.”
I now set out to test an inner hypothesis of that corollary hypothesis, said inner hypothesis being, in words as I now find them:
The social construct of mistakes made which could have been avoided is not physically (and therefore inevitably neurologically) damaging to children when learned.
That is my null hypothesis; that my work is somehow wrong, and therefore not truthful.
To date, the null hypothesis has totally failed, as I find it has done within this thread.
As with the structure of the east, west, north, south, and fifth courts at the Thing, as told in The Saga of Burnt Njal, there are five possible decisions regarding my work that I can identify.
1. Violence is a forever-necessary essential core aspect aspect of the internal nature of humans, such that removing violence from humans would not allow humans to live.
2. Violence is a temporary aspect of human nature, not inherent or actually internal to the ability of humans to be alive, but is something in the non-human environment wherein humans are able to live which as mistakenly been internalized and, when internalized, acts as though it is essential to human life
3. Both 1. and 2. are forever true.
4. Neither 1. or 2. are true, but are of relentless addiction.
5. None of the above and none of anything else, including 5.
What is the trap the adversarial system has made for itself, as I observe?
Consider the trap to be, “Do you affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, under penalty of perjury?”
In that form of mandate for witnesses, I find the adversarial system has perjures itself.
Swear? What is wrong with swearing? I find what is wrong with swearing amply illustrated within some of the comments of this blawg thread.
Ancillary null hypothesis to be tested:
“In the “affirm” form of witness mandate, to wit, ‘Do you affirm that you will tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, the adversarial system does not perjure itself.”
I have never found that ancillary hypothesis to have failed, and, because of its self-referential structure, find it incapable of failing.
I have methodically structured my work to be of the form of a pure dichotomy, to the practicable limit I find achievable. Thus, my work being valid necessarily invalidates the adversarial system and the adversarial system being valid necessarily invalidates my work.
Of course, I may have concocted a false dichotomy.
Absent effective rebuttal of my work, it remains without effective rebuttal.
Oh. Sorry.
Someone saying to me, “Because I said so!” does not count as rebuttal because my work constitutes a rebuttal of “Because I said so!”
Authoritarianism needs to be its sole authority, else it is not authoritarian.
Authoritative reciprocal is a method which grants authority to externalities in the form of objectively testable hypotheses and conclusions. That authoritarianism religiously avoids so doing as its only way of existing is its essential vulnerability.
The death throes of the adversarial delusion may appear as though a form of life, which they surely would be, for death is an intrinsic property of life, without which there would be no life whatsoever.
In humans, the sole cause of death is conception. All else is incidental.
“The hatred of fascists, sociopaths and psychopaths is a natural consequence of speaking the truths most inconvenient to their selfish and amoral ends.”
Buddha you keep giving me these wonderful pearls….
Chan L. 1, February 7, 2011 at 8:09 am
Woosty:
I think Dr. Harris is correct on that issue. Just go read the end of 1984 or Arthur Koestler’s “Darkness at Noon”.
Look at abused women, they keep coming back to the abuser and accepting that they are wrong. Or look at a child who has been abused by his/her parents.
———————————–
No, I think the abused in your situations are caught in an external trap where there is no other immediate choice because the repercussions are dangerous and they know it. I think Dr. Harris was illustrating how we are made vulnerable by parental authority to forms of governmental control but he has illustrated a lack of freedom of choice and not taken intent into consideration. Two2 year olds do not have choice, they have inate and proper instincts compelling them to master their environments, but health and very existence is at the whim of their parents intent…
To remove all authority removes existance to children….in a nation it removes society. What is imperative is to have those with proper INTENT and ability to control their behavior and exercise their office in that vein in seats of authority….
So maybe we are splitting hairs…
To watch you squirm.
Which is also funny.
If you dont care why do you keep commenting?
You keep making the same mistake of assuming I care what you think, greed boy.
It’s funny.
I dont think Dr. Harris is a fascist, sociopath or psychopath. I think he has autism and came here to learn.
I think someone else is projecting.
The hatred of fascists, sociopaths and psychopaths is a natural consequence of speaking the truths most inconvenient to their selfish and amoral ends.
Woosty:
I think Dr. Harris is correct on that issue. Just go read the end of 1984 or Arthur Koestler’s “Darkness at Noon”.
Look at abused women, they keep coming back to the abuser and accepting that they are wrong. Or look at a child who has been abused by his/her parents.
Dr. Harris:
Buddha cannot give his name on the Internet or 100’s of people would be looking for him. And it wouldn’t be to throw him a birthday party, but to congratulate him.
“The authoritarian tradition creates its own necessity, because, once one has accepted some form of, “I did something I could have avoided doing, I should and could have done otherwise, it’s my fault…” the brain is broken and the broken brain needs authoritarian control because, and only because, of its having been broken by authoritarian coercive trauma.”
___________________________________________
Dr. Harris, I disagree with the above statement. When one does something they could have avoided doing…it is an admission of knowing that what they did was somehow wrong or damaging or that there was at least a choice. Fault comes when there is harm to oneself or others. The brain is not broken, it may be that the act was engaged by the brain before accomplishment…this is called ‘premeditation’….or perhaps the brain wasn’t engaged at all prior to the commission….this leads to questions of was there choice, fear, and guilt. When someone does something out of fear, without thinking…choice is usually not the issue ….but when one continues to deepen the harm by not arresting the behaviour…. well, then more, I think, than the brain is broken but the source is quite hidden until brought completely to light….something it takes a great deal of courage to do. Guilt is a symptom…