I am not sure why people who are not involved in a given relationship between two consenting adults need to have anything to say about the who, what , why and where. Usually they call people who go around snooping in other people's houses "peeping toms' or perhaps now we need to include "peeping karens" in this day and age. I guess some people are so afraid of themselves that they feel the need to regulate others so they don't have to face their own fears.
And far too often we read reports of people working in Congress and especially the priests and pastors and other religious right thinkers being caught in one kind of sexual illegality or another. Governments and churches owned/run/operated and controlled by old, weak-minded sexually frustrated gray-haired men. Time to send them all to the farm.
Jeri: SOME religious communities gin up that hate. Others work hard to foster openness and expanded imagery for what God created us to do with our lives. Broad brushes don't paint an accurate picture. Jesus' death and resurrection is an image of ultimate goodness sacrificing itself for others, not being defensive, not putting taboos on others, not trying to kill the enemy, not lashing out, and in the end, not dying. This is an image of what it looks like to live in a way that loves the enemy. I don't pretend to know how to do that myself. Personally, I want my enemies to be stopped. I don't want to be sacrificed by their contempt for what is good for all people. But I aspire to seek what might turn them around.
I read what you say. I know that there are some churches which are open and affirming and there are branches of another that are in danger of being torn asunder because of a difference of opinion on inclusion of the LGBTQ+ parishioners.
Religions have traditionally been far more exclusive than inclusive of LGBTQ+ people. You cannot imagine the pain of being told that “God loves you” and that because of who you love you’ll burn in hell.
What really pisses me off are the POSER CHRISTIANS, who never quote Jesus in their Buybull, but always Paul or some horrid shit from Leviticus (always cherry picked). Jesus said nothing against homosexuality. He even defended a whore. However he did say something against women who divorced & said their remarriage was Adultery (like that “christian” clerk that refused to issue gay marriage licenses – divorced multiple times). So, “christians” who cannot accept gay marriage would likely have other arguments with Jesus, starting with taking the log out of their eyes before looking for a speck in others’. “Oh Ye Hypocrites.”
So ‘they’ say she was a whore! Indeed what better way to subjugate the role of women in Jesus’ life. I sense she was probably his most loyal friend and confidant! She had to be smeared! After all can’t have a woman being a significant partner in HIH life’s work!
Matthew's Gospel attributes to Jesus the saying on divorce that you are referring to. BUT it is spoken to males: "Whoever divorces his wife, except on the grounds of porneia (sexual immorality), makes her an adulteress; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery." Women could not divorce. Men could declare divorce from their wives with a word, and the woman was out of the house, defenseless on the street. A "divorced woman" was put in that position by her husband. This saying is a defense of women and a condemnation of male power.
Ally House The ‘morality’ of the Catholic Church and evangelical ‘Christian’ churches is something that Jesus Christ would abhor. On abortion, for example, polls show that an overwhelming number of Catholics reject the Vatican’s dictates on abortion.
A resounding YES! The hypocrisy of the religionists who pick and chose HIS teachings is a kin to those who pick and choose the Amendments of the US Constitution which suits their radical beliefs, yes you Alito, Thomas and the other right wing zealots on the stench court!
Brings to mind one of my early social work posts, when a young woman, all of 18 and very pregnant, sat in my office and explained to me how she'd found her belonging in the local Pentecostal Congregation. Long story short, she found some acceptance among the younger members of the congregation, but not the older members, who told her she'd burn in hell.
But do remember Melinda, though Jesus was all of those things and could see the light in those of the lowest fringes of society, he had his limits--his biggest pet peeve being hypocrisy....
Alot of truth said. However, the Episcopalian Church is a model for how to deal with today's societal issues including same-sex. Were I to return to the Christian community it would be with the Episcopalian Church.
We can celebrate the Christian denominations that are as welcoming as the Episcopal Church, including Lutherans (ELCA) and Methodists and United Church of Christ and. . . Thoughtful and faithful people see the gospel as an expansive embrace of all people.
Christians can certainly celebrate the Gospel—The New Testament.
Sikhs, Buddhists, Hindu, B’hai Bith, Shinto, Zoasterans (so?), Earth Religions, Muslims, and Jews—and I’m sure to be missing a few of the faith traditions practiced in the US—can certainly celebrate those they revere and their holidays with equal respect.
Right on! Activists who demand basic federal gun controls are countered by rabid right-wingers raving about how the federal government should butt-out of their rights per their Holy Second Amendment. Yet they can't squeal loud enough about how the federal government should ban abortion, same sex marriage, and contraception. Here's what I have to say to them: Butt-out of my bedroom and my body!
The difference between wanting to control gun ownership vs controlling who one has sex with - think about that. Guns kill vs sex does what? Gives pleasure. Left v Right
To force a women to carry to term a pregnancy she does not want, as far as I can tell, is for no other reason than to punish her for have had sex. Any other reason is pure rationalization, saving a life = pure nonsensical rationalization.
