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
Chan L.:
You keep asking the most beautiful questions…
You ask the most beautiful questions —
About the most terrible questions…
Amen! So be it! Amen!
Woosty:
what if I dont think SM is harmful since there is no good or bad? Then what?
Goodness gracious!
Missed one Carleton professor.
Paul Wellstone, “How the Rural Poor Got Power,” U. Mass. Press, 1978.
Oh. Sorry.
Okay…
I know quite exactly what this thread is about. It is about something my dad, my brother, and I studied as Carleton College students.
Four particular Carleton professors gave what this thread is about considerable attention, and wrote one or more books about it.
The professors, and some of their books, in chronological order.
Karl Schmidt, “The Creative I and the Divine,” The Dial Press, 1937.
Karl Schmidt, “From Science to God,” Harper & Brothers, 1944.
Philip H. Phenix, “Intelligible Religion,” Harper & Brothers, 1954. (Phenix wrote this book after leaving Carleton, when he was associate professor of education, Teachers College, Columbia University)
Ian G. Barbour, “Issues in Science and Religion,” Prentice Hall, 1966.
Ian G. Barbour, “Science and Secularity,” Harper & Row, 1970.
Ian G. Barbour, “Myths, Models, and Paradigms,” Harper & Row, 1974.
Ian G. Barbour, “Religion in an Age of Science,” Harper Collins, 1990.
Ian G. Barbour, “Ethics in an Age of Technology,” HarperOne, 1993.
Ian G. Barbour, “When Science Meets Religion,” HarperSanFrancisco, 2000.
Ian G. Barbour, “Nature, Human Nature, and God,” Fortress Press, 2002.
In addition to those books by people who were Carleton professors (Barbour is the Winifred & Atherton Bean Professor of Science, Technology & Society, Emeritus), some other books by college professors are of particular importance:
W. H. Werkmeister, “A Philosophy of Science,” University of Nebraska Press, 1940.
Max C. Otto, “Science and the Moral Life,” A Mentor Book, 1949.
Herbert J. Muller, “The Uses of the Past,” Oxford University Press, 1952.
Walter M. Elsasser, “The Physical Foundation of Biology,” Pergamon Press, 1958.
Walter M. Elsasser, “Reflections on a Theory of Organisms,” Editions Orbis, 1987.
Were I to give a complete list of books used during the research of my thesis, it would contain well over 15,000 books My library has more volumes than that), and uncountable (plausibly much more than 15,000) scientific papers, journals, and other publications.
Sooner or later, someone is going to figure out the mechanism of disrespect and find a solution to the enigma of hatred. That is what my writings on this thread have been about.
Understanding and solving the human hatred enigma is what my life is about, and is what all I do, in one way or another, is about.
If there is a real need for a law not yet in place, surely a scientific law which effectively precludes hatred and hateful destructiveness is a law in need of a home?
Because the way I am autistic denies to me any way to hate or retaliate, I need to learn about hatred and retaliation through the lives of people who are able to hate and people who are able to retaliate.
It appears to me that the world in which I live contains the world in which the vast majority of people seem to live, and it appears to me as though the world in which I live contains that other world as though the world of the vast majority is of the manner of a deadly parasitic microcosm. I will never act with intent to murder anyone, not even in self-defense.
Need a parallel explanation? I seek to safely engineer the end of human warfare.
Questions are welcome.
Actual refutations are welcome.
Whatever?
Bob,Esq.
1, February 9, 2011 at 2:17 pm
BTW, I have no idea what this thread is about.
===============================================
Neither do I … I could ask a question about the collapse of the Towers … 🙂
Definition of Heaven and Hell – both run by the Swiss
RE: Woosty’s still a Cat, February 9, 2011 at 6:27 pm
[begin excerpt]
Well, if you understand sado-masochism, you recognize the harm it can cause others and look for another sick narcissist with similiar proclivities and you leave the rest of us alone!
[end excerpt]
##############################
Great!
I, personally, subjectively, and scientifically, experience “the adversarial system” as pure sado-masochism…
Oh, no! Did it again!
Why can I not lie about my life experiences?
Oh. Sorry.
