Below is my column in the Washington Post (Sunday) on our recent victory in the Sister Wives case. The column looks at the most significant aspect of the case — the rejection of morality codes that once controlled across the country in prohibiting everything from homosexuality to adultery to fornication. These morality laws were upheld in the decision in Reynolds in 1876 in a polygamy case out of Utah. The Brown decision returned us to the same question involving the same issue in the same state. Some 136 years later however the answer from this federal court was very different. We are a different country today and, despite what one hears from politicians like Rick Santorum, I believe that we are a better country today.
There does seem to be confusion about the ruling with some saying that polygamy is still not legal after the opinion. That is simply wrong. Polygamy is not the same a bigamy. One is the crime defined under cohabitation statutes of living as a plural family or with a person married to another person. The other is the crime of having two or more marriage licenses. The latter has nothing to do with the structure of your family and has almost exclusively involved people who hold themselves out (falsely) as monogamous. We always argued that the state could prosecute people who obtained more than one marriage license. Bigamy has not been an offense committed by polygamists who traditionally have one official marriage license and multiple spiritual licenses. Indeed, the law targeted polygamy with the cohabitation provision precisely because there is a difference between the two. The state fought for years to preserve this law because it reached beyond simple bigamy. Before this opinion, it was a crime for polygamists to live, as do the Browns, in a plural family. After the opinion, it is legal. This is precisely what occurred in Lawrence v. Texas where homosexual unions were a crime but then became legal when the Texas law was struck down. This decision legalizes tens of thousands of polygamous families who will no longer been viewed as criminal enterprises. They will be allowed to be open plural families. They are now legal relationships. Legality of polygamy is entirely different from recognition of plural marriages just as the legality of homosexual relations is different from the recognition of same-sex marriage.
There is also a lack of knowledge about the existence of such laws outside of Utah. This law does exist outside of Utah. Indeed, the very same language is found in the Canadian cohabitation law. I was called as a legal expert in the recent challenge to that law. However, the Canadian Supreme Court in British Columbia upheld the law. Putting these distinctions aside, the thrust of this article is how this decision is part of a larger trend toward the repeal or the striking down of morality codes, including the rejection of a cohabitation law in Virginia this year.
——————————————-
The decision this month by a federal court striking down the criminalization of polygamy in Utah was met with a mix of rejoicing and rage. What was an emancipating decision for thousands of plural families was denounced as the final descent into a moral abyss by others.
Former senator Rick Santorum was among the social conservatives trying to claim the moral high ground. He tweeted on Sunday: “Some times I hate it when what I predict comes true” — referring to his 2003 claim that legalizing “consensual sex within your home” would lead to the legalization of polygamy and “undermine the fabric of our society.” (On Wednesday, with no apparent sense of self-contradiction, he expressed outrage over the removal of a Nativity scene at a South Carolina military base, tweeting: “Our Constitution protects free exercise of religion. No govt entity/official has the right to limit that.”)It’s true that the Utah ruling is one of the latest examples of a national trend away from laws that impose a moral code. There is a difference, however, between the demise of morality laws and the demise of morality. This distinction appears to escape social conservatives nostalgic for a time when the government dictated whom you could live with or sleep with. But the rejection of moral codes is no more a rejection of morality than the rejection of speech codes is a rejection of free speech. Our morality laws are falling, and we are a better nation for it.
In the Utah case, I was the lead counsel for the Browns, the polygamous family featured in the TLC reality program “Sister Wives.” They are members of the Apostolic United Brethren Church, and they have one marriage license and three “spiritual” marriages among them. After the first episode of “Sister Wives” aired, state prosecutors threatened to bring charges under a Utah law that made it a crime when a married person “purports to marry another person or cohabits with another person.” The Browns were under investigation for two years and were publicly called felons before they took prosecutors to court in a challenge to the constitutionality of the law.
The case was never about the recognition of multiple marriages or the acceptance of the religious values underlying this plural family. It was about the right of consenting adults to make decisions for themselves and their families. Judge Clark Waddoups, a conservative George W. Bush appointee,ruled that the criminalization of cohabitation clearly violated the due process clause and the free exercise clause of the United States Constitution.