Yes, even if she was raped. My position is very simply - who business is it. Who would know if she was pregnancy? She and her doc and the doc's business it to protect their patient - period! How does abortion become an issue if it were not for a bunch of sex abscessed mostly religious nuts. Saving babies is pure nonsense. There are plenty of babies to be saved that are not potential babies in some women's womb.
I’m equally as puzzled by a person, who chooses to raise their children with a certain set of values and obedience, demands that a law should be established so his kid won’t be tempted to stray from his teachings.
Correct! The funny thing is, is that kids grow up and they are presented with many options or different thoughts that might be coming their way. Parents simply cannot stop that information unless they literally jail their children, allowing them no access to news or learning. I will give myself as an example. I was raised Jewish in a Southern Baptist town by Holocaust victims. My sister and I were always told we will marry a Jewish guy, a doctor or a lawyer. Both of us were quite rebellious and it was the 60’s, mind you. My sister never married and is happily single. I married a Catholic boy, had 2 daughters, and have been with the same guy for 52 years. Oh and we lived together too, before marrying. My poor parents were beside themselves. My dad threatened to disown me. My mother told him “Over my dead body!”. When we had kids, they both had mellowed out and were, of course, thrilled. “Love is love.” says Biden. Doesn’t matter what color, shape, or size and/or cultural differences. All of us bleed the same color.
Back in the sixties, my widowed mother's Jewish matchmaker friend set her sights on that 44-year-old Jewish bachelor who lived with his mother. She made it her mission that this guy would marry my mother, no matter that they were of different faiths. She planned and schemed, even projected that any children born of that marriage would be known as either "Jacolic" or "Coowish!" And so it came to pass that they, indeed, wed. Best match for this pre-teen ; for he became my father. I felt whole again. And, oh, my "Coowish" sister came to be!
My dad saw both Zero Mostel and Herschel Bernardi on Broadway. He loved the musical because it reminded him of home in Poland. Loved your story about your mom and dad!❤️
Morning, Ally! There were mornings where the matchmaker and my mother would have coffee while my sister and I sat around and listened as she concocted the role we girls would play in the conspiracy!
Great family story, Marlene. As for the color of blood, here's some news for you and the rest of us.
'When you think of blood, chances are you think of the color red. But blood actually comes in a variety of colors, including red, blue, green, and purple. This rainbow of colors can be traced to the protein molecules that carry oxygen in the blood. Different proteins produce different colors.' (NIH, National Institute of General Medical Sciences)
As a retired ICU nurse I can state that when anyone bleeds it is red due to oxygen ( a bit bluish if deoxygenated). However, I had only one anatomy and physiology class, one pathophysiology class to care for every “race” of people. Outside of superficial differences we are all the same. There is one race human. As a nurse, I learned to treat all people the same to not judge but instead provide the best care that I could. If your life depended upon it would you turn down help from someone who is different from you?
"There is one race, human." Salud Molly ! That is how I've always believed. I have always believed 'race' to be one of the worse case malapropisms ever uttered. Yes; there are multitudes of ethnic backgrounds, but all within the same human race.
It’s just skin people, but haters find all kinds of “differences.” Like Jewish people have cooties? We ALL are mutts. Do a little genealogy research and get a clue. Except maybe Elon Musk. His “tree” has likely been white, rich, spoiled and entitled for eons. He exhibits all the characteristics of inbreeding with same over time. Nature loves mutts, so says one…
It would seem that it was not always so. Homo Neanderthal and Homo Erectus [a group of archaic humans who emerged at least 200,000 years ago during the Pleistocene Epoch (about 2.6 million to 11,700 years ago) and were replaced or assimilated by early modern human populations (Homo sapiens) between 35,000 and perhaps 24,000 years ago] both coexisted with Homo Sapiens. We Sapiens apparently were able to not only cohabit but also interbreed with them before we crowded them out of existence, perhaps one of the first species we extinguished. Many of us carry remnants of Neanderthal genes in our DNA. Seems the law is finally getting us back to that fundamental understanding.
'...organisms with actual blue-colored blood are far from royal. They include snails, spiders, slugs, octopuses, and squid. The protein that carries oxygen in these creatures is called hemocyanin. Instead of iron, this protein contains copper.'
'Earthbound creatures with green blood include fantastically shaped sea worms, some leeches, and earthworms. These animals have a blood protein called chlorocruorin. '
About the blood of human beings, Molly Ciliberti, 'retired ICU nurse', you are absolutely correct.
'What color is blood?'
'There’s no need to build up the suspense: Blood is red. It might vary from a bright cherry red to a dark brick red, but it’s always red.'
“If you get a cut,” says Dr. Lichtin, “red is the only color you’re going to see come out.”
'The reason? It has to do with the hemoglobin molecules within your red blood cells. Hemoglobin transports oxygen throughout your body in a fast-moving taxi system that keeps your cells and tissues operating properly.'
'Each hemoglobin molecule includes a protein called heme that contains iron. When iron reacts to oxygen, it becomes red. That interaction is what gives blood its red color.'
'Does blood change color?'
'In a way, yes — but it always stays a shade of red.'
