I was going to write a post about the Alabama legislator proposing a law cutting public funding for any books that “promote homosexuality”, which would include nonfiction books that suggest homosexuality is acceptable and fiction novels with gay characters, and public school textbooks couldn’t present homosexuality as a genetic trait and public libraries couldn’t offer books with gay or bisexual characters… but Neil Gaiman has already done the work. Go.
• 
eclark1849 wrote…
But I cringe at the use of the word “prediction” when in comes to its use in connection with science.
I see what you’re saying, but it’s hard to come up with a better definition than “To state, tell about, or make known in advance, especially on the basis of special knowledge.”
Science would be the means of obtaining the “special knowledge” needed.
Churches should ALL lose Tax-Exempt status, they’re so deeply involved in politics anyway.
I’ve never understood this type of reasoning, and it might just be that I come from a background where the churches played a important role in helping me and a lot of other blacks secure our civil rights. It was one of the few places where blacks were allowed to meet in any great number without reprisal until word of what was going on in the churches got back to those who disapproved.
The church is nothing more than a meeting place, but everybody in that church, synagoue, or mosque DOES pay taxes, and their rights shouldn’t have to stop at the door.
Given the current political trend in America and the kinds of justices the Bush is likely to appoint, I’d say Roe v. Wade is more likely to be overturned first.
Interesting topic for another time. I am not sure it will actually happen, at least not in a true reversal where abortion is considered illegal. I could see the the “right to privacy” part struck down, and the matter being returned to the states for a vote. And recent polls show more than 50% want to keep abortion at least an option. Bottom line, while there is no doubt that the “status quo” might change, I am not sure it actually means abortion will return to being illegal. We will see what actually happens.
Jim in Iowa
This will probably shock you, Jim, but I agree that Roe v. Wade was improperly decided and is an improper application of the right to privacry, but, as you said, a topic for another day.
This will probably shock you, Jim, but I agree that Roe v. Wade was improperly decided and is an improper application of the right to privacry, but, as you said, a topic for another day.
I would admit I am surprised, but you have been consistent in your other arguments, so I am not shocked.
Jim in Iowa
Ok, here is a link that will probably confirm for some of you that most of the nation is “stupid.” A Newsweek poll showed 79% believe in a literal virgin birth. While I believe in the virgin birth, I would never have said that I had that many who would agree with me. I would suggest this is not simply a matter of ignorance or stupidity, but a reflection that the majority of this country believe in a supernatural reality.
Here is the info from Newsweek:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6650997/site/newsweek/
Jim in Iowa
So what?
I do a lot for my family but I can’t claim tax-exempt status, why should they?
There’s no good reason for churches to NOT pay taxes. They want to be part or America and American life? Then they should pay the same costs as the rest of us.
There’s no good reason for churches to NOT pay taxes. They want to be part or America and American life? Then they should pay the same costs as the rest of us.
Pay taxes on what? Any “profit” made by a church for any unrelated business they engage in is taxed. Employees of the church are taxed. The main tax exemption is for property taxes and for donations given to the organization/church/synagogue/mosque/etc. This is the same as for any other charitable organization. The desire is to allow the maximum amount of the donation to go to the work of the organization. It would be absurd to tax donations to the Red Cross so that disaster victims get less. Churches offer free services to the community, and by not taxing the donations, it allows the church to spend the money on the community. While the “need” is not as obvious as a disaster victim, the help it brings is no less important.
Jim in Iowa
Jim, I hope you’re still reading this, as I’ve just finished reading the long thread and there are several points you make that I would like to discuss with you.
It was mentioned more because, like today, it is a larger problem. I did not brush aside what you said about adultery. I did say that divorce happens for a lot more reasons than just adultery, so I consider no-fault divorce to actually be the larger problem. And I *would* be in favor of some changes to this law. Except for adultery and abuse, divorce should be more difficult and be seen as more of a problem.
First of all, I agree that the rate of divorce is a thing of concern. I think that the most comon cause for divorce is the existence of divorce. If it weren’t so easy to break the union, I’m sure a lot of people would think a lot harder about entering into it. However, there are a few places where I disagree with your evaluation of the situation.
My opposition to gay marriage is based on an informed conviction that gay marriage does harm to society. You disagree that it does so, but that is beside the point. That is my conviction. It does harm at a fundamental level that is different than just sexual acts outside of marriage. It does harm to the very heart of marriage itself.
