Thursday, May 15, 2008



please make sure you see Priscilla's's worth a look.



Another FRIDAY MORNING UPDATE: Ellen DeGeneris is getting married.
Yet ANOTHER FRIDAY MORNING UPDATE: Mayor Villairagosa says he will officiate at as many gay marriages as possible.

(Anti-California jokes aren't helpful, so STICK TO THE POINT! "As goes California, so goes the country" God forbid, so don't be smug. that's a warning (smile)

But, seriously, folks...........any comments? And what the heck does a couple do when they move to a NON gay marriage State? I don't get how marriage can be a State issue, can you?

SAN FRANCISCO (Associated Press) -- In a monumental victory for the gay rights movement, the California Supreme Court overturned a voter-approved ban on gay marriage Thursday in a ruling that would allow same-sex couples in the nation's biggest state to tie the knot.
Domestic partnerships are not a good enough substitute for marriage, the justices ruled 4-3 in striking down the ban.
Outside the courthouse, gay marriage supporters cried and cheered as the news spread.
Jeanie Rizzo, one of the plaintiffs, called Pali Cooper, her partner of 19 years, and asked, "Pali, will you marry me?"
"This is a very historic day. This is just such freedom for us," Rizzo said. "This is a message that says all of us are entitled to human dignity."
In the Castro, historically a center of the gay community in San Francisco, Tim Oviatt started crying while watching the news on TV.
"I've been waiting for this all my life," he said. "This is a life-affirming moment."
The city of San Francisco, two dozen gay and lesbian couples and gay rights groups sued in March 2004 after the court halted the monthlong wedding march that took place when Mayor Gavin Newsom opened the doors of City Hall to same-sex marriages.
"Today the California Supreme Court took a giant leap to ensure that everybody _ not just in the state of California, but throughout the country _ will have equal treatment under the law," said City Attorney Dennis Herrera, who argued the case for San Francisco.
The challenge for gay rights advocates, however, is not over.
A coalition of religious and social conservative groups is attempting to put a measure on the November ballot that would enshrine laws banning gay marriage in the state constitution.
The Secretary of State is expected to rule by the end of June whether the sponsors gathered enough signatures to qualify the marriage amendment, similar to ones enacted in 26 other states.
If voters pass the measure in November, it would trump the court's decision.
California already offers same-sex couples who register as domestic partners the same legal rights and responsibilities as married spouses, including the right to divorce and to sue for child support.
But, "Our state now recognizes that an individual's capacity to establish a loving and long-term committed relationship with another person and responsibly to care for and raise children does not depend upon the individual's sexual orientation," Chief Justice Ron George wrote for the court's majority, which also included Justices Joyce Kennard, Kathryn Werdegar and Carlos Moreno.
In a dissenting opinion, Justice Marvin Baxter agreed with many arguments of the majority but said the court overstepped its authority. Changes to marriage laws should be decided by the voters, Baxter wrote. Justices Ming Chin and Carol Corrigan also dissented.
The conservative Alliance Defense Fund says it plans to ask the justices for a stay of their decision until after the fall election, said Glen Lavey, senior counsel for the group.
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who has twice vetoed legislation that would've granted marriage rights to same-sex couples, said in a news release that he respected the court's decision and "will not support an amendment to the constitution that would overturn this state Supreme Court ruling."
The last time California voters were asked to express their views on gay marriage at the ballot box was in 2000, the year after the Legislature enacted the first of a series of laws awarding spousal rights to domestic partners.
Proposition 22, which strengthened the state's 1978 one-man, one-woman marriage law with the words "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California," passed with 61 percent of the vote.
The Supreme Court struck down both statutes with its sweeping opinion Thursday.
Lawyers for the gay couples had asked the court to overturn the laws as an unconstitutional civil rights violation that domestic partnerships cannot repair. A trial court judge in San Francisco agreed with gay rights advocates and voided the state's marriage laws in April 2005. A midlevel appeals court overturned his decision in October 2006.

thanks for the info, Priscilla!


Anonymous said...

'If the law supposes that,' said Mr. Bumble, squeezing his hat
emphatically in both hands, 'the law is a ass--a idiot. If
that's the eye of the law, the law is a bachelor; and the worst I
wish the law is, that his eye may be opened by experience--by

Laying great stress on the repetition of these two words, Mr.
Bumble fixed his hat on very tight, and putting his hands in his
pockets, followed his helpmate downstairs.

--Dickens, "Oliver Twist"

Dost thou not suspect my place? dost thou not
suspect my years? O that he were here to write me
down an ass! But, masters, remember that I am an
ass; though it be not written down, yet forget not
that I am an ass. No, thou villain, thou art full of
piety, as shall be proved upon thee by good witness.
I am a wise fellow, and, which is more, an officer,
and, which is more, a householder, and, which is
more, as pretty a piece of flesh as any is in
Messina, and one that knows the law, go to; and a
rich fellow enough, go to; and a fellow that hath
had losses, and one that hath two gowns and every
thing handsome about him. Bring him away. O that
I had been writ down an ass!


"Much Ado About Nothing", Wm Shakespeare

MathewK said...

"...the California Supreme Court overturned a voter-approved ban on gay marriage..."

I wonder if the voters had agreed on gay marriage and some other group sued if the court would have been so excitable to overturn that approval. Someone page the polygamists, there's an opening they can exploit now.

It'll be a hurried journey down that slippery slope now. Just don't expect to hear about it though. Homosexuals are the new super-citizens, only less equal to the radical, intolerant Muslim.

Anonymous said...

If gays and lesbians only flaunt the have too much time on yours hands...or you have too much something on your hands...what you do and your 'helpmate' do in the privacy of your home is your business...and I feel the same about young 'men and women' couples, it should be in your homosexuals are not normal...and I do not know why I should have to be witness to your sexual exploits in the public place....and why do you have to act so female if you are male or in a womans case so is so obvious, that it is also so embrassing...if you like men and you are a should act like a man...if you are a woman and like women, you should still act like a woman, but then you want to change your body....and that is what cost joe public for your own sex change...and quit using the system for your differences....

Anonymous said...