'Blood that just loaded up on oxygen while flowing through your lungs and heart looks bright red, notes Dr. Lichtin. Your heart pumps this oxygen-rich blood to the far reaches of your body. (Fun fact: More than 60,000 miles of blood vessels run through your body.)'
'As this arterial blood flows through your circulatory system, your body pulls out the oxygen it needs. As the oxygen leaves, your blood slowly darkens. Eventually, it looks muddy red in color, says Dr. Lichtin.'
'This dark-and-depleted blood is what you see in the blueish veins just under your skin. At that point, the venous blood is headed back toward your heart and lungs for reoxygenation.'
'Your blood, by the way, goes out and back about three times a minute in this amazing process.'
'Is blood ever blue?
Back to that vein on your hand. When you look at it, there’s no denying its blue hue. “That’s an optical illusion created by how light goes through your skin and the vein wall,” explains Dr. Lichtin. “Blood is not blue.”
'Well, at least in humans. Blue blood does flow through the veins of a few living things, including horseshoe crabs and octopuses. (The blood in those animals uses a copper-containing protein called hemocyanin to carry oxygen, which explains the blue color.)'
'You can even find green blood and purple blood in the animal kingdom, primarily in worms or similar creepy crawlies. And of course, the fictional character Spock from “Star Trek” bled green … but he was Vulcan.'
'A rare condition
While we’re in the green section of the crayon box, there’s a rare condition called sulfhemoglobinemia that can tint your blood that color.'
'The disorder happens when a sulfur atom changes the chemical reaction taking place within hemoglobin. The condition is typically caused by medications with sulfur-containing compounds. Symptoms include blood that carries a dark green tint.'
'The funky color is temporary, though. As new red blood cells form, your blood changes back to a more familiar look.'
'The final word
“Blue bloods” is just a term that references a noble family lineage or a college athletic team with a history of winning. Consider it a colorful phrase — not a medical description.'
“Blood is red,” reiterates Dr. Lichtin. “There’s not much else to say.”
Thanks for that link, Fern! There is just no end to all the fascinating subjects I've encountered while hanging out with all the smart folks who follow Heather!
This is a yes and no question, because there are differences that arise from environment, experience, access, and bias. For example, maternal mortality for black women in the US is off the charts.
While we all bleed red and have the same parts in the same order, we have still not achieved health equity.
Thank you Molly; I still recall vividly the the self-cell-phone diaries of ICU nurses coming off long shifts during the first year of the CV19 pandemic; I will never forget them.
Bryan Sean McKown "OK, FERN, I will ask : RED presumably oxygenated,"
Just out of curiosity, when one has blood drawn for testing, it is always red. At what point was the oxygen added? (Well, I have never seen any color but red but YMMV.)
Ron. I am definitely NOT the Blood expert in this Community but, those little alveoli in the Lungs have something to do with it. Blood will be drawn this am. Noon Pacific Update: definitely RED.
You are my digital advocate, so I cannot tell a lie -- to you. See my update; it's right in the neighborhood. Scroll up a bit...at least it is above you on my computer screen -- nearby, Advocate Boyd.
Speaking from my 40+ years in the Chicago area major medical centers: never saw "blue" blood, it is more of a dull darker red than.fully oxygenated blood. (There is a genetic disease which I believe is centered in the Appalachian area where the people are actually blue due to some mutation in their genes, perhaps their blood is more blue?) Neither have I seen purple. I once or twice saw blood that, when anticoagulated and the rbcs settled, the serum was green (the patient had severe liver disease and did not survive). I have actually seen blood that looked like tomato soup--that was due to a person coming to the hospital with a very high WBC due to undiagnosed leukemia.
Judith you & FERN are on the right track. Per nationalzoo info, Horshoe Crabs have a different oxygen carrying protein, HEMOCYANIN, which makes their blood bright blue (abbreviated "Hc" per Wikipedia) Their blood is collected & is very expensive ($60,000/ gal.) as their bright blue blood with their immune cells are used to detect bacteria on medical implants among other medical applications.
I had read somewhere that the collecting of horseshoe crab blood has threatened the existence of horseshoe crabs although the Wikipedia article says that blood harvesting is declining and some Atlantic coast states have passed protective legislation. I was amazed that use of horseshoe crabs for bait far surpasses that of harvesting blood from them.
Growing up on Chesapeake Bay, I well remember beaches blanketed with horseshoe crabs coming onto the beaches to lay eggs. I even have a couple of tiny shells found on the beach post-molting as they grew larger, just like regular crabs.
This applies to non-humans too. They deserve love too. Not brutality for food's sake, testing for medicine's sake, plucking/combing for comfort's sake, confinement for entertainment's sake, and so on. "Doesn't matter what color, shape, or size ... all of us bleed the same color." Let's stomp out speciesism while we're stomping out isms.
Absolutely right!! And your persistence paid off, even if it had to take Grandchildren for your parents to accept your marriage. Congrats on 52 years! We are 52 in August... :) I have to put in a plug for Cornell University, where I worked at the Health Center. We had annual diversity training, ++ so we could all meet the needs of our patients, and treat them with their specific needs in mind...no matter what color, gender, sexual orientation. culture etc. We had a sex therapist to help those working through difficult problems and created an atmosphere of acceptance and safety. Maybe I've said this all before. In summary, we are all people of different walks of life, differing needs, and no one way works for all, nor should it. What a boring world it would be if that were true. Good for Joe Biden.....