You state elsewhere that this is your informed opinion. But I have yet to see a single argument about how gay marriage does harm at a undamental level. Either to socierty or to marriage itself.
Gay marriage is a different animal than adultery. It IS possible for adultery to be made legally legitimate. For example, if a judge were to rule that adultery was NOT a justifiable grounds for divorce, it would be making it legitimate. That is what is happening with gay marriage. It is taking a private act and making it something with legal standing.
OK, you’re saying that the fact that adultery is a justifiable ground for divorce is the one thing that’s keeping it from being legally legitimate? In that case a sexual disfunction is legally ilegitimate?
I make the distinction because I have seen marriages pulled apart simply because a spouse decides, I don’t love him (or her) anymore.” There are a lot more reasons for divorce than just adultery. Furthermore, I have seen marriages survive adultery and actually become better. Adultery does not have to mean the end of a marriage provided the guilty party actually changes his (or her) ways.
So is it your position that it’s preferable for a couple who doesn’t love each other anymroe remain unhapily married, beign miserable and providing a hostile enviroment for their children than being divorced and maybe finding happiness, just because the only reason for divorce is that lack of love?
No, it would not. If gay marriage did become law, it might end up being a good idea to protect churches from the lawsuits that I know will come when they refuse to accept or conduct gay marriages.
You keep stating that passing a law to allow gay marriage will put pressure on churchs to marry gay people. This is simply not true. We need to diferentiate between the legal act of mariage, which is the purview of the state, and which is what would be affected by such a law and the religious ceremonies of marriage which, as others have mentioned before, already eclude on a lot of reasons (starting with being of the faith of the church). Are there many law-suits from atheist whom churches are refusing to marry? Because if there aren’t I don’t see much reason to expect this will change.
But my opposition comes from more than just a theological standpoint. From a sociological viewpoint I think gay unions will undermine the value and culture of the family.
How? I keep hearing this a lot yet I have yet to hear an actual argument of how this would happen. Redefining who could vote (be it women or african-americans) did not undermine the people who could already vote. Sure, it made them afraid because they were losing power (which was used for repression), and that is what I see as the true basis for all the “undermining” arguments. If I decide to get married to a guy it will in no way, shape or form, undermine your marriage to your wife. If I were gay, I wouldn’t go marrying a woman anyway, so it’s not like it’s affecting ANY potential man-woman marriage.
Let me add this: If over 50% of the nation voted for this to be made the law, I would accept it as law (as long as it did not require my church or my pastors to accept or perform gay marriages within our church). But if this is simply the act of an activist court, I would oppose it. The reality is, as this debate has shown, this issue deals with far more than gay marriage. It deals fundamentally with the concept of what is right and wrong, and with the concept of the role of the church and the state. There are enormous changes being made that are NOT based on democracy but on a minority forcing their will on the majority. That will only cause a deeping of what has been called the “culture wars.”
I might be way off-base here. But doesnt’ the above pretty much describe the Civil Rights Movement, the Women’s Right’s movement, and so on? In every case of revolutions which we aknowledge as a good thing, the majority WAS against it at the time.
What would Jesus do today with someone who is gay? The same thing he did then: He would love the person but would not hesitate to tell them to quit sinning. If you disagree, show me just one example where Jesus did not deal with sin and a sinner in this manner. If we are using Jesus as our example, then lets be honest about how he actually is recorded as acting. Otherwise, you are equally making him into what you want him to be as you accused the other writers of scripture of having done.
Mechants in the temple?
Marriage is not simply an arrangement created by the government. It came about naturally. Whether you believe in evolution or creation, either view would support the idea that marriage, meaning a commitment between the biological father and mother to raise a child, has existed long before any religion or government chose to “bless” such an arrangement.
That is incorrect. The idea of marriage, or even of tying one woman to one man came about with the advent of private property. Before that the tribes lived all comunaly, and no one knew who the father of anyone was (thy obviously knew who the mother was). That is pretty much the natural state of man. Just like the rest of the animal kingdom. Once private property was established however, men wanted to be sure that theiy would be passing it on to their offspring, not someone else’s, hence the idea of a “nuclear” family. to keep track of private property.
Gay marriage would change the importance of traditional marriage.