In doing so, he departed from the prevailing precedent: the Supreme Court’s opinion inReynolds v. United States , which upheld a ban on polygamy in 1879. Waddoups wrote that courts today are “less inclined to allow majoritarian coercion of unpopular or disliked minority groups, especially when blatant racism . . . religious prejudice, or some other constitutionally suspect motivation, can be discovered behind such legislation.”
Indeed, in Reynolds, religious and racial prejudice were vividly on display. The court unleashed a tirade of indignation and condemnation, stating, “Polygamy has always been odious among the northern and western nations of Europe, and, until the establishment of the Mormon Church, was almost exclusively a feature of the life of Asiatic and of African people.” Just a few years later, the Supreme Court also upheld the criminalization of mixed-race relations in Pace v. Alabama .
The idea that polygamy was a “barbarous practice” and contrary to democratic principles drove the demand in the late 1880s and ’90s that Utah outlaw it as a condition of statehood. And in Mormon Church v. United States (1890), the Supreme Court labeled polygamy as “abhorrent to the sentiments and feelings of the civilized world.”
The stigma attached to polygamy continued to distort legal analysis into this century. As recently as 2006, Utah Justice Ronald Nehring began his opinion in a ruling upholding the criminalization of polygamy by lamenting, “No matter how widely known the natural wonders of Utah may become, no matter the extent that our citizens earn acclaim for their achievements, in the public mind Utah will forever be shackled to the practice of polygamy.” Nehring frankly admitted that this hostility “has been present in my consciousness, and I suspect has been a brooding presence . . . in the minds of my colleagues, from the moment we opened the parties’ briefs.” Rather than overcome that prejudice, Nehring not only yielded to it but warned any Utah judge of the peril of being the first to recognize the rights of polygamists: “I have not been alone in speculating what the consequences might be were the highest court in the State of Utah the first in the nation to proclaim that polygamy enjoys constitutional protection.”
Well, it wasn’t. A federal judge in Utah assumed that burden. Gov. Gary Herbert objected to the court making “decisions on social issues.” (He has not yet announced an appeal.) Waddoups, however, was not dictating a decision on a social issue but rather saying that governments could not impose a single version of morality. He limited prosecution under Utah’s anti-polygamy law to cases of bigamy, where someone acquires more than one marriage license — which is an offense more common to monogamous couples, who care about state recognition, than polygamists, who care about spiritual recognition.
Across the country, the era of morality codes is coming to an inglorious end. This year, the Supreme Court struck down part of the Defense of Marriage Act barring the federal recognition of same-sex marriage. And this week, the New Mexico Supreme Court and another federal judge in Utah struck down the ban on same-sex marriage in those states — bringing the number to 18 states (plus the District of Columbia) where same-sex couples can marry. Meanwhile, Virginia recently repealed its 1877 cohabitation law and Colorado replealed a criminal adultery law from the 1850s — both relics of a time when states used their criminal codes to force citizens to comply with the religious values of their neighbors.
Most states have wisely turned away from absurd laws criminalizing masturbation and fornication. Obscenity laws have also been curtailed by the Supreme Court in deference to the First Amendment.
Still rightly on the books are laws against bestiality, which involves an obvious lack of consent as well as manifest harm. Likewise, incest bans are based on claims of medical, not moral, harm.
Once any crimes or abuses are stripped away in cases like the Browns’, what remains is religious animus. Yet, polygamy is widely practiced around the world by millions of families and was condoned by every major religion — from Judaism to Christianity to Islam — at one time. While plural families are called polygamists in our popular lexicon, “polygamy” actually refers to a broad array of plural relationships, from polygyny (one husband and multiple wives, like the Browns) to polyandry (a single wife and multiple husbands) to polyamory (couples who reject the exclusivity of sexual relations). The vast majority of these families are based on consenting relations among adults without abusive or criminal histories.
Critics often ignore these other plural relationships (and even polygynists like the Browns) in favor of a stereotype of “compound polygamists,” living in remote walled communities where women appear captive and molestation flourishes. It is Warren Jeffs, not Kody Brown, whom critics want to invoke in debating decriminalization — a sinister figure in a secluded compound where women wear prairie outfits and hairdos from the 19th century.