This isn't a person parenting. It's a jerk seeking the force of government to allow him to run everyone around. It seems the purpose is to ensure that other peoples' children in the neighborhood won't stray from his teachings.
Contraception medications are frequently used for a purpose other than contraception. Some women and girls have serious and painful problems with menstruation. Contraception medications can help with some of those.
I can't imagine what kind of effed up religious gaslighting goes on in those homes where young women struggle with those particular problems. "Those agonizing cramps? Oh sweetie, that's just Jesus in there putting up new wallpaper, so you're ready for your own Beebe Jeebus when you get married. You'll crank then out like a dairy cow ever after, so these cramps are just preparing you for a life of endless pregnancy."
And then a diagnosis of endometriosis is missed. (Just saw a report on a young woman finally diagnosed with cancer, ignored as just painful menses since her periods started.)
I have a granddaughter with those problems plus IBS! Reading some arrogant jerk's "thoughts" on preventing women and girls from acquiring the medications they NEED to help them feel better & ease those problems turns my stomach! Women have been told what to do & how to do it by old mainly white men for way too long.
I see a lot of people are puzzled about this. I think I can offer a bit of clarity. Hopefully.
"Traditional marriage" in the US, i.e. a "godly" marriage in the Biblical sense, is tied up with inheritance rights. An awful lot of the Old Testament makes no bloody sense at all without understanding some of the basics of how wealth and power was passed on through family lines. Three things were key: you must know who the father is, you must know the child's sex, and you must know the birth order. Because inheritance was passed to the firstborn son of the father.
Of course, you cannot truly know the father's identity. Even blood tests and DNA can screw up. But you can put a lot of restrictions on women to make sure they are terrified of having a child out-of-wedlock, especially a son.
This is the real core of the New Testament Christmas story, by the way, and it's an appropriate season to point that out. The faithful can believe -- as they always have -- that the Virgin Birth was just that, and I won't even question the matter. But the pathos of the Joseph and Mary story is completely lost if you don't understand that -- and this is strictly according to the story -- Mary became pregnant while betrothed, which means between what the Hebrews called Erusin and Nissuin, or what the Medievals called betrothal and consummation. By first century law in ancient Palestine, Jesus was conceived out-of-wedlock. The penalty for that, if the man did not claim the child as his own, was that the woman be stoned to death. And -- again, according to the story -- Joseph very nearly declined to claim the child as his. Jesus wasn't saved by shepherds or by wise men from the East or by the soft straw in the manger. He was saved by a dream.
Of course, we don't pass inheritance that way any more. But memories are short, and traditions shamble on like zombies, long after they've died and become so sanctified they no longer even stink of anything but incense.
Our legal system at some point developed the idea of the Last Will and Testament, which put the power to declare an heir into an ink-pen, rather than the more traditional sort of "writing implement."
So at this point in time, "marriage" means absolutely nothing in terms of inheritance. It's a default setting. Anyone can be written out of, or written into, a Will. But the zombie traditions live on, particularly those that were intended to make sure (or as sure as is ever possible) that the man knew that his wife gave birth to nothing but his sexually-differentiated children, in a well-defined order (especially with twins or tuplets).
Why are young women told they can't have sex until marriage, while young men are encouraged to "sow their wild oats" while they can? Why has divorce always stained a woman's reputation, but not the man's? Why was it impossible right up until the mid-1900's for a woman to divorce a man, but it was easy for a man to divorce a woman? Why do men "husband" -- i.e. manage, as in livestock -- their wives' sexual and reproductive options? Why are all the variants of sexual love branded "deviant" except for controlled man/wife breeding? Why is "ambiguous" sexuality such a horror? Why is ANY of this a matter of public interest?
Roll back to the Old Testament, the single most influential source of zombie stories in the US, and understand it was all about inheritance, and a great deal becomes very clear.
Thanks for one of the best posts I have read on this board. Excellent historical analysis of how cultural inhheritance norms helped drive suppressed sexual norms with a great insight into how close Jesus came to not even being around.
Yes indeed. Joseph had a dream.
18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.
19 Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a publick example, was minded to put her away privily.
20 But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.
21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.
22 Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying,
23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.
24 Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife:
25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.
Dreams played a big role in Judaic law and culture. Somebody in the old Testamant was always having a dream, which, often resulted in a lot of subsequent carnage.
But, here is a question. EVEN if Joseph had declared himself as the father, Mary was still impregnated out of Wedlock.
So, would she likely have been stoned to death EVEN if he declared himself the Father?
It think that probability is non-zero and maybe even pretty high.
Fascinating. Because, One of Jesus very first acts in rebellion to Judaic law was to forgive a woman adulteress who WOULD HAVE BEEN STONED.
3 And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst,
4 They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act.
5 Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?
