Press "Enter" to skip to content

Observations on cultural war and mob insanity

Our cultural cold war is about to boil into open conflict, thanks to last week’s Supreme Court decisions. Some of us think we’re ready, but we’re not.

I’m not saying we’re going to be shooting each other by next Tuesday or even next year. Just that the last remaining bridge between the old culture of America and the new culture of elite America got blown to smithereens. Last week was a point of no return with the Supreme Court’s Obamacare (“the Constitution is whatever we want it to be”) decision and gay marriage decision.

—–

As Joel said so well, the victors in the gay-rights Obergefell decision immediately and stupidly made their intentions clear: we’ve won, we’re on top, so to hell with you. We’re not even going to try to be conciliatory and gracious in victory. We’re just going to keep pressing our attack.

And the first to go under attack are conservative Christians.

Like a lot of people hereabouts, I’m a gay-rights supporter and I think consenting adults ought to be able to marry whomever they wish. But I also think personal relationships aren’t any of the government’s business. Marriage and other relationships got along just fine without the government until the late 19th century and it’s ridiculous to believe that asking government’s permission now is some sign of freedom. Still, I’m for gay rights — and polyandry and polygyny and most any other forms of -amory individuals desire — as long as all parties are consenting adult humans.

But in the cultural war of “progressive” (including gay) activists against churches (again, like many here), I naturally fall on the side of conservative Christians despite my lack of religion. Or, that is, I stand firmly on the side of those who believe that America should be about the individual freedom to believe our own beliefs, create our own associations, and pursue our own interests apart from political demands. I stand with those who tell the government: “Freedom means YOU butt the hell out!” So yes, I stand with conservative Christians whose dogmas I don’t in any way share.

However a Christian friend just reminded me — quite inadvertently — that millions of Christians don’t accept non-theists as allies. Those particular millions see us as part of the problem, part of the decadence, part of the evil that’s trying to oppress them and ruin the country. Because, after all (as so many view it), without God there can be no morality. So all non-theists are part of the very same morally relativistic — therefore immoral — crowd threatening traditional American values.

My dear friend didn’t mean to imply any of this. But there it was. It was quite hurtful, but a good reality check.

Obviously millions of other Christians are fine with non-theists (several are my most steadfast supporters, in fact). But millions more at the very best would rather knock us than ally with us.

Their prerogative, of course. But both sad and dangerous. Especially given the power, unscrupulousness, and fascistic thinking of those “progressives” who are so ruthlessly bent on imposing their values on everyone else that they won’t even admit any side of any argument exists except their own.

Very soon, a lot of people are going to need to realize that the enemy of your enemy may not be your coziest social friend, but is also not your enemy. Or as the old saying of the sixties put it: “If it oinks, it is your enemy. If it doesn’t oink, it may not be your best friend, but it’s not your enemy.”

—–

After I write this, I’m going to go and delete the rest of my collected links about the sudden mass hysteria against the Confederate flag. I’ve been trying to compose thoughts about the hysteria but everything that needs to be said about the anti-flag witchhunt has been said.

Except one thing.

How sudden it was. How a whole nation went from sane to insane in 60 seconds flat.

Oh, of course there’s been smoldering resentment against and contempt for the South since the War Between the States. But it’s pretty safe to say that had abated in the last decades to nearly nothing. Then one creepy little white supremacist kills black innocents — and is depicted with a) a Rhodesian flag, b) an apartheid-era South African flag, and c) a Confederate flag — and all of a sudden it’s cultural genocide time. Against the entire south. Against history itself. Against a fer cryin’ out loud piece of cloth. Only one of the three the creep displayed. Picked apparently at random.

Abruptly, Walmart won’t bake a stars-and-bars cake but will happily celebrate ISIS. The dean of the National Cathedral wants to rip out politically incorrect stained-glass windows, and even a Civil War game is no longer “allowed” to to display historically accurate flags. Even at the Gettysburg historic battlefield, the Unionists are so ungracious they not only have to revel in their victory, but pretend their opponents never existed.

Let’s dig up dead generals! Tear down monuments! Erase names like Robert E. Lee and Thomas Jefferson from history!

Never mind that Apple quickly backtracked on the stupid game decision or that Walmart obsequiously apologized for the ISIS cake. Once a cultural hysteria like this takes over, thinking stops for the duration. Whatever the duration may be. Days? Weeks? Months? Years?

Then of course, everybody is just as suddenly terribly, terribly sorry.

It’s all very well to say oopsie and so sorry after you’ve killed 20 non-witches. But it doesn’t erase the witchhunt or undo the damage.

Nor does the sane aftermath of a witchhunt ever seem to induce enough awareness in the minds of the hysterics to ensure that they’ll use a little more sense next time. Nope. Next time they’ll be just as self-righteous and just as viciously nutty about some other offending thing yet to be discovered.

—–

Frankly when the flag hysteria first got going, I was slightly relieved because as long as the hysterics were blaming the long-extinct Confederacy, they weren’t blaming guns.

But watching this insane blamefest, this overnight attempt to shove an entire culture down a memory hole, I find myself wishing the hysterics were just blaming guns and ranting as usual about the small body parts of gun owners.

And I find myself wanting to warn my friends: If you’re a member of any even vaguely unpopular group, beware and prepare. Jews? Gun owners? Southerners? Conservative Christians? Atheists? Tea Party members? Anarchists? Preppers? For all I know redheads, SCA members, or people who own sharp knives.

Mob hysteria could turn on you. And turn so fast you won’t see it coming.

And when that happens, you’d best be sure you aren’t in the habit of looking down your nose at potential allies just because they aren’t exactly like you.

72 Comments

  1. Bob Adkinson
    Bob Adkinson July 1, 2015 7:43 pm

    I’m afraid I see no chance that the gun owners will stand up for the Christians who will stand up for southern heritage etc., as long as we don’t look down our nose at each other. We should, but history says different. I’m not even sure you can get a majority of either group to man the front line for its own group. Sad.