Obviously, there will always be abusers like Jeffs among polygamists — just as there are abusers among monogamists. However, it is no more persuasive to criminalize all plural relationships because of a small number of abusive individuals than it would be logical to outlaw monogamy based on the convicted spouse- and child-abusers in conventional marriages.
One of the great ironies about the focus on compound polygamists is the circular logic of criminalization. The government first declared polygamists felons and then pointed to their hiding as evidence of their guilt. But decriminalization will allow these families to be plural, open and law-abiding as they reintegrate into society.
In truth, 19th-century Americans were no more moral than we are today. It simply appeared that way with the imposition of official morals, including (as Santorum recalls so fondly) being told whom we could love in our own homes. It is not a single moral voice that is heard today but a chorus of voices. Each speaks to its own values but joins around a common article of faith: the belief that morality is better left to parents than to politicians.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro professor of public interest law at George Washington University and lead counsel in the “Sister Wives” polygamy case.
Washington Post (Sunday) December 22, 2013
David,
I’m a big fan of Jefferson. It’s you who debase him by saying you embrace his ideals and then espousing views that are contrary to those ideals. “Recognizing differences” does not translate to endorsing inequality – which is what you do indeed do on a regular basis. That makes you hypocrite in addition to being a bigot. You also obviously don’t understand Jefferson or the Declaration at all.
If you don’t like that people come to these conclusions about you based upon your own pronouncements? Then maybe you should consider that you’re wrong. No one has made other people – including me – think that you are a bigoted hypocrite other than you, David. Your own words betray you and when your bigoted hypocrisy is called out you scream “You’re just a bigot against those with ‘traditional values’!” No sale. Anyone who knows anything about propaganda in modern American politics knows that “traditional values” is a wolf-whistle code phrase for “bigoted theocratic old pseudo-Christian white people”. I don’t care what your morals are so long as they don’t ethically infringe upon the rights of others. Your morals are your choice. If you feel like you have a right to force those morals – which are again subjective chosen value judgements that do not rely on either reason or externally validated rational objective standards – then you feel wrong. You don’t get to make moral choices for others. If you think you do? Guess which finger that gets you.
Yeah. People get the impression you’re a bigot. They get it from the ridiculous crap you say.
Any injury you feel is entirely self-inflicted.
davidm2575 1, December 28, 2013 at 9:18 am
… Thomas Jefferson …
=========================
One of the problems of modern discourse and debate is what I call “driving to a destination by looking in the rear-view-mirror rather than by looking out the windshield.”
The past is instructive, but should not be considered to be controlling where it has been proven wrong.
The past is not the now, nor are the past and the now the future.
Three words which, in a mature nomenclature, would not mean the same thing, nor would they be properly used interchangeably.
What our nation needs now is not axiomatically the same as what it needed then, nor will the needs of the future be axiomatically the same as the needs of the past.
The only exceptions are those things that are so true, so useful, and so good that they need not ever be changed.
The exercise when developing valid governments is to protect and segregate what should not change from what should.
Which requires intellectual honesty and other forms of honesty.
Which are not composed of mere opinion compressed into hard ideology by reductionism.
David,
You discredit yourself. If people think your positions are bigoted (and by the responses you get, that would be most of them) then just maybe you are a bigot.
___________
Skipples,
Sorry, but that’s not what the evidence shows. Some of the healthiest economies in the world with the happiest citizens? Have mixed economies. Those countries tended to weather the global economic downturn – which was caused by laissez-faire policy letting the financial services sector run amok by the way – better than countries with no economic controls. To be clear, the Nordic model simply works better than our cowboy capitalism. Even The Economist said just this year that the countries using the Nordic model were “probably the best-governed in the world”. See for yourself: http://www.economist.com/news/special-report/21570835-nordic-countries-are-probably-best-governed-world-secret-their
Sure, you can point to some countries with mixed economies that didn’t weather the downturn as well, but to a one those countries were also plagued with other problems ranging from grossly incompetent management to severe corruption to being unable to handle rapidly changing demographics in a responsive manner. There are lots of things that can impact an economy that have nothing to do with the selected model. But what is evident? Is that the whole CDS débâcle and the LIBOR scandal that drove the global economy off the cliff were the result of deregulation, malregulation, and or criminal collusion in and of derivatives trading.