Gay marriage is so very wrong in the eyes of the Lord, and the law makers that passed this law for gay marriages will answer to the Lord as well as the people that are living in that kind of life. GAY MARRIAGE WILL NOT BE recognizes BY THE BIBLE OR GOD only by man alone. Being gay is a sickness and can only be changed by God. I don't hate gays I just don't agree with that life style. God the father made Adem and Eve and NOT Adem and Steve. I know so many will disagree with me but come on people read your bible any SIN can be forgiven other then Blasphemy Against the Holy Ghost.I am sorry if it seems as I am passing judgment but I am going by the HOLY BIBLE and by the way there's NO SUCH THING AS A gay CHURCH, I hope and pray the gay community will come to its since's and realized God is the way not Gay. My poem I wrote
Dear Lord
I come to you with love and faithfulness and grace
why do some people not come to you in there disgrace
you love and you forgive as you had die on
the cross for our sins
but yet they not want to know you and to me that's there end
how I love you oh lord, my heartaches for those poor souls
that don't want to know the creator
for there life wont be whole but only pain and despair
for only you can unfold
please send the angels above to help with the world know
that there is love and peace and teach them
that our god above will all ways forgive and love
all the world has to do is come unto you ask our lord
My heart hurts with pain for them people and I pray someday
that somehow some way they will know you amen. Thank you your commits will not hurt my feeling because the bible is the truth not MAN, God Bless you all and I will be praying for you and your souls.

Anonymous said...

why do we waste all the time and money on these propositions when the courts always rule against the majority of it's citizens gregor

Anonymous said...

Why should they not be just as unhappy & miserable as the rest ofus Non-Gay people. OH I WISH I WAS SINGLE AGAIN. i WOULD LIKE TO LET ONE OF THE GAYS HAVE THE Jack Ass I married.

Papa Frank said...

Whether or not you are gay or for gay marriage is not the issue here. The issue is the ability of courts to overrule the wishes of the voters who are the true caretakers of democracy. Why is this not an outrage no matter what the specific issue? It is time to trim the fat from the hog that is our government!!! Fresh fried pork rinds anyone? There are some "rulers" who need a little history lesson once again!!!

CJ said...

So much for democracy. Or, really, so much for the Republic. So much for the Great Experiment.

Z said...

Californians voted this down in 2000, something like 65% to 35%....

But will they revolt in the face of this action today?

No. Then conservatives with traditional values complain? This is getting humorous. How can they complain when they do ZILCH about what they're complaining about?

Consevatives are giving everything away on a silver platter.....

Z said...

mk....excellent point about if the public had voted FOR gay marriage and the court had overturned it.

Imagine the media?!!

Anonymous said...

Your unsigned (truly) anonymous poster is both a bore and a boor, Z.

I'm surprised you allowed all of that to stand.

~ FreeThinke

(((Thought Criminal))) said...

Thank you California Supreme Court jesters, for guaranteeing McCain will be President.

beakerkin said...

This is an example of the arrogance of a far leftist activist court ignoring the will of the people.

Anonymous said...

The Frank Family has it right (as usual), and defines the REAL issue very well.

HOWEVER, if we had never had an activist Supreme Court and liberal busybodies in power, I'm very much afraid the KKK would still be riding high in a thoroughly segregated South, and blacks would still be denied access to the vote–––or any real chance to better themselves.

Oh, and Jews would never have been widely admitted into the Ivy League and the upper echelons of Corporate America, which USED to exclude them routinely, either.

I have had mixed feelings about the way the Civil Rights movement achieved its goals ever since 1954–––the year that completely destroyed States' Rights forever. But, as I have often said before, "Laws are never made till they are broken."

The bullying by Court Fiat started with Earl Warren. The stronger the Marxists (Progressives, Liberals, Socialists––– whatever–––it's all the same at root) have gotten, the weaker our grip on the Constitution and our guaranteed liberties grows.

It's all much too bad, BUT if "unpopular" people of ANY description are being effectively PERSECUTED, sooner or later SOMEONE or SOMETHING just HAS to step in and intervene on their behalf.

The results may not be to the liking of the majority, and may in fact prove detrimental to their overall quality of life, but unless and until people in the majority and in positions of influence and power quit trying to run other people's lives, there will always be resistance, rebellion and all sorts of scheming and plotting to take hold of the levers of power.

This works two ways. It really doesn't matter whether the bullies in power–––and those who seek to overthrow them–––are liberals or conservatives. What matters is the USE if BULLYING to gain your objectives–––WHATEVER they might be.

This "Gay Marriage" business OUGHT to be a non-issue. Whether the majority feel they can accept homosexuals or not, they EXIST.

If God didn't want them to exist, believe me, they wouldn't be here.

No one has a right to say Gays are not welcome in The Family of Man. If your religion won't permit you to accept them, fine, but please keep that in church and in your individual homes, where it properly belongs.

I do not believe ANYONE has an inherent right to try to FORCE anyone ELSE to do or not to do ANYTHING–––with the classic exception–––as I keep saying–––of MURDER, RAPE, MAYHEM, THEFT, VANDALISM, BLACKMAIL and HARASSMENT, and of course, TERRORISM.

The Gays are wrong to make a Holy Show of themselves, and try to shove exaggerated and offensive versions of their personal behavior into the Public Arena–––a place where "personal behavior" of ANY kind NEVER belongs.

By the same token conservative groups and so-called family-advocacy organizations are equally wrong to flaunt THEIR beliefs about PRIVATE matters in the Public's face and try to force their views into law.

"Live and let live" is the only motto I, personally, could ever accept.

Homosexuals are not the categorical equivalent of terrorists, seditionists, gangsters, thugs, rapists, thieves or defacers and destroyers of property. Therefore, there is no justifiable reason for treating them with less civility and respect than we treat anyone else.

A lot of the flamboyant, obnoxious, in-your-face behavior of Gay Activists and out-and-out perverts is, I suspect, a REFLECTION of the larger society's traditional rejection and overt insolence toward Gays.

I am far more concerned that some flippin' federal judge just FORCED The US Military Academy at West Point to CHANGE the WORDS to its century–old signature song to suit the whim of the damned JUDGE than I am about "Gay Marriage" which is just another MARXIST ploy designed to help leftists take over the country.

You should be too.

~ FreeThinke

Incognito said...

and you can rest assured if McCain does NOT get elected the courts will continue on their downward spiral.

Z said...

FT. Anonymous has every right to share his/her feelings (i'm not sure they're all the same Anonymous, by the way), one can never know, trust me.
This person has said he doesn't hate anyone, he just disagrees with the lifestyle because of his the religious beliefs and this attitude is not peculiar to only this anonymous poster. It's shared by millions of people throughout the world who believe the Bible.
As long as nobody's insulting, and nobody uses the kind of nasty terms for gays that some used (which I deleted), they stay.

I don't want a site where everyone's singing to the choir and I know you wouldn't like that, either!


Anonymous said...

Oh, there must be a revolt!

Anonymous said...

It never ceases to amaze me how the left cries out.."the will of the people, the will of the people!"
But boy, let the people speak and it is slam-bam, how dare you , we are the all knowing robed ones.

Which , by the way is how so much harm has been inflicted to this country.

Well, let us see where it all goes.

Like we all know, it is always about certain groups getting their way, the old ends justifies the means.