  2. Iwoots
    Iwoots July 1, 2015 8:45 pm

    Claire, two things come to mind:

    1. As a theologically conservative Christian, I blame neither the non-theists nor the progressives for the “immorality” in this country. As I understand the Old Testament, Israel was punished/exiled not because of the sins of the surrounding nations, but because of their own presumptuous sins; and their belief that God would not hold accountable. Therefore, I place the blame squarely upon the Christian church in this country for applying one set of weights and measures to non-believers and SINNERS – i.e. ‘You’re going to hell unless you repent.’, and another set of weights and measures to supposed believers who ‘backslide’ when they commit adultery, pedophilia, etc – i.e. ‘We need to be loving and forgiving.’ {Side note: Do I believe that all Christians and churches apply unequal weights and measures – No. Unfortunately too many in positions of leadership, whether at the national or local level, do – and are not held accountable by the people in the pews.}

    2. I firmly believe that the next Revolutionary/Civil War to occur on these shores will not resemble either of those conflicts, but will more likely resemble the Reign of Terror of the French Revolution. That’s what happens when both sides in a conflict dehumanize the other. I hope and pray that I am wrong.

    Thoughts?

  3. Kent McManigal
    Kent McManigal July 1, 2015 9:04 pm

    Just tonight I was reminded that I simply have almost nothing in common with most people around me. A gathering of extended family for a 90th birthday celebration… and there’s nothing I can talk to anyone about. They are all super religious and nationalistic. In order to not be a jerk, I end up saying nothing. It’s a lonely feeling.

    Yes, I would defend their rights, and I have, but they would throw me to the wolves (or the pigs) because I am not “of the body” (Star Trek reference).

  4. RustyGunner
    RustyGunner July 2, 2015 2:00 am

    At times like these I fall back on Yehuda Bauer’s three additional commandments, to wit:

    11. Thou shalt not be a perpetrator,

    12. Thou shalt not be a victim, and

    13. Thou shalt never, but never be a bystander.

    It’s my fight, too. It’s a moral imperative to stand up for what is right even if the guy next to you thinks you’re hellspawn. Of course, I might still make sure the guy behind me with a rifle has at least read Milton Friedman….

  5. Bill St. Clair
    Bill St. Clair July 2, 2015 3:31 am

    “… as long as all parties are consenting adult humans.”

    Claire a specist? Hopefully only because there’s currently no reliable way to tell that a non-human consents. But some apes have learned sign language. Part of me would initially say “yuk” at a love affair between consenting adult human and ape, but I’ll bet I’d get used to it.

  6. RustyGunner
    RustyGunner July 2, 2015 5:45 am

    “Part of me would initially say “yuk” at a love affair between consenting adult human and ape”

    My wife doesn’t seem to mind 🙂

  7. Bear
    Bear July 2, 2015 5:50 am

    Kent“A gathering of extended family for a 90th birthday celebration… and there’s nothing I can talk to anyone about.”

    Heh. Imagine going to Thanksgiving dinner and being seated next to the ATF agent.

  8. Thomas Knapp
    Thomas Knapp July 2, 2015 6:39 am

    “Marriage and other relationships got along just fine without the government until the late 19th century and it’s ridiculous to believe that asking government’s permission now is some sign of freedom.”

    Actually, IIRC, marriage licensing in the US started in Ohio in the 1830s, for the express purpose of stopping interracial marriages.

    Unfortunately, as the licensing schemes developed, they sort of naturally incorporated the prejudices of what you call “conservative Christians.” Not surprising, since that described most of America at the time.

    The only thing that changed with the Obergefell decision is that the states can’t demand, in return for a “license,” that a marriage conform to one specific tenet of “conservative Christian” doctrine.

    When you say that “conservative Christians” are under attack, what you’re saying is that they had a legitimate power to lord it over everyone else, and that taking away that power is an assault on their rights.

    You’re wrong.

  9. RustyGunner
    RustyGunner July 2, 2015 6:56 am

    I think I’ll pop some popcorn.

  10. RustyGunner
    RustyGunner July 2, 2015 7:02 am

    Insofar as marriage was a religious institution until the state put their oar in, I’d say the various flavors of religion had every authority to “lord it” over the qualifications. It was their sacrament.

  11. kycolonel
    kycolonel July 2, 2015 7:06 am

    I am a southern conservative, gun owner, prepper and gay. How about that combo?:-) I grew up during a time (50s) when it was not fashionable to be gay. I have never entertained the idea of marrying a man, however, I agree with Claire that it isn’t anyone’s business who marries who and it certainly any of the State’ d**n business.

    I was “raised” a Christian but organized believing didn’t appeal to me. I am saddened that traditional marriage, a pillar of the culture I came from, was destroyed by a SC that chose to make law instead of interpret the Constitution.
    *******
    The “cleansing” of our culture of any reminder of the Confederacy is another step in the agenda of our rulers who are hell bent on creating a socialist paradise that exists only in their narrow little minds.

  12. Mark Call
    Mark Call July 2, 2015 7:06 am

    There’s a certain irony in this latest “supreme” court decision. Read what was “Held” — and note that it is ALL about LICENSED ‘marriage’.

    The libertarian position that we do not ask PERMISSION to exercise a Right (whether it’s RKBA, or speech, or worship, or contract and free association) is also utterly consistent with Scripture “as Written” — whether the 501c3 licensed Caesar-created faith-based corporate ‘church’ sees it or not:

    “If you take the king’s money – you play the king’s tune.”
    “You cannot serve two masters…”
    and the command from Torah — “make NO treaty” with those ‘lawless folk’ in the land.

    SCOTUS is merely edukain’ the illiterate fools about what master they have signed up to serve. And it’s not the “God of the Bible” any more than the Creator the Founders referenced in the Declaration. No wonder they don’t Capitalize the word “Rights” any more.

    But you’re right, Claire…it’s gonna get Real Ugly regardless.

  13. Claire
    Claire July 2, 2015 7:13 am

    “When you say that “conservative Christians” are under attack, what you’re saying is that they had a legitimate power to lord it over everyone else, and that taking away that power is an assault on their rights.”

    Um … no I’m not.

    Clearly I’m against government licensed marriages and against the notion of outside authorities defining the personal relationships of any consenting adults. So I’m not supporting misnamed “traditional marriage” or its history.

    BUT real marriage freedom means also respecting the right of conservative Christians or anybody else to hold their own views on relationships, as well. And to act on those views as long as they don’t aggress against others.

  14. Claire
    Claire July 2, 2015 7:15 am

    “I am a southern conservative, gun owner, prepper and gay. How about that combo?:-) I grew up during a time (50s) when it was not fashionable to be gay.”

    Wow yes. Some combo. Interesting life, too, I’d say.

  15. Bear
    Bear July 2, 2015 7:21 am

    Tom“When you say that “conservative Christians” are under attack, what you’re saying is that they had a legitimate power to lord it over everyone else, and that taking away that power is an assault on their rights.”