Not having constraints on systems where humans interact?
Is a bad idea.
That you don’t understand the truth of human nature is that man is wolf to man lies at the heart of your Pollyanna von Mises mates with Ayn Rand fever dream that totally free markets will save the world.
They won’t. They can’t. They allow our self-predatory nature to run free.
Laissez-faire economics would destroy the world if given global implementation.
It’s doing a pretty good job of it already.
Gene H. wrote Laissez-faire economics would destroy the world if given global implementation. It’s doing a pretty good job of it already.
Give me some specific examples Gene and I love the term “if given”. What you really mean is “if allowed” by the ruling oligarchy. Lucky for you Gene H. you system is most likely secure, as the ruling oligarchy is not likely to lower their guns and coercive tactics against the Citizens to give them such liberties.
Also note that when greater elements of laissez-faire economics existed, i.e. less taxation and regulation, I didn’t say total, the majority of the Citizens of, not only the U.S., but also the world, had the greatest wealth per capita and although imperfections occurred, wealth and prosperity was better, and the levels of poverty were much less, than the mixed econ system has given us today; despite having had to throw off the chains of despotism they left behind to come to America and other places were there was greater liberties.
You can take you silly little happiness index and survey and give it to the elementary students through public education to try to brain wash them into believing it has any relevant meaning. Isn’t that what public education is really about???
davidm,
“Others have been calling for me to be banned for awhile now, well before this intolerable post. Hatred is the motivation. Anybody with a modicum of intelligence can see that.”
Who has called for you to be banned?
Seems like those evil socialist European countries like Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Germany, are all doing pretty well and have a population that enjoy their socialistic tendencies.
No, Skipples. I understand exactly what the differences are between laissez-faire, a mixed economy and a command economy are. You seem to be the one with some confusion on the economic basics.
Do I want to live in a world where the government acts as a brake on the abusive and exploitative actions of bad actors in business that a laissez-faire system invites, adequately provides for the general welfare of citizens over protecting private profits and doesn’t treat the “monied elite” as if they were above the law?
You’re damn right I do.
Gene H. You apparently do not understand what laissez-faire capitalism is either, or you would know that only free market solutions can cure free market problems, because government interventions create even greater resultant contraindications. Introducing socialism just becomes a game of chasing ones tail, by constantly increasing regulations and the necessary taxation, that never cure the initial problems, until there are not more free markets, to a point where government can no longer fund it’s on excesses.
This is the exact point where many of the socialist/fascists economies around the world, developed over the last 50 years, are at; dying on the vine. It’s Citizens stuck between living off the government’s various redistribution of wealth social policies and attempting to revitalized free enterprise in a system that oppresses it through excessive taxation and regulation.
Does this appear familiar to you as the various current events have unraveled over the last 35 years or so?
What OS and Mespo said!
Ph’ing typos:
“Oh Great Wakan Tanka we pray to thee for peace, justice & good will towards all the creatures great & small and understanding by/of the Xenophobes ”
“Oh Great Wakan Tanka we pray to thee for peace, justice & good will towards all the creatures great & small and upstanding by/of the Xenophobes ”
Nick,
I read somewhere Wallst banks/insur had DC polecats come up with a scheme in the 1800s to pay , I think, $0.10 a Buffalo’s tongue supposedly to make purses out of them, to starve out Native Americans so they could exploit their lands.
They killed millions of Buffalo tongues & filled warehouse back east which in turn caused cholera epidemics on the great plains which caused deaths of whites & Natives.
I find a sense of poetic justice now that it’s the Wallst bank/insur trash that has a bounty on them to be brought to justice.
Heroes of the people will be made right here, right now.
Seconding Mespo’s comment at 10:58 PM.
David, you know what you are and what your agenda is. You are transparently obvious to everyone here. On most other blogs you would be long gone.
I’d like to point out that the matter is not yet closed either, David.
Nick,
In biz they buy air conditioners in the winter & sell them in the summer.
The tide has turned in biz.
The midlevel bank/insurance managers that feed Wallst’s addiction to greed are ripe & ready for harvest.