Chan L. 1, February 9, 2011 at 11:30 am
Blouise:
Ok. But why is the Golden Rule, the Golden Rule? What if I am a sado-masochist? Since there is no good/evil and no God what do we do now?
I am just curious.
_________________________________
Well, if you understand sado-masochism, you recognize the harm it can cause others and look for another sick narcissist with similiar proclivities and you leave the rest of us alone!
THAT would be a GOOD thing….for everyone involved….!
While I have nothing to say or write about the purpose of anyone else, my sole purpose was exploring the nature of society with reference to why some folks seek to block Zach’s parents from being properly married…
That is where the thread started, and that is to what I kept relentlessly returning, while not ignoring the imposed digressions of others…
Why does anyone, other than Zach’s two mommies have any say or interest in whether they are married or in preventing their being married?
Why?
Why is is that not a trivially simple question of no interest to or concern of anyone other than Zach’s parents?
Bob,Esq. 1, February 9, 2011 at 2:17 pm
BTW, I have no idea what this thread is about.
——————————-
well, Zach’s got 2 Mommies and this thread has about a thousand digressions….but it’s been pleasant…..;)
RE: Bob,Esq., February 9, 2011 at 2:17 pm
BTW, I have no idea what this thread is about.
#####################################
I can write or speak for none save myself.
For me, it is about the Iowa Legislature denying to the parents of Zach Wahls the right to a proper marriage, such that Zach would properly have had married parents.
That is a matter of Law, and I find the Iowa Legislature to have taken the path of violating The Law of Existence.
Such violations are of the failure of the interface of the footings of society with the bedrock of society, as I have previously indicated, albeit perchance by using words which merit being improved.
I find, as Zoe Brain has also found, that folks like me who are perfectly incapable of conforming to the social dishonesty and deception that I am less of a man because I chose to let my testicles die so the whole of me would not die from cancer, and because I find I was given, outside any semblance of will to effort to be both gyneandrous and autistic, the law of adversariality is adverse to the mere fact of my possible existence.
This thread is, to me, only about the abuse by law of people whose biology precludes any possibility of compliance with laws which such abused people find compliance with perfectly impossible.
I have never made a mistake I could or should have avoided, and, as a bioengineer, find that anyone actually being able to make a mistake which could have been avoided is a violation of the nature or existence save as a perhaps dastardly form of addictive unwitting dishonesty.
When someone who neither knows nor understands me threatens me with harm because I am not given to believe something I find impossible to believe save as a tragic delusion, I find myself obligated to protest in every way possible which is not actually of reciprocal abuse.
I have been gentle with words. I remain gentle, yet may be misunderstood by those who are used to clobbering vulnerable people with word barrages.
I find that I have, to the limit possible for an ordinary person, effective, efficient, and economical control of the whole of the high ground in the field of bioengineering as a truthful way of understanding human brain neurobiological structure and function in situ, and the adversarial system of law holds not a whit of that high ground. The high ground is made, and only made, of unrelenting truthfulness, objectively verifiable as such.
Accordingly, I can be as patient and as gentle as I find useful, and need never actually confront any person in any way, regardless of how I, and my work, may be misinterpreted by people who have somehow been given an adversarial mindset
While others may have no idea what this thread is about, were I intent on making any sort of “point,” no better “point” to make can I yet imagine than just exactly that.
I do not make points, I describe directly observable process.
Points are of connotation, they are mere figments of mental imagination.
Directly observable processes are of denotation, they are the directly observable realities of actual existence.
I do not object to the religion which purports that reality is imagination and imagination is reality, which is the idol of the adversarial system, so long as only those true believers in that fantasy idol do not inflict their false religion on those whose beliefs are actually based on the existence of objective reality and the objective reality of existence.
That what I write makes not much, if any, sense to someone is, at best, an indicator of the delusion present in the life of said someone.
I do not threaten people for not lying as did acting Sturgeon Bay City Attorney James Downey.
I do not declare the objectively total absence of evidence to be clear and convincing evidence as did Door County Circuit Judge Peter C. Diltz on May 8, 2008, in Door County Case No. 07-TR-3466.