    Strawman argument there. I — as a non-theist — and I think Claire don’t see it as an attack on Christians merely that they don’t get to impose their beliefs on everyone else anymore (for purposes of discussion – here in the South, as I’m sure you’ve noticed, they still do; from blue law limits on Sunday alcohol sales to social pressure to participate in public prayers to high school girls using their “talent” segment of a beauty contest to sermonize on Christianity).

    The SSM licensing SCROTUM ruling did not take place in a vacuum. It happened even as businesses and churches (is there really a differrence?) are being sued over their religious beliefs (the infamous gay wedding cake(s) and the lesser known lesbian-alleged-Buddhist-who-criticized-Roman-Catholic-Church-then-sues-RCC-for-wedding-she-admitted-to-not-really-planning spring to mind).

    I’d prefer to think that most pro-SSM licensing proponents are just people who want to be left alone on a level playing field. But there is a very vocal and active element who don’t want the field merely leveled; they want their turn to lord it over everyone else and impose their own beliefs. These are people who were already suing over cakes, photography, church weddings in churches not even their faith, and “hate speech.” I’m too darned cynical to think those people won’t escalate their SJWar on the basis of the SSM licensing ruling.

  16. Claire
    Claire July 2, 2015 7:25 am

    “It’s a moral imperative to stand up for what is right even if the guy next to you thinks you’re hellspawn.”

    Kudo, kudo, kudo! Love Yehuda Bauer’s added commandments, too.

  17. Thomas Knapp
    Thomas Knapp July 2, 2015 7:32 am

    “BUT real marriage freedom means also respecting the right of conservative Christians or anybody else to hold their own views on relationships, as well. And to act on those views as long as they don’t aggress against others.”

    Exactly.

    What the Obergefell ruling did — ALL the Obergefell ruling did — was forbid the state to conduct specific aggression, above and beyond its usual aggression, against same-sex couples, on behalf of those who hold “conservative Christian” views on relationships.

    Let’s look at in the context of another form of licensing:

    I assume that you and I agree that the state shouldn’t be in the business of “licensing” drivers — that driving should be a matter of agreement between people with cars and people who own roads (the latter being private, not government).

    Nonetheless, the state has aggressed against all of us by seizing control of the roads and demanding that all drivers be “licensed.”

    Now, suppose you grudgingly buckle under to the state’s aggression, decide to drive on its roads, and go down to get your “driver’s license” … and the bureaucrat behind the desk says “oh, no — we can’t give you one. You see, the Cult of Tom believes that people with green eyes are the devil’s minions; you have green eyes; no driver’s license for you.”

    Would you or would you not agree that that is an additional aggression, above and beyond the others? And would you or would you not agree that ending that aggression would be a good thing even if it didn’t end the other aggressions?

    I would consider ending the “no driver’s licenses for people with green eyes” restriction to be both a moral and practical good. Moral, because it ends one aggression even if it doesn’t end all related aggressions. Practical because a main source of the state’s power is its discretion in who it aggresses against. The “no green eyes” rule gives the state additional direct power over people with green eyes, and it draws indirect power, in the form of support, from the people who have asked it to aggress against those with green eyes. Take away that discretion and you’ve reduced the state’s power on two fronts.

  18. Claire
    Claire July 2, 2015 7:32 am

    “Therefore, I place the blame squarely upon the Christian church in this country for applying one set of weights and measures to non-believers and SINNERS – i.e. ‘You’re going to hell unless you repent.’, and another set of weights and measures to supposed believers who ‘backslide’ when they commit adultery, pedophilia, etc.”

    lwoots, I thank you for this. I long ago got weary of people informing me (often rather gleefully, and always with great confidence and self-satisfaction) that I’m bound for eternity in a pit of fire. The people delivering this information are rarely any great prizes as human beings and I wonder why they imagine anyone would want to be stuck at a gazillion-year party with them. (As Mark Twain said, “Heaven for climate; hell for society.”

    I fear you’re right on your point 2, also. The current crop of SJWs do seem as if they’d happily and violently destroy anyone who has even the slightest disagreement with them. They remind me of the self-righteous hell proclaimers, in fact. Except that the hell proclaimers are happy to wait for God to carry out their will in some other life, while the SJW’s have government already on hand to do their bidding in this life. The latter is much scarier.

  19. Claire
    Claire July 2, 2015 7:37 am

    “I’m not even sure you can get a majority of either group to man the front line for its own group.”

    Sadly true.

  20. Claire
    Claire July 2, 2015 7:45 am

    Tom Knapp — Well said. And you’re right as far as that goes.

    I’m not as much concerned with the Obergefell decision itself, but the mood and possible actions in the aftermath. SJWs are going to try to wipe out belief systems that don’t match their own. Conservative Christians are going to become more alienated. Culture war going from cold to hot.

  21. s
    s July 2, 2015 7:51 am

    The terrifying swiftness of cutting a new group out of the herd for 15 minutes of hate or worse is an inevitable byproduct of socialism.

    From the French reign of terror to Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, the Rwandan Genocide, all had the common feature of a majority suddenly turning on a fraction of the populace. Some of the victims had been identified far in advance. But few Cambodian urban dwellers forced to move to countryside collective farms and forced labor saw it coming when the revolution was won. A lot of French businessmen who supported the revolution lost their heads, literally.

    Today a Twitter storm, media circus, or planned social media campaign can identify a new “out” group and inflict massive punishment within the span of a few news cycles, sometimes in a matter of hours. Worse still, the eidetic internet allows the hate to build on actions or words uttered in completely different context years ago.

    I’m a member of many unpopular groups, but that isn’t what scares me. I can see those enemies coming; in general I know who they are, their strategies, tactics, and numbers.

    What we are seeing now is mob rule. It is utterly capricious. One day the nation will awaken to a terrible tragedy and there will be some soul searching, but those 20 or 20 million witches or their mob-selected equivalents will still be dead, and the cities will still be burned, or worse.

  22. RustyGunner
    RustyGunner July 2, 2015 8:13 am

    Oh, and by the way, the SCA says, “Bring it.”

  23. Thomas Knapp
    Thomas Knapp July 2, 2015 8:19 am

    Claire,

    I agree that statists are gonna state, and that that means there will be continued attempts to subject “conservative Christians” to aggression in the form of “bake me a cake or else,” etc.

    But that isn’t limited to “SJWs” by any means.

    Over the last couple of years I’ve seen several lawsuits and legislation efforts aimed at forcing employers to allow guns to be stored in their parking lots whether they like it or not, in the name of “pro-gun.” But I don’t reject good rulings on gun rights because they encourage “pro-gun” statists to demand “public accommodations” rules that are no different in principle from “bake me a cake or else” rules.