Ya, no doubt they’ll be a bit ornery bringing in.
Where does a guy find the best price for hides?
David M:
I have not been involved in this discussion but I wanted to emphasize Mike S’s point that disclosing personal information about anyone who doesn’t want it revealed is the universal taboo here and at every other responsible blog I know about. Some in the blog’s administration wanted to give you a second chance and my own sensibilities about the First Amendment were plucked as well. However, had I been the deciding vote you would have been instantly banned and I have NEVER suggested this about a commenter before. I believe you knew exactly what you were doing and decided to push the line here using resources unavailable to most everyone except paid counter-bloggers. Cooler and better heads prevailed and you have another chance to do the right thing. I hope you take advantage of the largesse shown you by more tolerant folks than me and use the blog for its intended purpose rather than as an object of your agenda.
Mespo wrote: “disclosing personal information about anyone who doesn’t want it revealed is the universal taboo here and at every other responsible blog I know about.”
And how are we suppose to *KNOW* that a person who reveals information about himself publicly does not want anybody to repeat it publicly to another participant? I think I’ve mentioned before about Professor’s Turley education at the University of Chicago and Northwestern University, and also about his current position at George Washington University, but I was never threatened with being banned for repeating that information. I’ve never even thought much about it because it is information that he readily makes available publicly.
Unlike someone like you or Tony, Gene posts here under his real name. Gene constantly beats his chest about his superior education that has bestowed upon him the degree of Juris Doctor. He uses his education as a sledge hammer to silence any non-lawyer who might disagree with him on matters of law. His opinion is the EXPERT opinion, and the rest of us without law degrees are inferior to him. Therefore he feels justified to denigrate others and to disrespect everything about them. He is no different than a racist in Mississippi who might justify his constant denigration of a black man simply because the man belongs to the black race. Those who lack his educational opportunities are not even worth his pity much less his respect. He and other blog leaders actually brag about how meaningless we are to them. It was in this context that I mentioned his educational background, because a grown man with some college under his belt was being categorized as a fifth grader and he felt so unwelcome that he posted that he was leaving. Yet for some reason, you want to post now about how you would have banned me instantly for offering him advice? Sorry, but that makes very little sense. You should be calling for discipline of Gene for his denigrating and uncivil postings. A true egalitarian who loves an society based upon equal rights for all would be disciplining Gene, not me.
Mespo wrote: “…had I been the deciding vote you would have been instantly banned and I have NEVER suggested this about a commenter before. I believe you knew exactly what you were doing and decided to push the line here using resources unavailable to most everyone except paid counter-bloggers.”
My estimation of your intellect just plummeted further than I could have imagined. What are you talking about? Resources unavailable to most everyone except paid counter-bloggers? I am not a paid counter-blogger. I neither pay for any such resources nor am I paid to research such information. The resources I have available to me are exactly the same as a poor homeless man sitting at a computer terminal in the public library. Forgive me for having a good memory or paying attention to what people write.
Part of the problem here is that you all know each other, but you are relatively anonymous to us. You have what many call “respect of persons.” Those in your circle are immune from criticism, while us peons had better quiet down or we will be shut down through authoritative action. It is exactly like what has been going on between the Obama administration and Ed Snowden. The main difference is that your stick of authority is not as big and fearsome as the Obama administration’s stick. I hope you figure out what you really believe about freedom of speech and the First Amendment.
“And how are we suppose to *KNOW* that a person who reveals information about himself publicly does not want anybody to repeat it publicly to another participant?”
DavidM,
You are lying again because as I pointed out Gene never disclosed that information publicly. As OS pointed out above you are a regular little Goebbels clone aren’t you?:
“One should not as a rule reveal one’s secrets, since one does not know if and when one may need them again.
[snip] …when one lies, one should lie big, and stick to it…even at the risk of looking ridiculous.
– Joseph Goebbels (Diary entry for October 16, 1928)”
Tell us your “secret” David, your real name” and who knows what info we can find out on you?
Actually Davidm2575, the reason I am “trying to leave” the blog is because of the deceitful and malicious methods and other BS tactics used by people like Gene & Tony. Additionally, I have given them enough information to think about. There intelligence and wisdom is obviously much lower than they perceive, which is interesting because they are both extremely bright and articulate.