And yet, look at that 105? commented upon thread that was here just a week or so ago was related to this very type of action.


I think this will go to the US Supremes?

Of course, a couple of years back before Roberts and Alito some of the US Supremes were talking about America becoming more like the Europeans on these types of issues.

Makes you wonder why any of us ever left the motherland, doesn't it?

What the heck, President Bush made wonderful comments today and Obami got his knickers all bunched up.

Life IS good.


Elmers Brother said...

personally I think it's a scam to file joint tax returns so they pay a lower rate

now explain it to the leftists that way and they'll go back to the ban

Anonymous said...

I would like to point out that as we speak, there is another initiative in the works. Signatures of voters are being checked and counted, and if qualified there will be an initiative on the November ballot, to amend the California constitution saying marriage is a union between a man and a woman.

This is an issue that society should decide, not a panel of judges. The 9th Circuit engaged in a decision driven by emotion. Their decision cannot be backed up by anything in the California Constitution. This was a purely activist decision.

If this is allowed to stand, mk is right. The door will be open to any claimant who will demand the same "right" as same sex partners.
The right to be married will be demanded by polygamists, brothers and sisters, adults and minors, etc. In short, marriage will become undefined.

IMO, marriage should reflect the ideal for the welfare of children. The ideal for children is a mother and father. This is not to say others can't love children, of course they can.

But, this is about more than love, this is about the best environment for a balanced, healthy and stable situation in which a child can grow. The ideal is a mother and a father.

To codify less than the ideal, is irresponsible. This is yet another example of the tyranny of the minority, who consider themselves to be worthy simply by virtue of their minority status.

Personally, I don't care what adults do in the privacy of their homes. It seems that the tolerance homosexuals say they want, isn't enough. They want to be seen as equal on the basis of their sexual proclivities, not despite them.

Furthermore, they want to teach our children, not only to be tolerant, but that homosexuality is just peachy keen, and the best thing since sliced bread. No different than Mom and Dad.

Well, it is different than Mom and Dad. It is outside the norm. Society has come around to accepting that there are people who are different. That does not mean society should have to accept a law which celebrates that difference.


Z said...

WVDottr....Hillary, today, called Bush "outrageous and offensive" and the Obama are MIGHTY ticked off that something Bush said sounds like it's geared to them, and it's nothing CLOSE to 'outrageous or offensive'....Obama's a little testy, no?!! (but, really, what the heck COULD Bush have meant except a slam at Obama..yipppeee!) And really, it's about darned TIME a Republican came out and said what he did, right?'re right. AND, gays get EVERY RIGHT marrieds do in this State, anyway..!! This is about agenda more than anything else...Plus, there are gays who San Francisco married a year or two ago...they're having a devil of a time getting divorced! Did you hear that? Hilarious.

Z said...

FJ...DICKENS is SO much easier to understand than PLATO. And so sweet...what sweet writing..

Ottavio (Otto) Marasco said...

BEWARE! The "gay rights" group is becoming an extraordinarily powerful interest lobby while attempting to cloak itself as some sort of deprived marginal group. It has developed some hefty clout, and has the bucks to fashion there own agenda.

Read between the lines my fellow conservatives … it is time we rise to the challenge to counter the affront they present ….

Ottavio (Otto) Marasco said...

Forgot to ask...Is email working? the earthlink address that is, all email send attempts failed today? Let us know...

Brooke said...

This will go on the ballot and be struck down yet again.

Beamish is correct; this type of assery will guarantee McCain a victory in November for two reasons:

In Californiastan, voters who would have been otherwise apathetic will go to vote down gay marriage after these judges spat in their faces. They will vote for McCain while there, when they might not have shown up for just him.

Secondly, this kind of activist judicial legislation from the bench will get apathetic, lukewarm voters across the nation thinking seriously about preventing a Democratic/Communistic presidency.

Thanks, Cali judges! :)

EDGE said...

Those voters in Cali should piiiisssseeeddd! Note: Should be!

Z said...

American Int..many gays in this country regret the gay rights groups. I personally know several who feel embarrassed by it. They are dignified men who live dignified lives. I'm quite sure they never wore the fishneck stockings and false eyelashes we see in gay parades in their LIVES! They absolutely do NOT want to marry (many more flamboyant gay friends have told me the same thing over the years), so this is much ado about agenda than rights. In california, they HAVE rights already!

Brooke...I hope you're right. And I always wonder when I read "Californistan"...One thing we DON'T have is a disproportionate amount of muslims, other States have far more trouble (like Michigan), so that always makes me curious! Mexifornia might be a better term!!

Yes, this will get struck down again, I think.


Brooke said...

I was thinkin' the judges are a bit like the Mullahs.

OK, how about The People's Republic of California?


Z said...

Brooke..THAT's better!
We call Santa Monica "The People's Republic of Santa Monica"...
Trouble, is it's very socialist BUT runs pretty darned well.....:-(

Incognito said...

Z, I too have gay friends who think the whole marriage issue is ridiculous. then there are those who embrace it.

Anonymous said...

How sad.


David Schantz said...

A same sex married couple moved to Missouri which is a non gay marriage State (Thank God). Then they decided they wanted a divorce. Since Missouri dosen't recognize gay marriages the judge was not able to grant their divorce.

God Bless America, God Save The Republic

Anonymous said...

Shalom Daveed. Wonderful post btw.
I may be mistaken, but I THINK gays have tried for divorce in non-gay marriage states as a way of setting legal precedence. IOW by getting some judge in say, Atlanta GA, to grant a divorce, you're getting the state to "recognize" that a legitimate marriage was dissolved. Don't put anything past an activist judge.
This is a backdoor (I know :-)) method, but the gay "lobby" is fond of such things. I have many gay friends who are wonderful and caring people. Too bad the gay political scene is dominated by the most obnoxious element.


WomanHonorThyself said...

last time I checked Judges did not write our Constitution...this is just the beginning Z..hello Sodom and Gommorah!!

Anonymous said...

Z is absolutely right about about this being more about pushing a crypto-Marxist AGENDA than about ANYBODY's "rights."

The Marxists have used WORKERS, BLACKS, JEWS, HISPANICS, WOMEN, CRIPPLES, GAYS–––anything and anyone they can get their filthy hands on–––to further the MARXIST agenda–––their determination to DICTATE the death of Christianity, Capitalism and Protestant White Ascendancy.

It is as foolish to focus our wrath on in-your-face homosexuals as it is to blame blacks for their skin color and wooly hair, Asians for their flat, ochre-colored faces and slanty black eyes, Jews for their big noses, and superior intelligence, or all WOMEN for being FEMALE for Heavens' sake.

The Gay Activists no more represent ALL homosexuals than NOW represents ALL women, or Al Sharpton represents ALL Negoes.