6 This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not.
7 So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.
8 And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground.
9 And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst.
10 When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee?
11 She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.
It seems worth pointing out that before the Bible and all its injunctions were brought forth onto this continent a number of the indigenous peoples later known as the Haudenosaunee or Iroquois Confederacy in Northeastern America. They had their own founding story: The Great Peacemeaker first brought the warring tribes together in about 1000 AD and originally included the 5 tribes around the Finger Lakes & Great Lakes (Mohawks, Oneidas, Onondagas, Cayugas & Senecas. Their mode of inheritance reflected what seems a more natural indentification through maternal inheritance, mothers who also played a major role in selecting their Chiefs and had their own council meetings separately from the men's councils. Benjamin Franklin encountered them in the 1740-1750s as he participated in early efforts to develop treaties. He was reputed to have incorporated some of the aspects of their governance like counter-balancing powers into our new Constitution.
But I an not Christian or Muslim or Jewish so Bible means nothing to me. The first Amendment protects me from religion. Drop the Bible since it doesn’t apply to much of our citizens.
You can't understand Boebert's support-base without understanding US Fundamentalism. You can't understand US Fundamentalism without understanding the role of the Bible within it. And you can't make heads or tails of the Bible without some historical knowledge of pastoral societies of the Levant back in the days when city-states were first forming. Unfortunately, Fundamentalists don't generally have any of that historical knowledge, particularly their preachers. Which is how zombie stories become Undead.
I grew up with Fundamentalism on my mother's side, and a lot of my early life required developing some understanding of it to preserve my own sanity. I have nothing good to say about it. But it still consumes about 25% of the US population, and that means it affects our national politics. So to understand US politics, you have to understand at least a little about Fundamentalist beliefs. Which means, understanding the Bible as a document, and also the way its twisted misunderstanding drives people ... well, drives them mad.
The Bible was definitely not the first sacred text, and came long after other cultures were well established around the world. Rather late to the party, actually
Thought provoking post re inheritance rights, Joseph. I see nation building as a primary motivator for the early Hebrews, as reflected in our stories/folklore and laws. Social and religious norms were established that valued might, safety, childbearing, and unity Seems like laws in Leviticus made sure that any activity contrary to building a strong nation were taboo, and worse yet, punishable.
Great post. Here is a rather clinical observation from my perspective.
I have a hypothesis that there is an increasing number of people who are homosexual and bisexual because the human race has reached a plateau of "comfort". In other words, we are not threatened with extinction, and so reproduction is not as necessary as it would have been during the last major glaciation (which ended about 20,000 years ago).
Sexuality can never be abandoned by any species because it must have a mechanism for survival of some major decline (such as a serious pandemic). So perhaps it is in our biology that under comfortable conditions we tend less toward sex for reproductive reasons. That would imply that the heterosexual sex drive is somewhat tied to a survival emotion as much as a drive for companionship.
Given that the goal of homosexual relationships are not (I could be wrong) driven by a desire to reproduce, then the legal aspect of marriage is not really a necessity. As you say, one can write a will to leave everything to his partner.
Another aspect would be if the couple does want to raise children. Then the motive of government benefits comes into play. Government benefits would include the married filing jointly tax benefit and spousal inheritance of some Social Security benefits. I'm sure there are others.
I believe the idea of having government acknowledge homosexual marriage has come to the forefront primarily for the sharing of tax and entitlement benefits. While that seems just, we must also be aware of the possible abuses, and the already tenuous state of our social safety net. I can imagine non-heterosexual persons getting married solely for the purpose of extending social safety net benefits, and particularly Social Security.
So the argument for shared benefit is well conceived, but the result may be a further erosion of the already tenuous social safety net.
I'm not offering any answer, just posing my opinion.
The social safety net in the US is only tenuous because a vocal minority here believes we should not have one.
Rather then heeding them and hoarding what little they would allow us to share with one another along lines of sexuality (or race--you could also argue for getting rid of interracial marriage for the same reasons, only using slightly more antiquated and already debunked premises. As is, supposing that reproduction only takes place in the context of heterosexual marriage is.. deeply questionable), I would hope that anyone who wanted something like an equitable society would be more likely to work toward expanding this safety net toward *anyone* who needed it, married or not, straight or not, white or not, male or female or not, or otherwise justifiable by white male conceptions of "natural law" or not.
I don't think you understand how parties who have contributed to the social security system (including the spouses of workers) can be diluted by people who have not contributed at all. It hurts everyone, rich or poor, if the system goes into default.
There is a separate net for those who have never contributed to social security. Welfare is not pleasant, but it will keep you alive. It certainly should not be on an equitable basis with those who have worked and contributed.
Beyond that, the whole social security system is a rip off. Other countries invest and contributors are not losing money to inflation like we do with social security. We need to expand on the idea of encouraging individual retirement accounts. Such accounts also bolster the economy as an added benefit.
Those who refuse to think of their own and their children's future by saving for it may well be deserving of the Darwin Award they get.