Actually Gene and Tony C made me dig farther with additional logic, examples and methods to advance the causes of liberty and I thank them for making all the erroneous comments used so often by the anti-capitalists, that made me work harder.
As an example with Bill Benson’s prosecution and the 16th Amendment issue. Benson was giving people copies of the notarized documents he used in his book “The Law That Never Was.” that proves the 16th Amendment was not properly ratified. Of course, the government fascists didn’t like this, because people around the country were trying to use it for their defense in many court cases. Of course, the fascist prosecuted Benson and low and behold, the Judge would not allow the notarized documents as evidence in the case, which is by the way, is not an uncommon practice by the corrupt judiciary, from bottom to the top. The fascists even went as far as disbarring his attorney in California for trying to stand up to the corruption. Not uncommon either. My buddies Attorney in Jacksonville just got hit with a $5,000 fine for using what the Judge deemed a Frivolous Defense, even though it is not on the list of Frivolous Defenses, that is required to be posted by the IRS. Go Figure!!!!!!! His attorney is a tax lawyer and was Attorney of the year here in Florida a couples of years back, so he’s a good attorney and knows the issues well.
Specially, Benson was denied the use, of the specific evidence as defense, that proves his contention that the 16th amendment failed passage and that Philander Knox committed fraud, when he approved the Amendment in 1913, as Secretary of State. Doesn’t the words describing this man; Attorney, Banker and Politician, just bring tears to your eyes.
Of course, Gene or Tony, I don’t remember who made the reply, failed to mention this to the readers. Sadly this is the norm with most of their posts. If they’re not misleading the readers, they’re just using different methods to ratfcuk the discussion.
FYI: Philander C. Knox – was an American lawyer, bank director and politician who served as United States Attorney General, a Senator from Pennsylvania and Secretary of State. He served in the Cabinet under three presidents.
DavidM,
I am on vacation and was only recently informed of this thread and the controversy over your comment regarding the background of Gene H. I have been speaking with our Guest Blogger team and how to respond to the comment. I was surprised and greatly disappointed in your use of personal information from Gene’s education to a description of this life as “childless.” It was petty and beneath both you and this blog. As you know, we have a civility rule on the blog and do not like any personal attacks. However, the worse type of attacks (and frankly the most creepy) is to research someone’s background and incorporate it in such comments. As you know, we have gone to great lengths not to ban people from a blog committed to free speech. Indeed, in past cases of concern, we have had people conform to your principles of civility and contribute greatly to our site. You bring a different perspective to the blog and I was floored when you departed from your past critiques with this type of low-grade jab. I realize that there have been heated exchanges in this thread and I do not want to see it continue. We have something special here in maintaining a place for civil discourse. While you may have been carried away in the heat of the moment, it was a serious lapse of judgment to publish such background information. Until a commenter elects to put background information on the blog, civility and maturity demand a level of restraint in such matters. I asked for the posting on the personal background to be deleted. It was gratuitous and indefensible.
Let’s be clear going forward please for everyone on the blog. If you are searching for information on other people to use on this blog, don’t. If you cannot live with that reasonable limitation, then you should move on to another blog. Likewise, we are not interested in information or conflicts that people have on other blogs. Please do not incorporate or extend arguments from other blogs. Most of us do not like other blogs. We like this blog because it is not characterized by this low-level personal nonsense. We certainly do not want to be a new front for old fights. So this is a personal request. I really really do not want to ban anyone. I ask as a personal favor for you to avoid the personal exchanges. Even if someone acts in a juvenile fashion and personalizes a discussion, let it go. We are adults. Ignore the trolls. Don’t feed them. You will find most people have little interest in these personal fights or attacks. Otherwise, there are thousands of sites that seem to thrive on personal attacks and cheap shots. We just do not happen to be one of them.
Jonathan Turley
jonathanturley wrote: “You bring a different perspective to the blog and I was floored when you departed from your past critiques with this type of low-grade jab.”
I admit that my post departed from my usual critique style that attempts to stay on topic, but Gene had it coming to him. This was not personal with me, but rather I came to the defense of another person he had denigrated to such a degree that he had announced his departure from the blog. A third commentator who observed the exchange wrote, “Gene H wins again. They come, they post, he posts, they go.” I do not believe that this incident represents the kind of blog you want here.