It's the AGENDA, stupid!

The Marxist's PLAN has ALWAYS been to DIVIDE us–––get us all at each other's throats–––confuse us–––weaken our confidence in ourselves as a people–––and thus CONQUER us from within.

By getting all huffy puffy about this essentially TRIVIAL issue, we fall right into the hands of the ENEMY–––i.e. Marxist Totalitarianism.

And once again, the Frank Family is right in saying the TRUE, UNDERLYING issue here is the arrogant presumption of ACTIVIST COURTS, who routinely SUBVERT the democratic process, and thwart the will and wishes of the majority.

~ FreeThinke

Anonymous said...

Now, if you REALLY enjoy getting furious and upset and depressed, get a load of THIS from the infernal state of Assachusetts:

Thursday May 15, 2008

State Funded Homosexual Youth Event Encourages Children to Display Homosexual Acts

Fully Endorsed by Massachusetts Governor Includes Grotesque Mockery of Christianity

By Mark Westen

BOSTON, May 12, 2008

( The now annual Massachusetts Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender Pride Youth Parade was highlighted this year by fully sanctioned participation by a variety of school groups. Children encouraged to display homosexual acts on camera to be posted to the group's website, a gay prom at Boston City Hall and the distribution a variety of information pamphlets homosexualizing Christianity.

Titles of the various pamphlets included the following:

"Reading the Bible with New Eyes" which claims that Jesus had a homosexual affair with Lazarus and that Mary was a lesbian among other grotesque distortions; "Queer Spirituality" which claims that homosexuality can be a means of opening oneself to God; "History of Saints Servius and Bacchus" which claims that the two saints were involved in a homosexual relationship. Several of these pamphlets were handed out by a man dressed as a Catholic priest.
At one point during the event, a guest speaker incited the crowd to violently harass photographers from "Mass Resistance", the pro-family action group. The photographers were surrounded, barred from taking pictures and then assaulted as a Boston police officer in uniform stood by and watched.

The event was fully sanctioned and funded by the State of Massachusetts through the Commission on Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender Youth. Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick provided an official proclamation endorsing the event.

Some of the pictures in which children were encouraged to engage in homosexual acts in 2007 can be found on the "Mass Resistance" website, . (Warning: disturbing content).

Mass Resistance leader Brian Camenker told that the 2008 event was even worse. "I've never seen anything like it," he said. Camenker said his group would be issuing a full report on the event with video and photographic evidence in the coming days.


Submitted by FreeThinke

Steve Harkonnen said...

Give it time. California is going to slide into the convergent plate boundary soon enough.

Anonymous said...


The outrageous carryings on in Assachuestts, described somewhat provocatively by Mr. Westen in my previous post are the kind of things that happen once essentially PRIVATE matters are dragged into the glare of the searchlight by Marxist mischiefmakers.

By forcing official JUDGMENT of intimate sexual behavior into the courts and the legislature, the Marxist fiends have opened up yet-another Pandora’s Box.

Those Christians who aggressively come out against this exaggerated, agitagtor-inspired behavior will be viewed and condemned as Christo-Fascists in favor of THEOCRATIC TYRANNY. Those who defend the behavior will be screamed at as FILTHY DEGENERATE SCUM who deserve to DIE.

Before it’s all over (that’s after we become a Socialist People’s Republic in the Stalinist tradition), we will all be shouting and cursing at each other and ready to kill, maim and riot in the streets.

At THAT point we will we so disintegrated by internecine warfare we will easily fall prey to those who have been PLANNING this thing for DECADES.
Mark my words.

We would find much more strength and cohesiveness in looking for ways to love, honor and respect each other than in giving way to urge to point fingers and condemn.

God cannot fail. He cannot be cheated. It is wrong for US to try to do HIS job.

~ FreeThinke

Z said...

FT? You said "By forcing official JUDGMENT of intimate sexual behavior into the courts and the legislature, the Marxist fiends have opened up yet-another Pandora’s Box."

Can you tell us where intimate sexual behavior's been "officially judged in the courts"?

Why is it so hard to understand that most Americans do not want gay marriage or gay behavior on our streets and in our schools and that that's okay, too? That that isn't some kind of cretin's viewpoint, some bigoted attitude? Any Christian who hates gays is not Christian. I can't stand platitudes but it does boil down to "Hate the sin not the sinner". And, it's not Christians who have decided to arbitrarily find homosexual sex a sin, is it. Nor, by the way, Orthodox Jews. It's the book which informs them of their faith which says this. And, funny enough, it's kept society in a far healthier situation than it is today with the mocking of these admonitions. You and I've discussed this in private and we both agree that homosexual agendas of "being OUT THERE, demanding RIGHTS, parades, etc." are not good for anyone, for society, period. But, loving gay friends is good for them and for society! Absolutely.

Nobody HAS to believe the Bible!! But, many do, and what it says in there is the viewpoint of most Americans. We've been pretty successful in America guarding our children by guarding what they're exposed to. Seems to me that that utterly DISGUSTING article from Massachusetts you posted is caused by gays demanding their rights, their visibility in the public eye, not any court judging anybody.

This is a fascinating conversation I hope we can all share without hurt feelings or exasperation. As Prager says "We don't have to agree, but it's good to at least have CLARITY of others' views", right?

Thanks. z

Z said...

And, by the way? It is so definitely NOT wrong for us to 'do His job'. Since none of us CAN do that, it's a Christian's 'job' to get His word spread.
NOBODY HAS TO BELIEVE THIS! But, it is the faith, not something I or anyone else on this good earth dreamt up. If one does not believe the Bible is the Word of God..COOL!! But, to mock it isn't fair, either..
I have the greatest respect for Christians and Jews...for traditional values, for solid families, for people who teach their kids right from wrong. That comes FROM somewhere, and that 'somewhere', when we admire it and realize how life runs better when it's followed, needs to be at least respected, in my Book (pardon the pun).
But, as I said...If one doesn't believe in the basic tenets of Judaism or Christianity, that's their choice. FINE! I just don't get why these groups are the first who have to take a second seating to the leftist and other agendas and even be ridiculed in their beliefs.

Z said...

Steve. Don't look now, but a lot of States have at least the troubles California has.

Anonymous said...

To Anonymous;

You said;


Absolutly FANTASTIC;

I found a very deep and phylosophic thoughts in your statement, I like it, I BUY IT, I can not stop laughing,

Thank you so very much to have shared your story with us, thank you.


Z said...

SAM, good to see you today! I thought that was a very funny line, too!

Anonymous said...

Thank you zin;

you have gathered a wounderfull people here in your BLOG;

I have enjoyed too much by;

Sweet home Alabama
the double sided expresion of Anonymous;

What she said can be the title of a great sketch.