Heather had an excellent post on "Boston marriages" that I had never heard of, and found fascinating. When you turn back to previous centuries, sexual variation was not that big a deal. As I recall Heather's post, the "horror" of (male) homosexuality was fallout from the two world wars and the security state that developed in the US after WWII, based on the idea that, since homosexuality was "shameful," it made homosexuals vulnerable to blackmail, and thus unsuitable for any government/industry position that required security clearance.
It's really hard to determine if sexual behavior has actually become more varied, or if it has simply become more varied within the living memory of old people today.
I recall a comment in one of Anaïs Nin's diaries, around the time she was working as secretary to one of those new-fangled "psychoanalysts," and then became one herself (it was not a licensed profession in those days). She said she saw a great danger in psychotherapy, particularly the idea of "neurosis," in that it defined mere variation in temperament as a kind of illness or abnormality. That got taken to an extreme in the 1950's in the US, and still hangs around in the terms "neurotypical" and "neurodivergent."
You are looking at the law as though it is actually followed.
Here's the issue. Your "non-traditional" (gods, I hate that expression) spouse is critically ill and in the hospital. You want to visit, but the hospital rule is, "family only," and in many of the backwaters of America, you aren't family. You are denied admission, and this is arguably legal in that backwater.
Expand that out to any (and all) of the normal privileges that are automatic for heterosexual married couples.
Yes, you can sue to enforce your "rights" under the law, but by the time the courts have ruled, your spouse is either back home, or dead.
In concept and practice, a "civil union" is "marriage lite," a legal arrangement unencumbered by religious blessing.
The main practical difference is that a "marriage" has a hoary history that carries a lot of automatic compliance from society, both good and bad. A "civil union" carries only enumerated legal rights, and in many places, doesn't carry much weight.
To further extend my rather "clinical" analysis of marriage I submit the following.
Most Mammals form couple bonds essentially for the purpose of procreation. This is an essential fact which creates new life, drives evolution and continues life indefinitely, beyond the short life of the individual. Couple bonds at their best are for a lifetime and are centered around the protection, education and support of the next generation and beyond.
I submit that this is what differentiates a heterosexual marriage from a homosexual marriage. They are at their essence, two different things.
It is some kind of cultural entitlement, in my observation. Someone in the "dominant" culture feels comfortable expressing a derogatory opinion about someone of a different culture.
It seems to me that the urge and sense of mission to dominate others is an expression of malignant narcissism. Yeah, some behaviors are legitimately objectionable, but not just by being different.
Yet we do it to animals every day for meat, milk, eggs, down, wool, leather, drug testing, etc. without thinking about it. It's called Speciesism : the new frontier.
They''re the same idiots you find on Next Door peering fearfully out their windows and thinking anyone walking down the street is going to rob/rape/kill them so they run to their phone and post "Danger in the neighborhood!" on crazy Next Door. The other day, two young Muslim guys knocked on our door. When I answered, they introduced themselves and said they had moved into the neighborhood with their mother, and wanted us to know who they were because they liked to walk in the neighborhood. and unfortunately, I knew they were right to do this because of all the Krazy Karens on Next Door.
The use of Karen and Brandon in such clearly cynical rhetoric is just plain mean. It’s 10 steps backwards blindfolded. Ok I stand corrected. It is like taking your dirty underwear off, reversing it, putting it back on and calling it a change. When my Naval Commander uncle told us that was policy once a week. I couldn’t hardly believe it, so I asked Uncle Teme why when they had all that water. Us boys all joined the army.
To be honest - I've wondered WHEN someone named Karen was going to speak out about this. I'm sure theres a better descriptive "term" rather than someones name for these people. Possibly someone here could come up with it? I know how I'd feel if it was my name being used.
I also understand TC's reasoning - I have an ex too but also have several friends and acquaintances named Ed (ex name) so cant go there.
Something a bit more original than snowflake in order to enhance the cynicism. What I find most inspirational would be the ever evolving denigrations assigned to the one recently called gangreen. I would run with that refreshing originality. Much less collateral damage.
What is "liberty" after all. Harming people is not liberty but in who is the victim when people of whatever race or gender fall in love and live together declaring they are coupled? Only when they ate prevented from doing so. "Defense of Marriage"? Bullpucky!
On another point, and this seems as good of a time as any, I've been meaning to ask this question: why is it that people who abhor derogatory, racist/sexist labels (as I do and always have) feel it's OK to use "karen" as a derogatory term? I now know how my brother named Tom feels. Stop it; it's beneath you. Thanks for listening to my rant. From a liberal baby boomer.
I suppose that IS one step worse than having one's name (John) used as a common substitute for bathroom or toilet...
Of course then there's Peter for male anatomy,
or Mark (a person who believes everything he or she hears or is so out of place that they are easily targeted by people that mean harm or fair game for bullies. That person is so easily fooled everyone can tell that they are a mark.)
Sure can....well said, Ed. It seems like such a minor thing, and I and other Karens have laughed it off on Zoom calls, but after a while I started to wonder why people who hate the use of other names don't even think about it. And it explains why my brother used Thom for awhile...just something we all need to be mindful of.