In good conscience, I could not remain silent while watching Gene mistreat another human being in this way. It would be like watching Rosa Parks being arrested for not sitting in the back of the bus, and here I am just sitting by and watching it happen. No, I had to speak up.
Gene constantly berated this person, mocking his lack of education, his poor grammar, and he was petty enough to mock his name, asking what kind of parents would name their child Skip, and he purposefully misspelled his name, not a few times, but many, many times, calling him Skipples, and Skippy, and other banal epithets. Gene refuses to acknowledge any value whatsoever in what Skip posts. For all intents and purposes, Gene treats him like a piece of trash. Gene ignores our requests to be more civil and respectful toward others. Gene even defends his right to be uncivil in discourse, and brags about what a master he is at it. So in defense of Skip, I decided to address the matter in an ad hominem style that Gene has posted to others hundreds of times.
Gene immediately deleted my post without time to speak to anyone else about it. I have no doubt that you agreed with his decision and stand behind it, but I also know that he did not delete the post in response to your request. You simply supported his unilateral action. Nothing wrong with that, but your public rebuke to me made it look like Gene was following your direction in removing my post.
I have no problems with your rules about privacy, but I do have a problem with you giving a free pass for incivility to a guest moderator who is among the most uncivil bloggers I have ever witnessed. I am shocked that you would rebuke me publicly for one post that was done in the same style and manner as Gene’s hundreds of posts, yet you remain publicly silent about Gene’s many infractions of uncivil discourse.
At some point, you should consider that Gene’s style is counterproductive to a free speech blog. I have a pretty thick skin, but you will never have a balanced blog with both conservatives and liberals able to have civil dialogue about the issues you hold dear as long as you blindly support sycophants like Gene. I do not perceive your goal here is to have a blog where only far left wing zealots feel comfortable. If your goal is to be non-partisan with agreement on liberty and freedom issues, then to be inclusive of everyone, you will need to address the uncivil manner in which Gene conducts himself. He always gets personal and attacks the person rather than the subject under discussion. We have addressed the problem with him ourselves, but his reply is along the lines of how he is the expert on logical discourse so our critique is illogical and wrong.
I also would like to point out that there are always two sides to a dispute, and you have chosen to hear only one side of it. I research many issues of study, but I do not research people like Gene. I mentioned nothing that Gene has not chosen to make known to us publicly. Nevertheless, I agree that my post was not flattering toward Gene and did not present him in a positive light. For that, I abide by your decision to remove my post. I would ask, however, that you apply the same standard of morality toward the posts offered by your guest blogger Gene H. The blog leaders should be held to the same standard of ethics as the rest of us.
“I mentioned nothing that Gene has not chosen to make known to us publicly.”
DavidM,
You are lying and feel you can get away with it because we don’t want to expose what you have already done. You may have balls David, but you are a liar nonetheless.
Mike Spindell wrote:
“You are lying and feel you can get away with it because we don’t want to expose what you have already done. You may have balls David, but you are a liar nonetheless.”
I do not lie. You are a false accuser and an oppressor. Put away the finger that points in judgment upon another. It is not good for your health. Pay attention to what your Hebrew prophet said, that it may be well with you:
“Then shalt thou call, and the LORD shall answer; thou shalt cry, and he shall say, Here I am. If thou take away from the midst of thee the yoke, the putting forth of the finger, and speaking vanity;” Isaiah 58:9
“I do not lie. You are a false accuser and an oppressor.”
“Pay attention to what your Hebrew prophet said, that it may be well with you”
David,
You did lie when you stated that you only used information Gene had already revealed and that is only one example of your lying here. As for quoting me Hebrew prophets there is really no need……but you knew that already didn’t you. It is curious though, as I come upon your comment this morning that you chose to “rebuke” me by bringing my religion into it. Now as I have said your
writings, especially the “big lie technique used in them are reminiscent of Goebbels, so perhaps you and he share some other proclivities. Just speculation of course but then he too felt some members of the human race were inferior to others based solely on their heritage. However, that is merely speculation on my part and I’ll bet that some of your best friends are Jewish.