Anonymous said...

Z, we all have the right to tell each other what we believe. that's what America is supposed to be all about. We just do not have the right to make life more difficult than it already is for those who do not see things precisely OUR way. Nor do we have the right to try to FORCE our views on anyone not inclined to accept them.

And that works ALL ways. From the Left, Right, Up, Down, North, South, East, West and Center.

Courts, legislatures, bullies and tyrants have been trying to regulate and this pass judgment on intimate human behavior since time immemorial.

Didn't you know that there are STILL laws on the books in some states that presume to tell lawfully wedded people what they can and cannot do in the privacy of the marriage bed?

This is hangover from Theocracy days–––the not-so-good old days for which many of imagine we long.

I blame Marxism for much, but there HAD to be some REAL basis for the false "causes" Marxism has embraced so the Reds can come to power by promising to "fix" all the terrible injustices they dig up and then promote with ruthless exaggeration and boundless ambition.


Z said...

FT..and others don't have the right to make the lives of traditionalists or religious people more difficult, either, do they.
If I were a mother and had a teacher reading "Billy has Two Mommies" to my 5 year old, I'd be homeschooling if I couldn't get some cooperation from the school.
They have no right promoting lifestyles that others feel their children are too young to grasp.
Why do they get SUCH accolades for open mindedness when viewpoints of traditionalists are mocked and scorned everywhere?

Anonymous said...

Z, that's precicely why we started homeschooling, and why we'll probably go back to it eventually.

If only there were more common sense among the 'open-minded'.

Anonymous said...

History is little more than story of aggression, suppression, oppression, resistance, rebellion, bloodletting, martyrdom, victimhood and death.

Those on top invariably become arrogant and abusive of their power. Those who've been slighted, exploited, despised, scorned, shunned, enslaved, ostracized, lynched or otherwise mistreated eventually get sick and tired of being trampled upon, and so they wage WAR on their oppressors.

Oppressors don't like that naturally, so they fight back.

The ones with the biggest, fastest guns, the loudest voices and the most determination usually prevail till the next go 'round.

Life is continually in a state of flux. "Stability" is an illusion. There never has been and never will be any such thing. Just when you think you've got it made, someone or something ALWAYS comes along to rain on your parade.

It's just that way.

The ONLY way ANY of us has the slightest chance of living a fulfilled existence is by intense concentration on SELF-IMPROVEMENT through prayer, meditation, acquisition of increasing knowledge and skill, and above all the DETERMINATION to LOVE, HELP and b e GENEROUS to all who cross your path.

Love is the fulfilling of all (just) laws.

"Perfect Love casteth our fear."

Anything that isn't loving, ISN'T godly.

~ FreeThinke

Anonymous said...

Why is this subject important to anyone who is not gay? What difference does it make to you if your not involved? What are you so afraid of?

(((Thought Criminal))) said...


Laws against spitting on railroad tracks dates to the days tuberculosis ran rampant through America. Epidemiology wasn't advanced enough to rule out TB being spread by train wheels in those days, but I think the same mode of thinking applies.

Homosexual behavior has one unchanged factor in all of documented time in human history. That is that homosexual behavior is an exotic disease vector.

Whether or not you believe government should have the right to sanction against behaviors that promote the spread of exotic diseases into the population it governs as a whole is the question here.

Anyone who says gays should not be discriminated against needs to get the hell off the backs of drunk drivers.

Z said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Z said...

Anonymous, read the comments.

Anonymous said...

DeGeneres, de Rossi plan to marry, AP is told

May 16 06:54 AM US/Eastern
AP Television Writer

View larger image

‘I Am Getting Married’: Ellen to Wed Partner Portia After Overturn of CA Gay Marriage Ban

LOS ANGELES (AP) - Ellen DeGeneres is putting the California Supreme Court ruling in favor of gay marriage into action—she and Portia de Rossi plan to wed, DeGeneres announced during a taping of her talk show.
DeGeneres was taping the episode of "The Ellen DeGeneres Show" on Thursday, the day the state's high court struck down California laws against gay marriage, and it was to air Friday, a person close to the production said.

The person, who was not authorized to discuss the matter publicly, spoke to The Associated Press on the condition of anonymity.

Citing the court's ruling, DeGeneres said she and girlfriend de Rossi ("Ally McBeal," "Nip/Tuck") would be getting married.

De Rossi, 35, who was in the studio, and DeGeneres, 50, were applauded by audience members, the person close to the production said.

Calls and e-mails late Thursday to DeGeneres' publicist were not immediately returned.

The court ruling means same-sex couples could tie the knot in as little as a month. However, religious and social conservatives are seeking to put a constitutional amendment on the ballot in November that would undo the Supreme Court ruling and ban gay marriage.

DeGeneres has boldly used TV before to make a stand for gay rights.

In 1997, she brought her character on the ABC sitcom "Ellen" out of the closet, making the show the first on prime-time network TV to have an openly gay lead. The move drew cheers from gay civil rights organizations but was condemned by some religious groups.

A month before, DeGeneres had proclaimed from the cover of Time magazine that she was a lesbian.

DeGeneres and the glamorous de Rossi have been a familiar couple at Hollywood events, including the Academy Awards. Previously, DeGeneres had a high-profile relationship with actress Anne Heche.

In a 2005 interview with Allure magazine, the comedian said she hoped she and de Rossi are "together the rest of our lives."

"I never would have thought my life would have turned out this way," DeGeneres told the magazine. "To have money. Or to have a gorgeous girlfriend. I just feel so lucky with everything in my life right now."

Anonymous said...

California's top court legalizes gay marriage

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) - Even as same-sex couples across California begin making plans to tie the knot, opponents are redoubling their efforts to make sure wedding bells never ring for gay couples in the nation's most populous state.

A conservative group said it would ask California's Supreme Court to postpone putting its decision legalizing gay marriage into effect until after the fall election. That's when voters will likely have a chance to weigh in on a proposed amendment to California's constitution that would bar same-sex couples from getting married.

If the court does not grant the request, gay marriages could begin in California in as little as 30 days, the time it typically takes for the justices' opinions to become final.

"We're obviously very disappointed in the decision," said Glen Lavy, senior counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund, which is pushing for the stay. "The remedy is a constitutional amendment."

With a stroke of a pen Thursday, the Republican-dominated court swept away decades of tradition and said there was no legally justifiable reason why the state should withhold the institution of marriage because of a couple's sexual orientation.

The 4-3 opinion written by Chief Justice Ronald George said domestic partnerships that provide many of the rights and benefits of matrimony are not enough.

"In contrast to earlier times, our state now recognizes that an individual's capacity to establish a loving and long-term committed relationship with another person and responsibly to care for and raise children does not depend upon the individual's sexual orientation," George wrote for the majority in ringing language that delighted gay rights activists.