How? What about traditional marriage ties it’s value intrinsically to the fact that gay people can not get married? Why does the legitimacy of the institution lie in an exclusion? Im my view the importance of marriage lies in what it IS, what it entails, not what it isn’t.
I do have a secondary reason for my opposition. It is clear that there is a larger agenda behind the desire to make it legal. I believe it is meant by some to force churches to accept homosexuality.
I’m sorry, but I have absolutely no idea how you get from point A to point B. As I stated before, any law concerning gay marriage will only affect civil marriages, carried out by the state. This has absolutely nothing to do with churches. I honestly want to know how you arrive at that conclussion, since I don’t see it.
I would disagree. The concept of monogamy has been around for a long time. It has been practiced for quite a while. The fact that some also had multiple wives does not mean there were not also some with just one wife. Most could not afford multiple wives.
How is that an argument to support monogamy as what is right? Basiccally what that says is that the only reason those people were monogamous was because they couldn’t afford other wives, not becasue they didn’t want one.
Den,
normally I would ask you over on AIM, but since this computer doesn’t have it, hope you read this:
Why don’t you think that Roe v Wade is a good application of privacy Law?
Well Al, I’m not an attorney, but the US Constitutional right of privacy is based in the 4th amendment:
“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
This amendment protects citizens from unreasonable searches of their person or property. The decision in Roe v. Wade extended this right to state that banning abortion violated a woman’s right to privacy. I don’t see it supported in the language of the amendment. A more solid legal argument would be under the equal protection clause.
Okay, So can’t we just say that Evolution is the process by which we were created, I mean doesn’t it make sense that an omniscient Supreme Being would create life that has the capability to adapt and change? Why does everything always have to be a literal biblical explanation?
A few posters have mentioned left-handed people.
My mother is left-handed and she grew in the
thirties. A boneheaded teacher crushed her by
trying to “cure” her of being left-handed. It’s not too different from what society does to gay
and lesbian people today. People like Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson and that idiot legislator in Alabama are just bigots and bullies. They twist selected scripture passages to their own ends. You just can’t deal with the fact that you hate people for being who God made them to be>
Jim in Iowa: “I would disagree on one level. IF you could choose between being raised by TWO parents who DO love each other and love you, would you not agree that is a better arrangement than being raised by your mom and with only a distant support from your dad?“
Ok, Jim, I’ll bite, if those “TWO parents who Do love each other and love [the child]” just happened to be two men or two women, exactly what is the problem?
You can argue that one man/one woman might be the ideal situation for raising a child, but I think that having a child raised in any loving and caring enviornment (be it one man/one woman, two men or two women, or single parents, or even being raised by extended family) where they’re nurtured and raised to be a loving and caring person is the ideal situation.
I agree with Den. The Roe opinion reached the political settlement that I would have chosen, but it did a very poor job of explaining how the heck you get to that settlement from a right to privacy. It basically boiled down to “the woman’s right to privacy and the state’s right to protect future life are both important, so there has to be a balance and here’s the line we’re drawing.” The opinion begins by acknowledging that there is no explicit right to privacy within the Constitution. However, because there are several provisions in the Constitution that would be consistent with a privacy right, the opinion concludes that there must be some privacy right in whose penumbra the enumerated rights exist. This is a common law rationale applied to a statutory scheme (i.e. the Constitution) or, as they say in philosophy circles, a category mistake.
It doesn’t help that the proposed privacy right emanates from the Due Process Clause. The chimera of “substantive due process” (yes, substantive process) is an artifact of a nineteenth-century case from which the Supreme Court has been retreating for decades without being willing to overrule; the Privileges and Immunities clause of the Fourteenth Amendment has been held to be almost empty of meaning, but the rights that most observers would believe to be privileges of immunities of US citizens have been snuck through the back door of the Due Process Clause. To reiterate, this has not been helpful.
In short, Roe was a poorly written and badly reasoned opinion that set national abortion policy by Supreme Court fiat. The unimportant fact that I like the political settlement that Justice Blackmun shoved down all our throats doesn’t make the opinion itself any less of a train wreck. The fact that I would like there to be a right to privacy in the Constitution doesn’t help Blackmun’s logic escape inanity. I wrote earlier that there are no major cases in which any statute has been struck down as violative of the Ninth Amendment. This could have been the one. The US District Court in Roe actually tried that tack, but the Supreme Court veered away from it. Had they tried to write a principled defense of a right to privacy based in the Ninth Amendment, the Court would have had my respect and possibly my backing; there would still be debates, but at least it would escape the appearance of being naked result-oriented judicial lawmaking, because at least the Ninth Amendment seems to invite some degree of judicial lawmaking if done respectfully and carefully. This form of weaselry has neither my respect nor my support.