I did not so misunderstand a transaction in said Door County Circuit Case so severely as to have needed to produce a corrected transcript because of a grave error in the first transcript. Yes, I have both transcripts…
I did not, sincerely or else, confabulate false testimony as did Sturgeon Bay Police Officer Joseph Bilodeau, Officer ID 3812.
Ever since I began to grasp the horror of war, some seventy years ago, I have been confounded by the way truly decent and perfectly innocent people learn to commit the most heinous of possible atrocities. With seven decades of duly diligent effort already accomplished, I have come to recognize, in the past couple days, that my understanding of the essential framework of war mongering is effectively complete.
I state that truthfully and without reservation. Who else on earth can so do? Whosoever can, methinks we wisely begin to talk directly with one another.
What valid right hath error save submission to the truth?
The adversarial system has become its best adversary; and it is destroying the actual rule of law with reckless abandon. Hence the social turmoil become blatantly obvious to anyone with eyes to see and ears to hear.
The rule of law has broken itself; I come with the method of effective, economical, efficient repair, for that is the proper work of engineering.
You say you do not understand engineering? I can help you.
You say you do not understand biology? I can help you.
You say you do not understand bioengineering? I can help you.
You say you do not understand society as though gone awry? I can help you.
BTW, I have no idea what this thread is about.
Definition of Heaven
You’re greeted by the English
You’re fed by the French
You’re entertained by the Italians
And it’s run by the Germans
Definition of Hell
You’re greeted by the French
You’re fed by the English
You’re entertained by the Germans
And it’s run by the Italians.
“As to being answerable only to oneself, how does one come to know oneself enough to be so answerable? And, what about understanding oneself; might that also be of some sort of value?” .. Out side the context in which I used the “answerable to oneself” but never-the-less I can shift gears in responding.
I have come to know myself as a I age and pass from one experience to the next. I learn from my own mistakes, from watching others correct their errors and from discovering that if I lie to myself I learn nothing. I thought I would know how to “get old” gracefully … Bull Twinkies … adjusting to getting old is just as difficult as being a teenager, marriage, motherhood, and every other stage of living through which I have passed. But in not lying to myself, a lesson I learned as a teenager, I don’t deceive myself into thinking I’m handling it well! As a result I am able to devote more thought and time to fixing my errors quickly or restraining myself from making some of the more egregious ones that would harm others … other than myself.
RE: Blouise, February 9, 2011 at 12:32 pm
It is clear to me that man is certainly not “G-d.”
It is also terribly clear to me that sado-masochism is a from of destructive co-dependency when two people who cope with life difficulties with sado-masochism become close relatives.
Our adopted son and his wife met with some very challenging difficulties during their marriage, and I worked intensively with our son while he was “with us” to help him find more constructive and less destructive ways of coping with his life difficulties than were possible when he more or less replicated his biological parents coping with alcohol technique.
In a situation for aspects of which I have neither denotative nor connotative context, I can only “punt,” for lack of any other viable option. Sometimes punting works. Sometimes, punting seems to not work.
So goes the game. If, in punting, I do something my life experiences gave me no practicable means to recognize, I may end up doing something terrible because I have no achievable way of avoiding it.
Such is my reason for totally forgiving the Ford Motor Company for building a Mercury Sable automobile so defectively welded that, in essence, it murdered our son and his wife. And my reason for telling about their murders.
Having one’s son and daughter-in-law murdered by defective spot welds is a terrible experience. As I totally and unconditionally forgive the Ford Motor Company and its management, stockholders, and employees, so I do what I can to prevent other families from encountering such terrible experiences as my family experienced.
If I blame anyone, I can only drive people blamed into acting defensively and thereby only increase the future risk to other families. If I refrain from sharing my concerns about defective spot welds and what leads to them, I also endanger other families.
And so, I do as I do as I am able to do it.
As, to me, G-d is what gives existence to existence, nothing ever happens without the influence of existence. And I have no particular use for childish stories of absurd notions of existence, except as I may come to recognize and understand their childish absurdity.
As to being answerable only to oneself, how does one come to know oneself enough to be so answerable? And, what about understanding oneself; might that also be of some sort of value?