Gay marriage opponents, meanwhile, derided the ruling as an example of judicial overreaching in which the opinions of a few justices trumped the will of Californians.

The last time the state's voters were asked to express their views on same-sex marriage at the ballot box was in 2000, the year after the Legislature enacted the first of a series of laws awarding spousal rights to domestic partners.

Proposition 22, which strengthened the state's 1978 one-man, one-woman marriage law with the words "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California," passed with 61 percent of the vote.

The Supreme Court's ruling Thursday struck down both statutes.

Still, backers of a proposed November ballot measure that would allow Californians to vote on a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage said the court's decision would ultimately help their cause.

"(The ruling) is not the way a democracy is supposed to handle these sorts of heartfelt, divisive issues," said Brian Brown of the National Organization for Marriage, one of the groups helping to underwrite the gay marriage ban campaign. "I do think it will activate and energize Californians. I'm more confident than ever that we will be able to pass this amendment come November."

To date, 26 states have approved constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage.

In the past few years, courts in New York, Maryland and Washington state have refused to allow gay marriage, and New Jersey's highest court gave the state lawmakers the option of establishing civil unions as an alternative.

Massachusetts is the only other state to legalize gay marriage, something it did in 2004. More than 9,500 same-sex couples in that state have wed. The California ruling is considered monumental because of the state's population—38 million out of a U.S. population of 302 million—and its historical role as the vanguard of many social and cultural changes that have swept the country since World War II.

California has an estimated 108,734 same-sex households, according to 2006 census figures.

"It's about human dignity. It's about human rights. It's about time in California," San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom told a roaring crowd at City Hall after the ruling was issued. "As California goes, so goes the rest of the nation. It's inevitable. This door's wide open now. It's going to happen, whether you like it or not."

The case was set in motion in 2004 when Newsom threw open City Hall to gay couples to get married in a calculated challenge to California law. Four thousand wed before the Supreme Court put a halt to the practice after a month.

Two dozen gay couples then sued, along with the city and gay rights organizations.

Gareth Lacy, a spokesman for Attorney General Jerry Brown, whose office argued to uphold the ban, said Brown would "work with the governor and other state agencies to implement the ruling."

The justices said they would direct state officials "to take all actions necessary to effectuate our ruling," including requiring county marriage clerks to carry out their duties "in a manner consistent with the decision of this court."

By Thursday afternoon, gay and lesbian couples had already started lining up at San Francisco City Hall to make appointments to get marriage licenses. The county clerk's office in Los Angeles issued a statement saying it was awaiting legal analysis of the ruling and a timeline for implementation.

California's secretary of state is expected to rule by the end of June whether the sponsors of the anti-gay marriage ballot measure gathered enough signatures to put the amendment on the ballot.

Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who has twice vetoed legislation that would have granted marriage to same-sex couples, said in a statement he respected the court's decision and "will not support an amendment to the constitution that would overturn this state Supreme Court ruling."

Anonymous said...

OUTSTANDING comment Priscilla! Thank you!


Anonymous said...

Freedom in the private life of the Adults, is Private.

If two Adults of the same GEDRE want to stay with together in PRIVATE, and do what they want to each other always in PRIVATE, that's their business, and their privacy should be protected by law, and nobody has the right to expose their private relationship in the PUBLIC.

This is the limit of the Juridical protection of the privacy humours in a civilized and democratic society.

The limit of this priviledge should never extend to public and should be kept very far from the children.

The perversed relationship of the Adults should never affect the children, and the LAW should be protector of that BARRIER.

Bringing the GAY relationship in the society is against this BASIS of the Human rights and more specificly, the CHILDREN RIGHTS.

In a Democratic society, "and not a perversed LIBERTARIAN society", the GAY PARADE, and GAY SHOW, should stay in a closed area without the public media coverage.

and the GAY MARRIAGE can be legal only in the SODOM and GOMMOR.

This Gay Mariage is not a matter of only the religion,

the Protection of the Society of the perversity, Minors sexual exploitation, and sexual exploitation is the role of the legislators and the juridical system.

In your Wonderfull country of AMERICA, Your JUSTICE has become LAWFULL.


Anonymous said...

Is marriage these days primarily a LEGAL CONTRACT, a SACRAMENT of the Church, or a combination of the two?

Are married heterosexuals who don't have children for whatever reason any different from those that do?

What is "common law" marriage? Does it have any proper status in your eyes?


Anonymous said...

I don't know if you're asking me but, I'll give it a shot.

I think marriage is a combination of recognition of the State, and the sanctity of the church. I know a couple can be married outside the church. The sanctity of marriage in a church is my personal preference.

The only difference between a childless married couple and one with children, is that one is childless, and one is not.

However, I believe it would be easier for a heterosexual married childless couple to adopt, than if they weren't married, and easier than for a homosexual couple.

As a traditionalist, I also believe that marriage laws must reflect the ideal for children, because the overwhelming majority of married couples do have children. The family has always been the strong foundation of this country.

I think It should be honored as such, and encouraged. In this I am not denigrating childless couples or homosexuals.

I don't really believe there is such a thing as common law marriage. If a couple wants to be married they will. If not, they won't. Besides, now there are laws which provide for legal protections for non-married couples.


Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

Hi, Pris,

I usually ask anyone and everyone questions like that, I'm glad you answered. I had hoped to get a variety of responses. I enjoy learning what others think and believe.

I find it "interesting" that you CANNOT be married in a church and have the marriage recognized by the state as legal and binding, unless you apply to the government for a license.

I've never studied the history of that phenomenon, so I wonder just when the state butted into a province that had for centuries been primarily the business of ecclesiastical authority?

As for Common Law marriages, I'm pretty sure that after five or seven years of continuous cohabitation the state considers you married–––whether you bothered to go through a ceremony or not. I think this may vary from state to state.

This, of course, protects any children from such a union from simply being abandoned without a proper identity, and also gives surviving spouses full rights of inheritance–––at least this was true where I came from.

No doubt the ideal family has both a mother and a father who care for each other and are devoted to their children. Unfortunately, that is not always possible in a society such as ours where broken homes have become almost thee norm.

I am certain from having observed life at close range for quite a while that heterosexuality, while a biological necessity for producing children, is no guarantee of good parenting.

There are all kinds of people in every designated group. It's always a mixture of good, bad and indifferent along with too much craziness these days.

Given a clear choice among having a traditional heterosexual couple, a single parent, two women or two men, who may or may not be homosexual, raising a child, naturally the child's biological parents are the most desirable in most cases.

A traditional marriage between two divorced heterosuxals sharing the responsibility of raising children from either or both former marriages may be the next best alternative.