  24. Claire
    Claire July 2, 2015 8:28 am

    Tom — Also true on people of all stripes using government to curb other people’s freedom. But there’s a difference in attitude and motivation here that I think makes a huge difference in what happens next. The gunfolk wanting employers to be forced to allow them to have guns in their cars aren’t bent on wiping out anybody’s culture. The SJWs literally want to purge anyone who disagrees with them from them from society.

    Also I wouldn’t call Obergefell a good ruling. Not as evil as some think. But still vastly off the point when it comes to real freedom. It encroaches (further) on federalism (if federalism even exists any more). It enshrines the idea that government has the authority to control personal relationships. Not a good ruling.

  25. Ellendra
    Ellendra July 2, 2015 8:30 am

    “as long as all parties are consenting adult humans.”

    I think it’s the “consenting” part that gets buried under the whole religion debate. If a baker must be forced or threatened into baking a certain cake, then the baker can no longer be seen as a consenting participant. No matter what their reason is for not wanting to do it.

    When the first baker got sued for refusing to bake a gay wedding cake, I closed down my sewing business. I’ve never done any wedding sewing, period. But all it would take is for someone to claim I refused them because they were gay, and I’d be the one getting death threats with my face plastered all over the news. Not going through that.

    There was a pizza place in the news for a while that got vilified for saying they wouldn’t cater a gay wedding. Then it came out that they never catered any weddings. The owners still had to go into hiding because of the death threats. Peace, love, and tolerance, right?

  26. Claire
    Claire July 2, 2015 8:35 am

    Amen, Ellendra. Good point that “consent” applies not just to who marries who!

    I’m sorry you felt you had to close down your sewing business. I’m thinking that the odds of you ever personally getting hit with the wedding-cake-and-pizza problem are still small. But I understand.

  27. Thomas Knapp
    Thomas Knapp July 2, 2015 8:42 am

    Claire,

    I’ve got mixed opinions on the Obergefell ruling. But it does exactly the opposite of encroach on federalism.

    The US Constitution divides levels of power into three groups: The United States, the states, and the people.

    Marriage is clearly a right of the people, one of the unenumerated ones mentioned in the 9th Amendment. It existed before the state in general, and before the United States in particular. It wasn’t until the 1830s that the states suddenly decided to infringe upon that right by seizing the power to “license” it.

    If I could have had any Obergefell ruling I wanted, that’s the one I would have picked: I’d have had SCOTUS declare marriage licensing a violation of the 9th Amendment unenumerated right of the people to marry, and void all the state marriage licensing schemes under the federal government’s constitutional obligation to guarantee to each state a “republican form of government” which, as laid down in the Constitution, reserves that right to the people.

    My second choice would have been a ruling invoking the Article I, Section 10 prohibition on the states making laws “impairing the obligation of contracts.” Marriage is a contract, and in form, I’ll mention once again, it precedes the existence of the states in question. The states don’t get to decide otherwise.

    My third choice would have been a ruling based on the full faith and credit clause, as amended by the 14th Amendment’s prohibition on unequal protection of the law. If you’re married in Massachusetts and move to Texas, you’re still married, and neither Texas or the US Congress get to change that in a way that allows unequal protection.

    SCOTUS went with equal protection and “substantive due process,” the latter of which I consider an ugly can of worms. But I’m used to SCOTUS deciding whatever it wants, whenever it wants, for whatever reasons it wants, and then slap-dashing whatever “constitutional” argument it feels like on the decision. I’m just thankful they got the effect right, even if they messed up the cause.

  28. Claire
    Claire July 2, 2015 9:01 am

    I bow to your superior knowledge, Tom.

    I also wonder what would happen if some of the more conservative states now decided to take themselves completely out of the marriage licensing business. 🙂

  29. Paul Bonneau
    Paul Bonneau July 2, 2015 9:05 am

    “What we are seeing now is mob rule. It is utterly capricious. One day the nation will awaken to a terrible tragedy and there will be some soul searching, but those 20 or 20 million witches or their mob-selected equivalents will still be dead…”

    Uh, maybe not. If you look back at all the group victimizations in history, the common thread is that the victims put up with it. And given the nature of the human race, putting up with such is amazingly negligent.

    I don’t care what the mob frenzy du jour is. If they show up at my front door, I will show up with my battle rifle. Then we will see what happens. I suspect what will happen is that most of the mob will give up their fun little frenzy and go back to self-interest in a nanosecond. It’s not self-interest to get your own ass shot.

    As to allying with Christians, I think it is a good idea to find allies when you can, even if you know the arrangement is temporary, even if you know you will be fighting them in the future. I KNOW the Constitutionalists, if they and we win the coming rebellion, will some day go back to imposing on anarchists. But in the meantime, while we are allies, I will educate as many as I can that it is possible for us to co-exist without our tolerating their impositions. This is exactly the lesson of Panarchy. The different religions actually did finally decide to coexist a couple hundred years ago even when that looked impossible previously.

  30. Josh
    Josh July 2, 2015 9:12 am

    Oh snap, people are getting deep.
    I have two comments that need to be made.
    1. Anyone in public education (I just finished my term two months ago) should have seen the dehumanizing of the confederacy coming a million miles away. Through 12 years never did a teacher tell me that The South was trying to escape the tyranny of The North’s taxes, regulations, etc. The Civil War era South has always been portrayed as a bunch of hoodlums, and We The People should be thankful that The Good Ole US of A wiped them up. The US of today is just wiping more hoodlums (in the minds of the public-not-so-educated populace).
    2. As a Christian I feel that the Christian community needs to realize that the Church and the government are two very different things. Christianity teaches that God operates above the government, and does not require the government to do his bidding. In the book of Matthew Jesus did not order the leading faction, the Pharisees, around. He taught his followers to politely ignore many of the Pharisees’ demands. If the church community and the progressive community could learn to ignore each other’s beliefs and QUIT TRYING TO ORDER EACH OTHER AROUND we could coexist. If I could speak to all the Christians in the USA at once I would like to tell them that the only way to save people from sin (including the sin of same sex marriage) is to bring them to God’s teachings instead of just trying to legislate them. Legislating someone away from sin and having them repent for their sins are two very different things!
    And bonus number 3: If war does break out, does anybody want to place bets on where the lines will be drawn? I’m talking latitude and longitude here. War front property values will be expected to fluctuate once the shooting starts.