What would Jesus do today with someone who is gay? The same thing he did then: He would love the person but would not hesitate to tell them to quit sinning. If you disagree, show me just one example where Jesus did not deal with sin and a sinner in this manner. If we are using Jesus as our example, then lets be honest about how he actually is recorded as acting. Otherwise, you are equally making him into what you want him to be as you accused the other writers of scripture of having done.
Mechants in the temple?
I think his righteous anger in that situation was justified. Furthermore, it was NOT a sinner coming to him. It was him coming upon sinners who were harming others and he took action to stop it. Good example, but I would argue a far different context. (If Jesus came across someone harming a child, he would not have just politely said “stop it.” He would have taken action. There is a difference when you come across sin against another person “in the act.”)
Marriage is not simply an arrangement created by the government. It came about naturally. Whether you believe in evolution or creation, either view would support the idea that marriage, meaning a commitment between the biological father and mother to raise a child, has existed long before any religion or government chose to “bless” such an arrangement.
That is incorrect. The idea of marriage, or even of tying one woman to one man came about with the advent of private property. Before that the tribes lived all comunaly, and no one knew who the father of anyone was (thy obviously knew who the mother was). That is pretty much the natural state of man. Just like the rest of the animal kingdom. Once private property was established however, men wanted to be sure that theiy would be passing it on to their offspring, not someone else’s, hence the idea of a “nuclear” family. to keep track of private property.
Just where, exactly, do you get the idea that we lived communally as you describe? I know it has been suggested, but it is by no means proven. On the contrary, marriage arrangements are attested to quite early in history. But this will lead to a long debate about evolution, and that has already been done ad naseum on this site.
In regards to your other comments, I have given what I feel are very real and legitimate reasons why gay marriage is destructive. We will have to just disagree since you don’t think they have merit. I won’t just rehearse them over again since they have not changed and I have not seen anything to convince me my reasons are wrong.
Jim in Iowa
Gene Hall,
I’m glad you brought this topic up. I always noticed my father has pretty lousy penmanship. Then I noticed he wrote with his right hand instead of his left, and he told me the reason was that the NUNS at the Catholic school he went to felt that being left-handed was not “normal”. So if he tried to write with his left hand, he would be whacked across the knuckles with a ruler. Needless to say, he “learned” to write with his right hand.
This was quite common.
So I know firsthand how inane organized religion can appear to be.
And I still say all this time, effort, energy and political capital being spent on gay marriage could be spent on many other liberal causes, like saving the rainforest, ending the drug war, etc.
You’re like the Kingpin in the “Born Again” storyline. You’ve won. Homosexuals are all over the tube. AIDS research has been increased tremendously. Even president Bush aproves of civil unions, and many cities and corporations extend benefits to gay couples as they do heterosexual couples.
But you’re obsessed with defining it as gay “marriage”, common sense, patience and the will of the people be dámņëd. And you have already incurred a backlash, and will consider to do so for the forseeable future.
Yet you don’t see
A.) What you already have
B.) What you are risking losing.
Believe me when I say this. I have gay friends. ot one of them is as obsesses about it as some of the people on this board. They’re happy.
I live within this man’s district and went to high school with two of his children.
It’s quite unfortunate for me to have a “representative” who would go to such lengths to censor material.
I am saddened and disgusted by Mr. Allen’s actions.
They’re happy.
Yet they don’t necessarily have the benefits in teh example you described, nor the ability to marry (in 49 out of 50 states).
I have to wonder whether you just assume they are happy, because your gay friends certainly don’t speak for all gays.
Even president Bush aproves of civil unions
He SAYS he does. You’ll forgive me if I have some serious doubts in that regard, given that he’s publicly supported schools which frown on INTERRACIAL relationships, let alone same-sex ones.
I’ll believe he’s being truthful when he takes some actual actions in support of civil unions — he’s said an awful lot of things which wind up disappearing when push comes to shove.