Being a single parent is likely to be hard on both parent and child, but if the parent is loving, responsible and reasonably solvent, it's probably going to work out all right.

Two women or two men raising a child,whether gay or not, would certainly be preferable to putting the child in an institution or farming it out to a series of foster homes PROVIDED the household is stable, committed, solvent, kind and caring.

Whenever these sorts of questions come up I think of A Thousand Clowns. Do you remember that?

Genuine affection, true bonding, loyalty, devotion and wisdom can come from the most unlikely and unexpected sources.

Lunatics, perverts, sadists, masochists, cold-hearted, uncaring, stingy, cruel, stupid, selfish, depriving individuals cut across the whole spectrum of humanity.

So too do loving, creative, stable, altruistic, affectionate, generous, sensible, wholesome, nurturing personalities.

Being a father means a whole lot more than being a sperm donor, just as being a mother implies 18 to 20 years of intense nurturing and unselfish devotion once the baby has been brought to term.

Sadly, many who are biologically fit to be parents are morally, psychologically or financially unfit to complete the task of parenting. The opposite may be true as well.

I would add that people of ANY stripe who want to have children simply to AMUSE themselves or FILL some indefinable VOID in their lives are probably a bad "flight risk."

I doubt if it really is possible to generalize about these things and be truly fair.

Even at its best life is always something of a gamble. There are no guaranteed outcomes in the real world, and as I said, some of the most unlikely situations have produced wonderful results and vice versa.

~ FreeThinke

John said...

Frank Family said:

"Whether or not you are gay or for gay marriage is not the issue here. The issue is the ability of courts to overrule the wishes of the voters who are the true caretakers of democracy."

That's judicial activism in action.

Z pointed out:

"Californians voted this down in 2000, something like 65% to 35%....

But will they revolt in the face of this action today?"

I don't know much at all about California demographics (except that it's a solid blue state and the home of Hollywood and San Francisco), but think they're expected to vote it down the next chance they get.

Anonymous said...

Hi FT,
Yes all you say is true. This is why I said the law must reflect the ideal situation.

It is not possible for the law to guarantee anything. For the sake of future generations, it seems to me, we must strive to reach the goal which benefits society as a whole.


Elmers Brother said...

I'd be perfectly happy if they kept in the bedroom...

but it ends when the agenda is pushed down kids throats in public school contrary to what parents want

or when the placards during the gay pride parade read 'give us your children'

Anonymous said...

You're born to fit the mold
for this you think
The Lord has made you
righteous, fine, "the best."
In smug complacency
you watch the rink
Of life; cheer for your kind,
dismiss the rest.

And yet, your way of life
shines like the morn.
Those who cannot join
must yearn in pain––
Anger for the strong
who fight with scorn––
Weeping for the weak,
who hope in vain.

Anguish for us all
because we hate
Anything that questions
what we are.
Everything we know
we're taught by Fate
Keeping us suspicious––

From joining in the glowing
Christian Feast––
As distant as the West
is from the East.

Alfred Douglas Jervers (1933)

Elmers Brother said...

I don't hate anyone...I don't appreciate the intolerance they have for me or my children

Anonymous said...

As long as there is an US v. THEM feeling in the air from either side hatred is present.

If we could get to the point of asking, "Let's see if we can find a way to iron out our differences," we'll be on the road recovery.


Elmers Brother said...

I don't hate 'them' FT...I just don't approve of the behavior...much like if my children did something wrong..I still love them but not the behavior

Anonymous said...

Depends on what you mean by "behavior," Elbro. I wouldn't approve of heterosexuals marching naked in "Het Pride" Parades while indulging in notably bizarre forms of sexual behavior. I wouldn't approve of anyone having full-blown sex in plain sight in the middle of a public space.

I tend to dislike people who feel compelled to make what-my-grandmother would call "a holy show" of themselves in ANY context.

Religious people should be perfectly free to regard anything as "sin," and preach as vehemently against it as they like, if they are so convicted.

What religious people cannot properly do under the Constitution is make our system of Law and Justice conform to any specific version of Canon Law or Ecclesiastical Authority.

Now, here are a whole bunch of definitions of the word DISAPPROVE (below).

The one I would trust most is Webster's 1913 edition, because political correctness and other forms of mischievous monkeying around with the language had not yet occurred. Any reference work written after 1965 is highly suspect in my opinion.

Nevertheless, all these various sources show "disapproval" to be a first cousin of "hate" or "hatred."

If you bother to look up "hate," you should see what I mean. They are not true synonyms, but they are closely related in sentiment.

It's perfectly all right to dislike something or someone intensely, despite what the dictates of Political Correctness tell us.

What's NOT all right is take action that attempts to thwart another citizen's right "to pursue happiness" as he or she sees fit––– UNLESS the citizen in question derives his pleasure and satisfaction from committing acts of MURDER, RAPE, MAYHEM, ROBBERY, VANDALISM, EXTORTION, or persistent HARASSMENT.

As I've said many times in many places, it is regrettable that the Left for nefarious purposes of their own have pushed the realm of PRIVATE, PERSONAL BEHAVIOR into the Legislative and judicial arenas.

This push for power has succeeded only in making everything worse for everyone. It is tearing the country apart–––just as the Marxists intended that it should.

~ FreeThinke

Merriam Webster Online

1: to pass unfavorable judgment on

2: to refuse approval, to reject


The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition.  2000.

To have an unfavorable opinion of; condemn.

To refuse to approve; reject.

Cambridge Dictionary of American English


to think that something is wrong, or to have a bad opinion about someone 


Webster Dictionary, 1913


1. To pass unfavorable judgment upon; to condemn by an act of the judgment; to regard as wrong, unsuitable, or inexpedient; to censure; as, to disapprove the conduct of others.

To refuse official approbation; to disallow; to decline to sanction; as, the sentence of the court-martial was disapproved by the commander in chief.

This verb is often followed by of as, to disapprove of an opinion, of such conduct




1. to regard unfavorably; dislike; censure.
disfavor, disavow, censure, dislike,

Similar Words
objurgate, deprecate, denounce, decry, criticize, condemn, deplore
Definition 2.

to refuse to approve or sanction; reject.
Disallow, reject  
Similar Words
refuse, discountenance, veto, deny
Related Words
proscribe, censure, blackball, reprimand, protest, discourage, frown upon, take exception to, animadvert


PS: Don’t you love "objurgate" and "animadvert?" For me both are new ways to register disapproval. - FT

Elmers Brother said...

Diapproval does not equate to hate. I've used the analogy of my children because it best describes this concept. I assume you have children so you'd understand what I mean.

Can one love the 'sinner' and not the 'sin'?