  31. Paul Bonneau
    Paul Bonneau July 2, 2015 9:17 am

    [I’d have had SCOTUS declare marriage licensing a violation of the 9th Amendment unenumerated right of the people to marry, and void all the state marriage licensing schemes under the federal government’s constitutional obligation to guarantee to each state a “republican form of government” which, as laid down in the Constitution, reserves that right to the people.]

    If that’s not encroaching on federalism, I don’t know what is. The last thing we need is the federal government homogenizing the states into one particular standard; more often than not, that standard is anti-liberty. Do you really want the centralized power “protecting” your rights? The 9th Amendment was not a license for the federal government to put state governments in a straight jacket, but a prohibition on the federal government trampling individual rights. And the 14th Amendment was a travesty, not even properly ratified.

    I don’t trust state governments, but at least there are 50 of them. I trust the federal government even less. The proper response of SCOTUS would have been, “it’s a matter for the states, and not in our purview”.

  32. Matt, another
    Matt, another July 2, 2015 9:45 am

    Well, I guess having homosexuals registered in a government database will come in handy when the pendulum swings the other way.

    Oppression is fine and dandy until it is your turn.

    While everyone was celebrating or mourning the SC decision and grandstanding about a historical relic, the SC let stand a ruling from the 10th circuit that said proof of citizenship is not required to register to vote in federal elections. That is an affirmation that the government considers the individual citizen even mor irrevelant than we though.

    Guess I’ll head to my local surplus store and see if they have any Confederat flag patches left.

  33. RustyGunner
    RustyGunner July 2, 2015 9:53 am

    I’ve got a Confederate flag somewhere, I think it’s in a box with the Soviet flag and commie togs I bought to troll Organizing For America rallies in.

  34. Thomas Knapp
    Thomas Knapp July 2, 2015 10:14 am

    “If that’s not encroaching on federalism, I don’t know what is.”

    You’re right. You don’t know what is.

  35. Thomas Knapp
    Thomas Knapp July 2, 2015 10:26 am

    Sorry, I somehow managed to delete a bunch of my last post before hitting submit.

    “Federalism” is not “the states can do anything they want unless the Constitution reserves it to the federal government.” That definition leaves one element out.

    “Federalism” is a particular system that comprises THREE centers of power, and one repository of rights: The United States, the states, and the people (that last being the sole repository of rights). Each of the three is also treated as the guarantor of the prerogatives of, and a check on overweaning power on the part of, the other two.

    For example, keeping and bearing arms is a right of “the people,” who compose the militia. The feds are empowered to organize, arm and discipline the militia. The states are empowered to appoint its officers and train it. That three-way split of powers was meant to insure against any one or two of the three overthrowing another.

    Rights of the people are not subject to state or federal control. And if either of those two other branches should infringe on said rights — including marriage — it is entirely federalist for the non-infringing branch to call bullshit. That’s the whole POINT of federalism.

  36. Thomas Knapp
    Thomas Knapp July 2, 2015 10:27 am

    I happen to agree with Bionic Mosquito that government control of marriage is a bad thing.

    That’s why I applaud SCOTUS rulings that reduce government control of marriage.

  37. Thomas Knapp
    Thomas Knapp July 2, 2015 10:41 am

    With respect to Bionic Mosquito’s piece, Kevin Carson just said something in an email conversation and gave me permission to quote it. It sums up BM’s error pretty well:

    “When illegitimate government has preempted the right to bless such a
    private arrangement between individuals and the incidents of that
    arrangement can no longer be obtained without government’s blessing,
    it follows that selectively denying this recognition is a violation of
    freedom. What’s so f***** hard to understand about that — is this
    guy being disingenuous?”

  38. Steve Ramsey
    Steve Ramsey July 2, 2015 11:28 am

    The insanity didn’t take sixty seconds. It’s been here for many, many years. It just bubbles to the surface from time to time, for usually random and senseless reasons, while the real problems go unaddressed.

    Stefan Molyneux, IMO, gets right to the point of the flag sillyness:

    https://youtu.be/kz6bVde-rpQ

  39. LarryA
    LarryA July 2, 2015 2:29 pm

    If war does break out, does anybody want to place bets on where the lines will be drawn? I’m talking latitude and longitude here. War front property values will be expected to fluctuate once the shooting starts.

    If your significant other disagrees with you the line will be down the center of your bed. If not, and your kids disagree with you, it’ll be between you bedroom and theirs. (Checked what they’ve been learning in peublk skoul lately?) If your family agrees with you, the line will be at your front door.

    It won’t be “Christians v. whoever.” I belong to a mainstream, middle-of-the-road denomination that’s easygoing on personal beliefs. It’s been a decade since we could discuss the gay (and several other social issues) at Annual Conference without getting into a theological foodfight. If the gay issue heats up it will split the church choir I sing with. On the level that everyone in the group knows one side is right and the other is wrong, they just disagree on which is which.

    And the okay-with-gay side is going to be shocked, shocked, when the SJW attacks them because Christian = homophobe.

    Me? I’ll be the guy with the gun in the middle of the brouhaha trying to explain why the government shouldn’t be on either side.

  40. Mark Call
    Mark Call July 2, 2015 3:11 pm

    Good points, Tom K, re: marriage and the 9th Amendment (et al). I’m just cynical to suggest that there was NO WAY in the literal “hell on earth” that the SJWs are intent on creating here-and-now, that such were even a remote possibility.

    I will note this, however: even with all the “precedents” (like Loving, which essentially institutionalized Big Brother’s Licensed Privilege to “marry”) — there was ONE marriage decision glaringly missing:

    Reynolds v US, 1878 (Mormon polygyny)– which (admitted or not) had already overturned the First Amendment. Some religions still are “more equal than others.”

  41. Josh
    Josh July 2, 2015 4:04 pm

    “If your family agrees with you, the line will be at your front door” sounds an awful like “As for me and my house, we shall serve the Lord.” Or whatever/whoever you choose to serve.

  42. Paul Bonneau
    Paul Bonneau July 2, 2015 8:34 pm

    “When illegitimate government has preempted the right to bless such a
    private arrangement between individuals and the incidents of that
    arrangement can no longer be obtained without government’s blessing,
    it follows that selectively denying this recognition is a violation of
    freedom. What’s so f***** hard to understand about that — is this
    guy being disingenuous?”

    This is called “making one’s peace with the government”. It’s arguing over the crumbs that fall off the ruling class table. At least as far as I understand it; I’m not quite sure what he means by “incidents”.

    Anyway rights are just a religious notion, a meme meaning different things to different people, and generally having little connection to reality.