(Jim and others, I’ll try to post some sort of responses to things you said earlier in the thread sometime, but this is a crazy week at school –it may not happen for a while.)
TWL
To say Bush supports civil unions is not accurate. What he has said is that states could have the right to recognize civil unions for gays (but not marriage), so long as other states weren’t forced to recognized them.
In regards to your other comments, I have given what I feel are very real and legitimate reasons why gay marriage is destructive. We will have to just disagree since you don’t think they have merit. I won’t just rehearse them over again since they have not changed and I have not seen anything to convince me my reasons are wrong.
I’ve been lurking on PAD’s site for quite some time now, Jim, and I’ve yet to see you provide a single argument against gay marriage that wasn’t entirely rooted in your personal religious convictions. And personal religious conviction is, unfortunately for you, totally irrelevant and inadmissible in any debate. You want to prove that gay marriage can and does have a detrimental impact on society? Then actually do it. Come up with some solid evidence that actually supports your hypothesis. Give us cold hard FACTS, not arbitrary faith. Give us statistics, psychological studies, documented cases where gay marriage has somehow “hurt” society.
Your faith clearly means alot to you, but faith means absolutely jack squat in a debate like this.
(Jim and others, I’ll try to post some sort of responses to things you said earlier in the thread sometime, but this is a crazy week at school –it may not happen for a while.)
You mean some of you have a real life and don’t just sit in front of your computer all day? 😉
No problem. You probably are doing something that will help you more in life than just debating on this thread.
Jim in Iowa
Jim,
Mechants in the temple?
I think his righteous anger in that situation was justified. Furthermore, it was NOT a sinner coming to him. It was him coming upon sinners who were harming others and he took action to stop it. Good example, but I would argue a far different context. (If Jesus came across someone harming a child, he would not have just politely said “stop it.” He would have taken action. There is a difference when you come across sin against another person “in the act.”)
So if he came across to gay men kissing he would go and break that up? Just to clarify, I’m not saying Jesus would bash gays. I don’t think he would. Just providing the example you asked for.
Just where, exactly, do you get the idea that we lived communally as you describe? I know it has been suggested, but it is by no means proven. On the contrary, marriage arrangements are attested to quite early in history. But this will lead to a long debate about evolution, and that has already been done ad naseum on this site.
You are right, that statement is based on evolution (and anthropology). Of course, if you beleive we came into being in the Garden of Eden where Adam and Eve were basically married, then we can’t really discuss it as we’re parting from two different premises.
In regards to your other comments, I have given what I feel are very real and legitimate reasons why gay marriage is destructive. We will have to just disagree since you don’t think they have merit. I won’t just rehearse them over again since they have not changed and I have not seen anything to convince me my reasons are wrong.
You really haven’t. Nor have I said they’re without merit, “defend them!” You have repeatedly stated that gay marriage would undermine regular marriage without ever once stating why that is. I just asked you in what way gay marriage would accomplish this. I’m not even trying to convince you your reasons are wrong since you have yet to give the reason.
There was also the part about adultery being legally not legitimized because it’s grounds for divorce. Or the point where I ask you if you think it’s better to have a loveless marriage just so the institution is preserved? (something that would most certainly create a harmful enviroment for the kid). You have not answered any of these, and if you have please just point me to where you did, because I’m geninuely interested in reading them.
There are a few things I wanted to write at the end of the last post, but due to it’s legth I forgot. First, while we might disagree on pretty much every single point 8but not all), I find you to be an intelligent person who can argue in an articulate and respecful manner, which is why I’m trying to start a dialogue with you (as opposed to responding to the trolls or just those who will jsut shout their opinion and not hear any arguments).
Also, while I’m usualyl confident in my english, when engaging in deeper debate I do feel a little insecure sometimes, fearing I can’t get my points across as clearly as I would like. So I apologize for any mistakes caused due to my grasp of your language.
WOW! I go away for a few days and look at it. WHEEEEEE! O.K. Let’s answer some stuff.
JiminIowa “Let me put it this way. Your example can be true of a single parent, of two parents of the same gender, or in a “traditional” marriage. The parenting arrangement alone does not guarantee that the parents will raise the child with love and respect. On the other hand, I do suggest that does not mean we should not strive for what is clearly best for the child, which is a loving mother AND father raising a child.”