I know that I don't hate homosexuals and I believe that God sees no difference in whether the sin is a homosexual one in nature, a heterosexual one in nature or a lie. (the consequences in this life are certainly different)

I do not care what heterosexuals or homosexuals do in their bedroom To force my acceptance or tacit approval amounts to their 'ecclesiastical' interpretation being forced upon me and my children.

The present age is characterized by a concern for "tolerance" and "inclusiveness" regarding differing beliefs and opinions-with one glaring exception. Those who hold to traditional views about marriage and human sexuality are increasingly being targeted by homosexual activists and their supporters. Those who hold to traditional values in public schools, universities, government, and in the workplace are increasingly being persecuted for expressing their Constitutionally-protected religious beliefs and refusing to accept the radical homosexual agenda.

Elmers Brother said...

I'm sure most people would agree that the will of the people should be followed (such as in this case, it was put to a referendum) vice some judicial activism

Anonymous said...

The will of the people as interpreted by their elected REPRESENTATIVES should prevail in most instances.

We do not have–––nor SHOULD we have–––a direct democracy–––a faulty phenomenon that invariably ends in TYRANNY.

The genius of the Founding Fathers lay in their understanding that "the mere whim of the vulgar populace" should not be permitted in and of itself to make policy.

Neither did the Founders intend that we live under an Imperial Judicial Oligarchy, as we do now, because Legislators have abdicated their responsibility to the people, while allowing Jurists to usurp the power of the legislature.

This de facto form of government is ILLEGITIMATE, but apparently no one in authority has the courage to stand up and say so.

Direct democracy (a polite term for Mob Rule) is ILLEGITIMATE.

Judicial Oligarchy is ILLEGITIMATE.

Yet, who will rid us of these presumptuous bastards?

~ FreeThinke

Elmers Brother said...

well no one is for mob rule but I would hardly call the results of an election mob rule

Anonymous said...

Sorry, Elbro, but "the people" as a whole don't get to vote directly on issues like that. Elections are held to "hire" REPRESENTATIVES in the LEGISLATURES to make decisions of that sort FOR the people.

The direct democracy you seem to advocate (i.e. simple majority rule) is, as the famous analogy says, the moral equivalent of two wolves and a lamb deciding what's to be eaten for dinner.

By the way, since the vast majority are relatively poor, if we did have direct democracy, we'd soon vote the nation straight into Bankruptcy and Third World Status, because of the "Robin hood" mentality that is always popular among the Have-Nots.

We're perilously close to that already with a character like Obama achieving such popularity with the ignorant, unthinking mobs out there.

We all need to be careful what we wish for. The Law of Unintended Consequences is always at work.

~ FreeThinke

Elmers Brother said...

By the way, since the vast majority are relatively poor, if we did have direct democracy, we'd soon vote the nation straight into Bankruptcy and Third World Status, because of the "Robin hood" mentality that is always popular among the Have-Nots.

A government of the people by the people for the people.

Sorry but calling the people too stupid to decide these things doesnt make a decision decided 'by the people' enough of a reason for judicial tyrrany.

and elections are on the whole primarily decided on the 'majority'.

I'm sorry you don't seem to care for what the people decided (believe me I understand what a republic is), but representatives tend to listen to majority's. They're kind of funny that way. Some elitist deciding what the majority wants only works as long as he enjoys a 'majority' vote come election day.

Anonymous said...

I wonder if Rogers and Hammerstein realized the broader implications of this lovely song when they wrote The King and I? I have a feeling they did. (Remember how they slipped You've Got to be Taught" into South Pacific against the better judgment of the producer?)

We kiss in the shadows,
We hide from the moon,
Our meetings are few,
And over too soon.

We speak in a whisper,
Afraid to be heard;
When people are near,
We speak not a word.

Alone in our secret,
Together we sigh,
For one smiling day to be free
To kiss in the sunlight
And say to the sky:
"Behold and believe what you see!
Behold how my lover loves me!"

America never thought of R&H as a pair of subversives, but they sure weren't in love with the status quo of their time.

Making pointed criticisms of the Power Structure veiled in exotic or mythical settings goes back at least as far as the the Versailles of Louis XIV. Gilbert and Sullivan were famous for it.

Sadly, we hurl our brickbats without anything resembling wit or subtlety today. Maybe that's why we of a conservative disposition are so appalled at the sheer grossness of it all?

~ FreeThinke

Z said...

You could be right, but that song exactly fit the context of the two lovers in THE KING AND I, too.

"I feel pretty, I feel pretty and witty and gay..." was about being happy and frivolously cheerful, but that could be said to have been subversive, too!

"You've got to be taught" also fit the show, but it sure did have implications that applied across the board!

Anonymous said...


Most REALLY good work is meant to be interpreted and enjoyed on many different levels.

There's always so much more in poems, essays and novels than the OSTENSIBLE reason for their appearance.

"I Feel Pretty" has no dark side or hidden meanings to it that I can see, even though both words and music were written by prominent gay men, which was certainly NOT the case with Rogers and Hammerstein.


Z said...

I don't believe that, just because the lyrics CAN be given other meanings, a song like "We Kiss in the Shadows", when it perfectly fits a libretto, can necessarily be attributed to another meaning like gay love. I just don't. Sure, it definitely DOES have lyrics which can be taken that way, but I'd be highly crazed if I wrote a great libretto and had people suggest songs had such different meanings, I really would.

The only thing I brought up "I FEEL PRETTY" for is the lyric I meantioned.."..and GAAAAY". That's not GAY love, that's happy/gay. no secret meaning there.

Anonymous said...

Z, whatever you firmly believe just HAS to be the truth. There's no point in arguing about it.

The great trouble with living in this world is that nearly everyone feels just that way about THEIR personal convictions, but rarely do any two people perfectly agree on anything.

Result: Often we just have to agree to disagree, and let it go at that.

If I can't see what you see, and vice versa, we should not berate one another over our differences in perception.

When it comes right down to it, however, I doubt very much if Mr. Bumble's famous, oft-quoted opinion of The Law had anything whatsoever to do with homosexuality either.

But let's not quibble.

May all things bright and beautiful come your way today and always.

~ FreeThinke

Z said...

FT. Where have I ever said you have to believe anything I say I don't believe? Please show me.

I think you'll have a rough time finding it. Why must I agree with you?

This is my blog and I will never berate anyone here.

Anonymous said...


I think I may not be saying what I want to say clearly enough. In which case I apologize.

No one has to agree with anyone, but there comes a time in every exchange when it's obvious that neither side is persuading the other to change its mind even a hair. When that happens, I believe it's time to agree to disagree and then move on.

Write me at home when you have moment. Lots going on right now that'd be inappropriate to share here.


Z said...

we don't have to change others' ideas here, that's no the point. Just hearing other ways of thinking is always goood.