I have 3 good friends by the name of Karen. Since it became the go to name to push the derogatory connotation, I cringe everytime I hear it. Perhaps because I know 3 positively wonderful people by that name,
I always think how would you like it if (fill in the blank) was used so casually to brush off a rude person.
Some Karen’s made the news being, well, self-righteous bitches. Sorry, I know a great Karen, so I know the moniker is undeserved for most. Maybe we can substitute SRBs
Never ever underestimate the mendacity and hypocrisy of humans desperate to maintain their power and status. Control of bodies of non-dominant (female) and marginalized (BIPOC, LGBTQ+, etc) people is all about power not about so-called morality.
Yup, “they” say, “Keep the dern gummint out of our gun sheds and ammo rooms, but it’s OK for the gummint to peek into ‘certain’ bedrooms.” Love the transparency of their “convictions.”
Anita Hill caught him peeping at various porn magazines right in front of her eyes, including one that apparently contained "Long Dong Silver", if you can imagine whatever that was.
I remember some of my friends talking about that at a neighborhood party. We were wondering what on earth that was.
Of course, that was totally OK but Amurca managed to demonize Anita Hill.
LOL! "Long Dong Silver," as I recall, was a male porn star with a singularly lengthy endowment. I seem to recall there were some interviews with him, and he was said to be a really nice guy.
I've started a conversation on Twitter with someone who responded to the Respect for Marriage Act by saying "God does not condone what his own Word calls a sin. God would then be a liar. God is not a liar." I replied: It's just that the Word you are referring to, in Leviticus, is over 2000 years old, & includes other "sins" like eating shellfish or wearing two types of fabric. So even if Leviticus did ban gay sex, why is it ok for other laws to evolve but not that one?"
Another person answered politely, "Because it's also condemned in the new testament." I think we are having a respectful conversation and I'm happy to see where this goes.
Good for you, Chaplain. Engaging with folks of differing views is a positive possibility. A Biblical discussion would probably hinge on “literal” vs “interpretive” as well as the veracity of translations. In discussions I have had with Biblical conservatives, I usually ask whether the Commenteer(s) believe the Bible LITERALLY. If not, why not? I also ask what translation version(s) are verifiable and by whom.
Thank you Paul. I've been pondering how much discussion about "factual" thoughts would be effective. so your suggestions are very helpful. I'm tying to go for understanding rather than persuasion. And you never know at first if you're up against the whole patriarchal modus where nothing may be questioned. So then finding common ground is almost in spite of religious beliefs.
Have at it, Chaplain! I have spent considerable time on Newsmax over the past six years. Polite conversation there is very difficult to attain. I have had several “good and possibly productive” discussions over the years. I’m not sure that I have changed many minds, but, just having discussions between opposing viewpoints CAN be helpful to our nation.
For example, it appears to me that “down deep” MAGA Republicans actually FEAR that Biden will run in 2024. They say Biden is too old (yes, even Democrats fall into that trap). They say he is losing his mind, is suffering from dementia, wears a diaper (cuz he poops his pants - yes, they say that.). NOW, if Biden is sooooo weak, then they should be ENCOURAGING him to run for President in 2024. Why? Because if he is sooooo weak, he should be sooooo easy to beat.
This makes for an interesting discussion. Of course, on Newsmax, I get called all sorts of names, but….I might be able to plant a seed or two.
I am surprised how many people who claim the Bible as authoritative can be so biblically illiterate. Case in point: everyone knows the outcome in the Creation story: it turned out to be Adam and Eve. What they don’t notice is the PROCESS of getting to that result. According to the creation narrative, after G-d decided it was not good for Adam to be alone, G-d begins to create possible companions, and brings them to Adam for naming. But none of them was deemed a “suitable companion” for Adam. WHO decided that? From the context it could ONLY be Adam. So here is the uncomfortable question for Bible-thumpers: “Why do they feel comfortable telling others who qualifies as a suitable companion for them, when even G-d was unwilling to do so?”
It's more than simply a religious issue. If you trust science you know that heterosexual unions are capable of reproduction and homosexual ones are not. In nature pair bonds are formed for the purpose of reproduction and the survival of the species. Homosexual sex exists in nature, but the bonds are quite different, and arguably not as durable as the bond between a couple and their offspring.
Why not call an apple (heterosexual marriage) an apple and an orange (homosexual marriage) an orange. You can extend the same social benefits to both unions without giving them a common name. Civil Union or whatever name they chose to give such a bond is fine.
It's the current theme of forced pronouns and changing definitions of words that many people are objecting to. Our language is being severely diluted when it should be made more definitive and succinct.
And how about "peeping Padres"? This wouldn't have taken 70 years had the American Roman Catholic Bishops minded their own business - nor would we have 1/3 the dysfunction and discord that we witness today. "Agents of God's Peace"??
I think you may not have read much or any of Dr. Richardson's writing.
"Those couples" were not and are not seeking the approval of government.
Rather, Biden has forestalled the government's ability to DENY approval should (anyone) decide to avail themselves of all of the legal advantages of Marriage.
Including: Tax benefits, inheritance laws, investment law regarding beneficiaries, etc.