    If people want to get married, they should do so, and in any case avoid any interaction with the state if they can, much like we try to avoid cops when we see them on the highway.

  43. Paul Bonneau
    Paul Bonneau July 2, 2015 8:53 pm

    Actually I can see both sides of this argument. Incrementalism is not entirely a bad idea – as long as people celebrating gay marriage or licensed concealed carry or licensed homeschooling keep foremost in their minds that government has no business at all in the picture. My state has a lot of noncompliant homeschoolers; they understand a lot more about liberty than the meek and submissive compliant ones do.

    The thing about liberty though, is that you have to let people have what they want, as long as they are leaving you alone. In a free world there may well be a community or state that disallows gay marriage and if people wish to be a resident they have to go along with that. It’s impossible to force people to be free if they don’t want it.

    So not only is the Court’s decision questionable because incrementalism is at least questionable, but even worse it is a centralization of power. It is also giving sanction to coercion, “as long as it’s for a good cause”.

  44. old printer
    old printer July 2, 2015 9:34 pm

    Claire –
    And I find myself wanting to warn my friends: If you’re a member of any even vaguely unpopular group,…

    You left out a group, gays. There will be a backlash. Leftists are looking for a fight and have chosen their latest victim group for sacrifice. Gays=fools.

  45. Dana
    Dana July 2, 2015 10:34 pm

    Charles Burris over at LRC blogged some Rothbard bits recently that are worth re-reading in light of Obergefell v. Hodges.

    In Messianic Communism in the Protestant Reformation, Rothbard gives us some history about the Münster Rebellion and associated characters such as Thomas Müntzer and John of Leiden. Rothbard discusses the implications in The Menace of the Religious Left and Karl Marx as Religious Eschatologist. Fast forward a bit more, and we get to tie in Saint Hillary [Clinton].

    I find it ironic that our current crop of rank-and-file SJWs are too poorly educated to recognize their roots in “Christian” heresy. It’s about love of power, not love of Christ.

    I think Orwell would have something to say about this. We seem to have a power struggle to control the meaning of a word — “Marriage” — rather than any kind of honest discussion about the rights and freedoms individuals deserve in a free society. This smells of an attempt to use Newspeak to shut down debate and silence opposition. Will Grigg fleshes this notion out a bit more in a recent blog post.

    Libertarians beware — next thing we know, the Nazgûl will decide that “aggression” means this while simultaneously “supporting” ZAP. Whoever controls the language wins.

    (And as for the silly Confederate flag bit, just remember that “Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past.”)

    And as to Josh‘s thoughts on the battle lines in a war, sometimes they are within ourselves. Consider Rosaria Butterfield and her Train Wreck Conversion — she writes on the SCOTUS decision here.

  46. Betsey
    Betsey July 3, 2015 6:36 am

    I am a conservative Christian, divorced with no children.

    There is no mention of gay rights or marriage in the Constitution, why then did SCOTUS believe they can rule on these issues? How can they simply throw out 7,000 years of tradition? Shouldn’t the states be able to figure this out on their own?

    I am with you, Claire. If people find love with members of their own gender, I do not judge. I will leave that to God.

    However, I fear that this is just the beginning. What is next?

  47. Pat
    Pat July 3, 2015 6:54 am

    “We seem to have a power struggle to control the meaning of a word — “Marriage” — rather than any kind of honest discussion about the rights and freedoms individuals deserve in a free society.”

    Well said, Dana. And this has been going on – and was no doubt the intent – in many civil (and uncivil) rights discussions since the Civil Rights laws were passed in the 60s.

    “Libertarians beware — next thing we know, the Nazgûl will decide that “aggression” means this while simultaneously “supporting” ZAP. Whoever controls the language wins.”

    Amen, again. A lot of definitions – not to mention freedoms – have been taken out of our hands while we quibble amongst ourselves. (This quibbling, too, has been going on even before Rand objected to the term, “libertarian.”)

  48. Thomas Knapp
    Thomas Knapp July 3, 2015 9:40 am

    “How can they simply throw out 7,000 years of tradition?”

    The 7,000 years of tradition was thrown out in the 1830s when “licensing” began.

    For as long as there has been marriage, there has been same-sex marriage.

    Before “licensing,” it was between the married parties and known to their understanding friends, and kept on the down-low from those who might assert a religious prerogative to e.g. burn them at the stake.

    I’m only less than 50 years old, but by my late teens I knew, or knew of, a number of same-sex couples who had been together for decades. They were MARRIED. They just didn’t have a “license” to be married (I’ve been married for 15 years; I decided not to get a “license” either).

    By the 1980s, they didn’t have to keep it QUITE as quiet as they would have in, say, 1215 AD. They weren’t risking being burned at the stake. But they might have been risking losing jobs, getting physically attacked by a thug or two instead of a mob, and so on.

    If it was up to me, we’d do away with the whole “licensing” bit, which has only been around for less than 200 years anyway.

    But if they’re going to have their “license” racket, and if they’re going to use lack of a “license” to impose second-class citizen status (sad stories on request), then it’s reasonable to refuse them the power to peek inside zippers and up skirts when a “license” is applied for.

  49. Betsey
    Betsey July 4, 2015 5:54 am

    Thomas, I see your point. However, in case of a “divorce” without having a marriage license, would there not be legal problems? What about custody? Child support? Property rights?
    Let’s face it; people will either remain together or split, with or without a license. We are going to have lawmakers and government intrusion no matter what.

  50. Paul Bonneau
    Paul Bonneau July 4, 2015 7:55 am

    I wrote about this desire to accommodate evil here:
    http://strike-the-root.com/compromise

    Tom, you are helping to keep the marriage license racket going, even as you disparage it.

    What we are seeing now is a boiling over of outrage against a government institution. The thing to do is not to take it off the heat, thus further entrenching licensing. The thing to do is to point out to the enraged, the fundamental problem with licensing, and how we got to where we are. The very LAST thing to do is to pat the Supreme Court (aka THE STATE) on the back for supposedly getting something right.

  51. Paul Bonneau
    Paul Bonneau July 4, 2015 8:11 am

    Here is the problem with conservatism. Conservatives initially, enthusiastically use the state to enforce their desires on others. No doubt this is what got marriage licensing going in the first place (anti-miscegenation). Rather than mind their own business, they wanted to lord it over others.

    Marshall Fritz noted that conservatives were initially great fans of government schooling, because it was looked at as a way to “Christianize the Catholics”, back when the world-view sold in those government schools was Christian.

