"Only dull people are brilliant at breakfast"
-Oscar Wilde		 Brilliant at Breakfast title banner "The liberal soul shall be made fat, and he that watereth, shall be watered also himself."
-- Proverbs 11:25
"...you have a choice: be a fighting liberal or sit quietly. I know what I am, what are you?" -- Steve Gilliard, 1964 - 2007

"For straight up monster-stomping goodness, nothing makes smoke shoot out my ears like Brilliant@Breakfast" -- Tata

"...the best bleacher bum since Pete Axthelm" -- Randy K.

"I came here to chew bubblegum and kick ass. And I'm all out of bubblegum." -- "Rowdy" Roddy Piper (1954-2015), They Live
Friday, May 18, 2012

Here's "Biblical marriage", Mr. Romney
Posted by Jill | 6:08 AM
It was hilarious to watch Willard Rmoney (sic) last weekend affirming before the hatemongers-in-training at Liberty University that marriage is between one man and onw woman. For one thing, that one man and one woman are going to be awfully busy excluding the rest of us. For another, this is pretty amazing coming from a guy whose great-grandfather had five wives and great-great grandfather may have had twelve. But aside from "the Mormon thing", the idea that Biblical marriage looks like Mitt Romney's is ridiculous, as pointed out in Religion Dispatches:
Abraham had two wives, Sarah and her handmaiden Hagar. King Solomon had 700 wives, plus 300 concubines and slaves. Jacob, the patriarch who gives Israel its name, had two wives and two concubines. In a humanist vein, Exodus 21:10 warns that when men take additional wives, they must still provide for their previous one. (Exodus 21:16 adds that if a man seduces a virgin and has sex with her, he has to marry her, too.)

But that’s not all. In biblical society, when you conquered another city, tribe, or nation, the victorious men would “win” their defeated foes’ wives as part of the spoils. It also commanded levirate marriage, the system wherein, if a man died, his younger brother would have to marry his widow and produce heirs with her who would be considered the older brother’s descendants. Now that’s traditional marriage!

Later Islamic and Jewish sources, unclear on these parameters (the prophet Muhammad, of course, had several wives), debated whether it is permissible for a man to marry a three- or four-year-old girl. St. Paul, meanwhile, said that marriage was a compromise between the ideal of celibacy and the unfortunate fact that people like to have sex. Fortunately, we pluralists can appreciate both those religious traditions which advise men to marry little girls and those which tell them not to marry anyone at all.

And of course, even until the present day, traditional marriage has meant arranged marriage. The notion that two adults would enter into a marriage on their own volition is a radical innovation in the institution of marriage, at most two hundred years old.

Oh, and let’s not forget that in Europe and North America, marriage was considered a commercial proposition first and foremost—not a romantic one. Princes married princesses not because of fairy tales, but because their parents had political alliances to consider. Further down the economic ladder, people married for a variety of biological, commercial, and genealogical reasons—but rarely for love. (See Stephanie Coontz’s excellent Marriage, a History for more.)

[snip]

So, let’s see if I can total all this up. Traditional marriage is one man with multiple wives, multiple concubines, wives conquered in war and wives acquired in levirate marriage, possibly including girls under the age of ten, but definitely not including anyone of a different ethnic group, in an arranged marriage with disposition of property as its purpose. That seems very different from “one man, one woman,” does it not?

And that's even BEFORE we get to Newt Gingrich.

Perhaps the best place to turn on this is the inimitable Mr. Colbert:

Labels: , , ,

2 comments
Bookmark and Share
Thursday, November 17, 2011

Perhaps he thinks "a girl" will be easier for him to beat up
Posted by Jill | 6:41 AM
Oh for cryin' out loud.

Dear Leader Pelosi,

After reading about House Minority Whip Steny Hoyers' outburst over my "Overhauling Washington" plan, I wonder if his obstructionism reflects your own opposition a

nd that of the Democratic Caucus to urgent reforms the American public so vehemently demand. After increasing the debt by $4 trillion in less than three years, no one can truly believe that Americans are satisfied with business as usual, and that a permanent political class in Washington can get us out of the mess you and your colleagues have created.

A part-time Congress with half the pay would still make $38,000 a year more than the average American Family. Do you truly oppose lawmakers spending more time in their districts? Is it so important for the Washington power brokers to build their fiefdoms of influence, including providing bailouts to Wall Street while businesses on Main Street are being boarded up every day?

[snip]

Let me conclude with an invitation: I am in Washington Monday and would love to engage you in a public debate about my Overhaul Washington plan versus the congressional status quo.

I think it would be a tremendous service to the American public to see a public airing of those differences. Let the people decide.

If Monday doesn't work, perhaps we could find a time in Iowa over the course of the next month to discuss these issues in front of the people of America's heartland.

Should you choose not to respond or engage in such a healthy discussion, I will take it to mean you will continue your obstructionist ways in the face of much needed Washington reform.

Sincerely,

Rick Perry
Governor of Texas


Does Rick Perry even know that Nancy Pelois is not running for the presidency? For that matter, has anyone told Rick Perry that Nancy Pelosi is now the MINORITY leader in the house? Perhaps Mr. Perry should be giving John Boehner a call and ask HIM for a public debate? After all, Boehner has been in charge of the House almost a year now, and is one of those "insiders" to which Perry is referring. And for that matter, has anyone ever told Rick Perry that a president can't just wave a wand and make sweeping changes to the structure of Congress by executive order? Or does he confuse a president with a king? With Rick Perry, it's difficult to tell, because his appalling level of stupidity indicates that he clearly slept through civics class.

Labels: ,

1 comments
Bookmark and Share
Thursday, November 10, 2011

Dear God Let Us Have No More Talk Of This Man For President Please.
Posted by Jill | 5:35 AM

Labels: , ,

5 comments
Bookmark and Share
Wednesday, August 24, 2011

Best. Freudian. Slip. Ever.
Posted by Jill | 7:41 PM
Give a Republican enough of an opportunity, and he'll reveal himself every time. Listen carefully to what Rick Perry says 16 seconds into this video:



Labels: , , ,

0 comments
Bookmark and Share