PROVE that it’s what’s best for the child Jim. Give me statistics and facts and figures not just your belief. PROVE it. In your own sentence, you actually contradict yourself IMO,”The parenting arrangement ALONE DOES NOT GUARANTEE that the parents will raise the child with love and respect,” but yet, you want us to judge it as being right BECAUSE it’s supposed too?
Most would say that the children would get teased about having a same sex parentage and they’re just trying to protect the children. BULL. Let’s face it, kids are cruel because they haven’t learned the social “norm” yet. They tease kids for being fat, wearing glasses, being poor and not having a Mother/Father.. They’re going to be teased about something, NO MATTER WHAT. A good parent can help their child through that and help them deal with it. And in ALL actuality, if kids didn’t learn fear and hatred from their own family, this might not happen either. I agree that kids ARE the future, so why don’t we help teach them tolerance NOW? Wait…that would probably eliminate the argument against it, my bad.
“Pay taxes on what? Any “profit” made by a church for any unrelated business they engage in is taxed. Employees of the church are taxed. The main tax exemption is for property taxes and for donations given to the organization/church/synagogue/mosque/etc.”
And NONE of those charities (as a whole) have endorsed any candidate now, have they? For a church to be able to back a candidate, they would have to be expressing an opinion, a right that is granted to the citizens of the United States. Those are people that pay taxes and have Social security cards so they can get benefits from said taxes. Meaning the church, to be a legal person in the eyes of the system, would have to pay taxes. If you want a church to be able to support legislature and candidates then they need to pay taxes for that right. Business do it and they are a LEGAL entity becasue of it. Sorry. It’s just the right thing to do. Go to it!
“What would Jesus do today with someone who is gay?”
has said about homosexuality….wait…here…no wait, I’m sorry, I can’t find it because Jesus DIDN’T say anything. Never has.
“A few posters have mentioned left-handed people.”
O.K. let me clear what I meant when I posted it. Apparently, I didn’t make it clear and I apologize for that. If you look at what I wrote, it said basically, If you’re using NATURE to mean the MAJORITY (as in, it’s not natural because MOST people don’t do it) then neither is being left-handed.
Not saying that being left handed is against any notions in reality but just using peoples own arguments against them.
eclark “The church is nothing more than a meeting place, but everybody in that church, synagogue, or mosque DOES pay taxes, and their rights shouldn’t have to stop at the door.”
So, you’re willing to deny people the ability to have a civil union by law and deny them their rights, but you don’t want the same thing done to you?
Again, their rights SHOULD stop at the door of the church because the church doesn’t pay taxes. I explained the reasoning earlier in this post.
If you want to go with the taxes thing, let’s go with this:
1.)Homosexual pay taxes that are used to send other peoples kids to schools. Kids they cannot adopt in states because they frown on single parents adopting a child and they can’t have a “civil union” because it is not recognized, so they can’t have a child that way. WHY should they pay taxes that support the schools?
I can hear it now:”Becuase they used tax dollars to go to school themselves.”
O.K. fine, but they only went to school for what, 12 years? So does that mean they can stop paying by the time they’re thirty? I think that’s fair.(I ALSO think this is fair for straight people too. Pay taxes on schools for the amount of years you went.)
2.)Gay people cannot be in the armed services openly. So, why pay taxes to support the armed forces?
“Because they protect the homosexuals too.”
Not if they can’t be gay and open about it. What are they protecting for homosexuals? I worked on the Navy base in Great Lakes as a DJ, BELIEVE me, you should be thankful that the “don’t ask don’t tell” policy is in place. Just about, if not half the people I met there were gay or bisexual. And AFTER 9/11 the ones that went AWOL were usually straight kids.
Just looking for answers,
Larry
If two parents are better than one (which USUALLY [but not always] they are), then why does the gender of the two matter? Or for that matter, why not three or four? Ultimately, if all spouses know each other and agree to the arrangement, then 4 or 6 parents would be 2 or 3 times better than just 2!
Who is the “you” in the title?
I bloody hate that.
I think there’s some deliberate confusion of conservatives with fascists, but I’ll never know.
I know that I’m not banning books in Alabama or refusing to fund or procure books in Alabama, but I am sure that if I were asked to fund or procure books in Alabama I dámņ well wouldn’t, because I live in Michigan.
That’s not censorship.
End Communication.