    Well now the chickens have come home to roost. Maybe conservatives can learn a lesson from this?

    This is the line we should be pushing. Conservatives, are you mad about this decision? You did it to yourselves. Maybe you’d be better off by MINDING YOUR OWN BUSINESS!

    I’ve said it before, “I could never be a conservative, because conservatives love government far too much for my taste.”

  52. Betsey
    Betsey July 4, 2015 8:40 am

    Paul, conservatives were in favor of public schools because kids were being taught the basics very well. Now I doubt if you could find many conservatives who like the system.

  53. Paul Bonneau
    Paul Bonneau July 4, 2015 9:02 am

    Betsey, the government schools are an example of socialism and welfare. Kids were learning just fine before the establishment of Prussian schools in America in the 1840’s; America was the most literate nation in the world at that time – amazing as that sounds. They didn’t need government schooling for “the basics”, which they were already getting. They needed it because they didn’t like the Irish Catholics immigrating to America (sound familiar?).

    ———-
    Very rapidly, the political parties reflected a virtually one-to-one correlation of this ethnoreligious division: the Whig, and later the Republican, party consisting chiefly of the pietists, and the Democratic party encompassing almost all the liturgicals. And for almost a century, on a state and local level, the Whig/Republican pietists tried desperately and determinedly to stamp out liquor and all Sunday activities except church (of course, drinking liquor on Sunday was a heinous double sin). As to the Catholic church, the pietists tried to restrict or abolish immigration, since people coming from Germany and Ireland, liturgicals, were outnumbering people from Britain and Scandinavia. Failing that and despairing of doing anything about adult Catholics poisoned by agents of the Vatican, the evangelical pietists decided to concentrate on saving Catholic and Lutheran youth by trying to eliminate the parochial schools, through which both religious groups transmitted their precious religious and social values to the young. The object, as many pietists put it, was to “Christianize the Catholics,” to force Catholic and Lutheran children into public schools, which could then be used as an instrument of pietist Protestantization. Since the Yankees had early taken to the idea of imposing communal civic virtue and obedience through the public schools, they were particularly receptive to this new reason for aggrandizing public education.
    https://mises.org/library/progressive-era-and-family
    ——————-

    See also the articles by Marshall Fritz here:
    http://www.schoolandstate.org/

  54. Mark Call
    Mark Call July 4, 2015 9:21 am

    Licensing:

    Volunteering into slavery.

    “If you take the king’s money [sic] — you better play the king’s tune.”

    (As for me and my house, we will serve YHVH. And ‘come out of her’:
    “withdraw consent”, in other words.)

  55. LarryA
    LarryA July 4, 2015 9:42 am

    “If your family agrees with you, the line will be at your front door” sounds an awful like “As for me and my house, we shall serve the Lord.” Or whatever/whoever you choose to serve.

    Um, no. The “I’m head of the household and we’ll go my way” thing is the opposite of what I was talking about. I didn’t marry a woman or raise kids to put up with that nonsense.

    Josh, you asked about latitude and longitude and “war front property.” That was the last civil war, North v South. This time I don’t see any of those lines. The Newz talks about Red States and Blue States, but county voting maps show a much more complex picture. Even they are misleading, as they are colored to reflect the “winning” party, which if there are more than two candidates might not even pull a majority of voters, which typically isn’t a majority of residents.

    I live in a county where the Republican primary is the election, and there are no elected Democrats. There are still enough liberals around to raise a ruckus, or be the target of a pogrom.

    This time it will be neighbor against neighbor, all over the U.S.

    Conservatives initially, enthusiastically use the state to enforce their desires on others.

    Paul, as far back as I can remember, say a half-century, both conservatives and liberals have enthusiastically used the state to enforce their desires on others. The only difference was that the two lists of desires didn’t completely overlap.

  56. Paul Bonneau
    Paul Bonneau July 4, 2015 10:04 am

    Yes, that’s true. The government religion has become the true established church in America.

    I may have chosen poorly in calling out conservatives in that response to Betsey. As that excellent article by Rothbard I posted above points out, those wanting government control of schools (and licensing of marriage) were typically New Englanders, Republicans, “pietists” (non-Catholic Christians), evangelists, anti-immigrants, etc. Today we look at such positions and reflexively call them “conservative”, but they come to us via the Progressives.

    The names often change, but the urges remains the same. As Heinlein noted, “Political tags – such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth – are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled, and those who have no such desire. The former are idealists acting from highest motives for the greatest good of the greatest number. The latter are surly curmudgeons, suspicious and lacking in altruism. But they are more comfortable neighbors than the other sort.”

    My only point was to show that people who complain about government excess, such as recognition and promotion of gay marriage, ought to regard their own worldview in that respect, and see what proponents of that worldview did to bring government into such dominance in the first place.

  57. Betsey
    Betsey July 4, 2015 12:30 pm

    Yes. Paul, you are correct.
    Over coffee the other day, my friends (mostly libertarians) were talking about a local problem we are having about many immigrants to our city not living up to cleanliness standards. I heard, “There ought to be a law about…” from at least 2 of them.
    We seem to be demanding more and more laws while at the same time bemoaning the fact that our liberty is crumbling.

  58. Paul Bonneau
    Paul Bonneau July 4, 2015 4:29 pm

    I have been watching the comments on youtubes about the Kleins in Oregon, e.g. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BRo9suMkECQ

    I am astounded how short-sighted people are on this. All previous calls by gays to leave them alone and let them be are chucked out the window, and it’s time for retribution. Well I suppose the emotion is understandable; repression does not bring out the best in people. But simple self-interest should warn people off from this course of action. I hope they come to their senses and call off the government dogs pretty soon.

  59. Kent McManigal
    Kent McManigal July 4, 2015 10:17 pm

    A few days ago I saw a video from a guy who I usually agree with, on the supreme courtjesters’ gay marriage decision. He was saying that now businesses no longer have a right to discriminate. I pointed out that nothing can alter that right, and I also have the right to refuse to patronize the businesses of bigots if I want. He disagreed, citing “laws”. I pointed out that the “laws” are violating rights.

    As is happening more and more these days, I simply decided to bow out of the comments at that point. I know several more have been posted, because I get email notifications, but haven’t even bothered seeing what anyone else has said. It’s too discouraging.

  60. old printer
    old printer July 4, 2015 10:58 pm

    @s…July 2
    I feel the same way you do, a sense that events are spiraling out of control. Early in Obama’s term, in fact while he was campaigning, it hit me. This man is THE embodiment of radical leftism which in its self righteous almost religious zeal wants to transform society through a slash and burn process, now, without wait. Burning witches is an apt metaphor.