Chan,
“There have to be standards of good and evil” … why? (asked and answered)
… “or there is no good and evil and everything is up for grabs to the lowest common denominator.” …
Someone’s view of good (Muslims in Indonesia burning 3 Christian churches, killing 3 and injuring 6 because their laws against blasphemy had not been sufficiently punished) is another’s view of evil (the 3 dead and 6 injured). Someones’s view of good (Christians releasing the souls of heretics by burning them at the stake during the Catholic inquisition and Protestant witch trials)is another’s view of evil (those burned at the stake). The debate over torture encompasses the “it’s good/it’s evil” argument today.
But doing harm to others is removed from the theoretical evil/good judgement and becomes instantly personal and immediate to one’s acts. Thus do unto others as you would have them do unto you becomes answerable only to oneself with no escape or room for excuse.
As to ” What if I am a sado-masochist?” … sophomoric in that it does not go to the original point of doing harm but instead goes to your argument concerning the existence of god which was not within the parameters of the original post which contended only that man was “not G*d”.
If you wish to debate the presence of good and evil and what constitutes the definition of each I will be happy to do so. With or without the connotations of god’s influence.
RE: Woosty’s still a Cat, February 9, 2011 at 11:23 am
“When I returned, the college counselor, Dr. Joseph Havens, told me that no one in the class remembered my being in the class until after my body was found on the bottom of the pool ”
————-
well you were a quiet soul weren’t you…
############################
Only now is my soul beginning to find the possibility of actually finding its voice.
RE: Blouise, February 9, 2011 at 11:11 am
[begin excerpt]
Although it may sound otherwise, I do not write the following with the intent to insult.
Your argument is sophomoric in that you have failed to grasp the subtlety of Woosty’s writings and thus missed the point by a substantial distance. Your question, “What do you do if there is no God?” illustrates this in that it was answered in her original statement … for one does not need to believe in god in order to “ponder(ing) if their actions are ‘harnful’ “. Which is, of course, the lesson buried within the “Golden Rule”.
[end excerpt]
I choose to address the question quoted in the above excerpt, in accord with my personal understanding.
To me, “God” is a word symbol in the form of connotation which may be used to denote what, put to words, may be described as”
“God” is one of many possible names for the observability of the process of existence as the way whereby something of what has not before happened, happens and becomes of what has happened.
As something is always happening which has never before happened, and as what something which has never before happened happens and becomes what has happened, the presence of the work of God is manifestly apparent.
No need for a cruel Kris Kringle nasty old man with a beard who despises children and punishes their attempts of truthfulness.
“God” is simply a name for whatever gives existence its existence.
There is a Platinum Rule, more noble by far than the Golden Rule:
“Forgive without limit, for all things happen in the way whereby their happening is possible.”
RE: Chan L., February 9, 2011 at 11:30 am
Yes, Chan, you are correct; the Golden Rule fails catastrophically in the presence of sado-masochism.
It is quite precisely that failure which most resolutely drives the mongering of war.
Res ipsa loquitur (“The thing itself speaks”)
The Law speaks for itself. It needs no interpreter or interpretation, yet welcomes interpreters and interpretations.
What is the law?
With all of my heart, mind, soul, and strength, I asked for the words that tell the law, doing so without error or possibility of error.
Ask, and it shall be given, according to as asked.
The Law of Existence is so simple it may have been overlooked by mistake.
The Law of Existence is:
“Whatever happens is necessary and sufficient and whatever does not happen is unnecessary and impossible.”
That is The Law of Existence, complete and eternal in its telling.
The telling of the Law of Existence is the telling of the Eternal Tao.
Whatever of law is in accord with The Law of Existence is valid law.
Whatever of law is in discord with The Law of Existence is invalid law.
The Law is now been told, as it speaks for itself in every aspect, detail and way of existence.
I have come to this blawg in the service of The Law, and for naught else.
Question, skeptically question, every word and act you can find of my life. Find any real, unambiguously demonstrable, actual discrepancy between what I actually say and what I actually do, and I will grant without limit that my life and my life work are only of error, fraud, dishonesty, deception, and everything worse.