Mike Spindell wrote: “You did lie when you stated that you only used information Gene had already revealed and that is only one example of your lying here.”
I told the truth. My knowledge about Gene and his educational background was revealed previously by Gene himself. You should get your facts right before you go off half-cocked condemning someone else and bearing false witness against them.
We often fight over definitions, so I thought it would be interesting subject in regards to our posts, Tony and I commented to each other on:
Tony C. wrote to my reply “that nowhere in the Constitution is the authority given to government to regulate marriage: He wrote Skip: You are wrong. Governmental authority is derived from the people. Government has the authority to regulate marriage for the same reason government has the authority to regulate murder, theft, assault, fraud, or anything else: The people gave it the authority to regulate. You won’t find its authority to outlaw rape or murder in there, either, but it has that authority.
I won’t comment on his lack of understanding of the phrase unalienable rights, as I have already done that, but on his understanding of the term regulation, which he is also lacking.
Historic Research: “Well Regulated” best described by: Brian T. Halonen, Researcher published at constitution.org
The following are taken from the Oxford English Dictionary and bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment:
1709: “If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations.”
1714: “The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world.”
1812: “The equation of time … is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial.”
1848: “A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor.”
1862: “It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding.”
1894: “The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city.”
The phrase “well-regulated” was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people’s arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd Amendment it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.
So well-regulated meant, well functioning and leave it to government to believe that they, politicians and Judges are the ones given the authority to perfect the behavior of our Citizens, as individuals and in our associations.
So how is government the ability to make marriages “well-functioning.” I know the answer. Licensing and regulation stopped Bernie Madoff and made wall Street function better, it will of course work with marriages. It stops food posing outbreaks, it stops child prostitution, slavery, poverty, crime, etc; etc. etc.
Skip wrote: “So how is government the ability to make marriages “well-functioning.” I know the answer. Licensing and regulation stopped Bernie Madoff and made wall Street function better, it will of course work with marriages. It stops food posing outbreaks, it stops child prostitution, slavery, poverty, crime, etc; etc. etc.”
The Constitution reserves rights not enumerated within it to the States and the people. This is why marriage traditionally has been a State issue.
So take the situation of a man who makes promises to a woman, to love her and cherish her above all others, and to care for her and provide for their household in raising the children. He earns an income outside the house while she bears children and guides the household. Then in five years, after having four children, he leaves her penniless and takes up with another woman. Are you trying to tell me that the State government has no interest whatsoever in bringing justice here by making the man continue to provide for her and their children?
Oky, Amen to the TSA. My wife had knee replacement surgery a few years ago. If there are those full body scans they can see that’s the metal on/in her body is her knee. However, most places have the metal detectors which means a full pat down every time. It sucks and I feel bad for her. I can think of a few times when we’ve driven 8-10 hours instead of taking a flight specifically because of the hassle.
Re Italy
I was wondering yesterday just how many billions $$$ Airlines, restaurants, hotels, retailers, etc are losing a year because people won’t travel now because of Homeland Security/TSA?
Ph’em, they can eat those empty plane seats & empty beds.
Oky, Spent a couple weeks in Italy w/ only CNN and BBC. I watched maybe an hour total in those 2 weeks, mostly about Mandela. We only watch Netflix, HBO Go, etc, ~80% of the time. Sports fills up most of the remaining 20%. For some reason my wife will watch the CBS evening news, all the Big Pharma commercials!! I can’t watch.
**Breaking Bad fans and your idiosyncratic comment**
Nick,
I was watching some propaganda crap on CNN 2-3 years ago & said Ph it pulled the plug.
I cut the cable & got rid of half the TVs around here.
My wife says I’ve went Palio, (caveman) lol
When in a room full of people in mask the one without seems the odd one.
Oh, anyone w/ half a brain identified Mike as an interesting, intelligent, complex, sleazy PI. A great character in a great series.
One PI is
“Oh, anyone w/ half a brain identified Mike as an interesting, intelligent, complex, sleazy PI. A great character in a great series.”
and the other is Nick Spinelli
Nick Spinelli, takes a sleazy PI to know one.