    Others have noted the strange posturing Obama reveled in; how he stood before classical columns in Denver; the ridiculous train ride from Illinois to Washington for his inauguration pretending he was Lincoln; being sworn in on the Lincoln Bible; in other words the total identification he has with a president who presided over a civil war. And his actions – from ramming a socialized health care law through to making law through executive and regulatory edicts – all this speaks of a dictatorial statist mindset.

    Obama and the left won’t get what they want without massive civil unrest of some kind. I’ve come to the inescapable conclusion that this is by design. It will happen before his term is up. Wild, off the wall guess?

    The talks with Iran will fail, and Obama will bomb them provoking sleeper cell retaliation here. The disruption will be so great that martial law will be declared, leading to cancelled elections and undeclared civil war. That is why the military is having urban warfare training this summer, in preparation.

    Or, this could be the lunatic ravings of an old printer who’s got too much lead in his liver and has smelled too much type wash for too many years. You decide, but if I were you I’d prepare for the worst.

  61. Thomas Knapp
    Thomas Knapp July 5, 2015 6:21 am

    “Tom, you are helping to keep the marriage license racket going, even as you disparage it.”

    And how, pray tell, am I doing that?

    My marriage is not “licensed.”

    I don’t encourage anyone else to get “licenses” for their marriages.

    And I support court rulings that make “licensing” less useful to the ruling class. The whole point of “licensing” is to allow the state to privilege some and oppress others by controlling who can do what. If you remove any portion of the state’s discretion in the issuance of “licenses,” you reduce its control and you reduce the utility (to the state) of the licensing scheme itself.

  62. Shel
    Shel July 5, 2015 7:06 am

    Old Printer: It’s so hard to figure. I certainly think Obama has a plan in the Middle East, but I don’t know what it is. I’ve been trying to decide if he’s Sunni or Shi’ite; I’ve been leaning towards the latter because of how much they have allowed in the “negotiations” with Iran. But your comments and our stockpiling of bunker busters http://www.latimes.com/world/middleeast/la-fg-pentagon-iran-20150704-story.html#page=1 certainly make me wonder. Interestingly, from what I’ve read and heard about people who visited Iran, the Iranians are extremely friendly, especially the young military officers who say they would like to visit England or America. It makes me think of Kalashnikov’s keen observation that it’s the politicians who start the wars.

    Thomas Sowell wrote a while back that Obama will take partial, but not decisive, steps to deal with the ISIS threat; now he’s actively impeding a solution. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/islamic-state/11712237/US-blocks-attempts-by-Arab-allies-to-fly-heavy-weapons-directly-to-Kurds-to-fight-Islamic-State.html It’s telling that this had to be reported by a British paper.

    Perhaps it is all designed to bring about martial law, leaving the military to feel abandoned certainly helps to add to the danger http://www.wnd.com/2015/06/u-s-troops-in-afghanistan-feel-abandoned/ and http://defense-training.com/dti/morale/

    I wouldn’t put an ultimate goal of Sharia law past him, either.

  63. Paul Bonneau
    Paul Bonneau July 6, 2015 8:42 am

    [If you remove any portion of the state’s discretion in the issuance of “licenses,” you reduce its control and you reduce the utility (to the state) of the licensing scheme itself.]

    Ah, government surrendering power? What a pipe dream.

    Control was not reduced, but extended. Before this decision gays married outside the control of the state. Now they are under the state’s control.

    Is life now easier for them? Yes. Freedom can be difficult. And government “bennies” always feel good – at first. The bill will come due a decade or two down the line. Think what happened to the “blacks” who were similarly “helped” by government.

    Anyway this is all moot. There will likely be a big blow up long before then, when the dollar dies.

  64. Thomas Knapp
    Thomas Knapp July 6, 2015 5:36 pm

    Odd how conservatives bitch about the “marriage penalty” in the income tax — until gays want to get married. Then suddenly it becomes about non-existent “bennies.”

  65. old printer
    old printer July 7, 2015 6:51 pm

    Thomas Knapp, I’m with you on that. What struck me when reading the SC decision, specifically the dissents, was the mean-spiritedness on display. Scalia mostly, but Thomas and Roberts too, were personally offended. Derision, contempt, ridicule, and outright hate oozed from them. Extending marriage to same-sex couples is a personal affront to the social conservatism of William F. Buckley, Bill Bennett, and Ronald Reagan. It’s become so strongly tied into religion that any deviation from the norm is seen as an attack on fundamental principles. Sorry to say, but libertarian thinking has no place in the Republican Party. Rand Paul is wasting his time.

  66. Jester
    Jester July 9, 2015 12:01 am

    Weare missing the intention of the Left. The progressives are the Borg, the Hve Mind, the Collective. To create their utopia all aspects of tyhe past must be destroyed-religion, tradition, culture, values, heritage-everything you cherish must go and you must march in lockstep.

    I used to wonder how the Nazis could embrace the National Socialists. Now I understand that turmoil, both economic and political that destroys the civil society leaves people looking for substitutes. Just as the Germans embraced the Nazis, the Left drinks the Kool Aide of progressivism. No free thought, speech, associaton will be tolerated.

    This is the invasion of the body snatchers. You will do as you are told and like it.

    The American people can either stand up to these vermin and crush it or watch the book burnings, the show trials, the Goebbels media do its thing.

    I for one am not getting on any train to some government sponsored vacation camp nor am I about to hail our new Caudillo/Czar/ Dear Leader/Fuhrer/Big Brother/Obama-Wookie.

  67. Paul Bonneau
    Paul Bonneau July 9, 2015 12:22 am

    Again, both the majority and the minority of the Court were wrong. The proper handling of the case would have been that it was not a matter for the federal government.

    But yeah, liberty goes out the door when people go on a war footing. Neither R nor D leadership want anything to do with it.

  68. Hillbilly
    Hillbilly July 9, 2015 7:54 am

    Oh hell yeah I’m offended about a flag of southern heritage being FORCED down, I can’t abide by that and therefor won’t. I’ve never flown my old Dixie flag that I bought 45+ years ago. Now I will..
    I use to care less who married who, same sex, black-white, ethnic….Because it wasn’t none of my business. But I just got shoved and told what I will except. There are lots of laws and rules that I ignore, common sense is more reflective of my views. That said, if you intentionally shove me in a bar, you can expect a bottle busted on your head PDQ, they want me to be a rebel against all there is…..K.

Leave a Reply