Thursday Highlights

Good morning. Well, I forgot to post mileage from my trip earlier this week. 280 miles … 64mpg (3.7 l/100km).

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>


  1. Justificatory liberalism.

    For, in their minds, the state is unjust if it denies citizens the opportunity to marry whomever they choose, particularly when the state’s denial is based on an understanding of human sexuality inexorably tied to a source of authority that gay citizens reject. Meanwhile, opponents of same-sex marriage see injustice in the state’s coercing them to embrace a policy that they maintain is deleterious of social justice and the public good.

    That may be the most ridiculous false equivalence I’ve ever seen. First, nobody is coercing anybody to embrace anything. You are free to oppose gay marriage until the end of time, even if it becomes legal. Second, this argument could be used about literally any civil rights issue. Actually for the other civil rights issues, there was much more coercion. Slave masters were coerced into giving up their “right” to “own” human beings. Segregationists were “coerced” into desegregation. By contrast, literally nobody would be “coerced” into doing anything for gay marriage. Churches wouldn’t have to perform them, homophobes wouldn’t have to attend them, nobody would even have to say nice things about them.

  2. Mark says:

    And Catholic run adoption agencies would not be coerced into accepting gay adopters?

  3. And Catholic run adoption agencies would not be coerced into accepting gay adopters?

    Sounds like a separate issue. We can have gay marriage without forcing Catholic-run adoption agencies to place children in need of homes into homes.

  4. Boonton says:

    And Catholic run adoption agencies would not be coerced into accepting gay adopters?

    1. No.

    2. If this is/was the issue then why prop 8? Simply because gay marriage is no longer legal creates no law requiring gay couple be prohibited from adopting nor would it require the state to allow adoption agencies to discriminate against gays. Likewise the existence of a legal marriage is not a requirement that adoption agencies give the couple a child. There are plenty of legally married couples who would not qualify for adoption.

  5. Boonton says:

    I find it amusing that the article equates protesting with intolerance. Is this what right-wing victimology has come too? If you want to play in the political sphere then you have to take your licks as well as give them.