You just gotta pay attention on this board Gandalf. Here, sound bites, thoughtless input, shallow thinking? Are not quite non-existent since, thank goodness, you are here.
But, HCR readers are not Fox News Fake Blonde fans waiting for a one sentence sound bite to grab their beer and run outside to howl at the moon about.
Yes, I am well aware of the reason folks want their marriages acknowledged by government. The argument for this acknowledgement is valid, but we should also be aware of the consequences.
We may be further endangering our social safety net. I discuss this in another thread. Same sex marriage as a legal status is another avenue for abuse and further degradation of the systems that so many depend upon to live.
You assume much. The comment was submitted as a rhetorical question. Note the substance of the comments in other threads. Yours are simply presumptuous and based upon a biased assumption. That is why this thread is a dead end and not others, where people are actually willing to debate the issue honestly and without prejudice.
“These couples” are seeking to “prevent” a Court from officially declaring them “unequal” by virtue of that Court’s decidedly religious interpretation of “the union” of two consenting adults. As citizens, they should enjoy the same rights in their civil union as those couples joined together in a religious ceremony
Its a legal thing. When religions make something civilly illegal, laws to protect some citizens are needed to protect “from” religion
They are not seeking approval. They are seeking protection from perverts who take pleasure in hurting others from being able to employ the force of government to harm them.
It is indeed not about who one loves, but the loyalty that comes with true love. I am a "straight" person,who stayed loyal to my wife of 29 years, throughout her decline, until the day she died. Why should any other person, loving another, not have that right?
One of my ex-students is marrying is marrying her love on the 17th. I have other ex-students who are also have same sex marriages. I hope this keeps them safe. Sexuality fall on a broad spectrum and should not be the under the purview of a bunch of right wing justices who are following their religion and not the law. And what a hypocrite Thomas is....we can examine same sex marriage, but not interracial marriage. He is and has long been as embarrassment to the Court.
Perhaps but it was a black woman accusing a black man of sexual harassment. Hill’s testimony was indeed, brilliant but the questioning she went through by the panel was demeaning. It was man vs. woman and the man won in those days.
Not sure he ever had one to sell for he seems to me to be soulless like so many of the current far right wing nuts. As an aside, many years ago, on the Maddow blog, I was taken to task by a religious person who maintained that all souls belong to God, so can't be sold by people. We had an unpleasant exchange where I was treated to a lot of snippiness. So glad that I seldom see that here. What a pleasure to be on a blog where people are civil.
Livermore resident and, until my term ended last night, council member. So proud of LLNL. And, basking in reflected glory: my husband worked on NIF target design for 40 years--until he retired a few years ago. This is hard stuff, with generations of scientists designing and fabricating targets and the laser facility. It is grand to see this step. Also, to see the number of women at every level (including Sec'y of Energy and Lab Director) leading the way.
Thanks for the post--puts a bit of a human face on all the raw science, multitude of scientists and technicians and the calculations. I did a BA in physics at Rice right when lasers were "appearing"---what massive strides since then!!
Patricia, congrats on your service at city council. I live in the East Bay, Martinez. I just wanted to tell you that my daughter’s ex-fiancee is on that team of scientists and engineers regarding the lasers at LLNL. He actually told me about that project about 6-7 years ago and I saw how animated he was when he was talking about it. So proud of him as it is a huge team accomplishment.
I don't understand how the Supreme Court can have anything to do with something which has been signed into law. I thought Roe v. Wade was vulnerable because it was a legal precedent, not a law? Not so?
I see. And nobody is above the law, not even the President who authorised it. As tfg considers himself to be above the law, no wonder he thought the Constitution should be scrapped. So by definition the Supreme Court is rather like the Holy Inquisition, to be dreaded. It certainly needs to be stacked with a view to a balanced structure.
The remaining section of the Voting Right Act is essentially the 14th Amendment which binds the likely 5-4 majority ... majority of what ... the Fedralist Society?
This question was not directly addressed: Isn’t it virtually certain that the right will file suit against this new law on some freedom-of-religion grounds or other, and that the current SCOTUS will be happy to hear it?
The law specifically states that nothing in the Act requires any religion to sanctify or recognize any union which violates its doctrine, and refusal to recognize the union will not affect the tax status of the Institution. So they will get county clerks—again— to sue for refusal to issue marriage licenses to same-gender couples.
My priest told me years ago, after Obergefell I guess, no minister was required to perform a SSM if their faith tradition did not allow it. So ministers have always been protected.
I suspect that what will eventually happen is that there will be a marriage in one state that legalizes same-sex marriage in one state. That couple will then for whatever reason go to a state which does not and seek the recognition of their marriage. A clerk will refuse to sign the papers, claiming that it inhibits/limits their religious freedom, and then off we go. With the current Supreme Court, I would not bet a lot on the survival of this new law.
Obergefell v Hodges remains good law ... for now. SCOTUS risks the further descent of its waning legitimacy to alter "black letter law" for chaotic, balkanized state law.
I’m m happy for all the good this bill will do/: help people love with more peace, less stress, more dignity, less hell
And not to take anything away from that, I cannot get over how poorly women are faring with their reproductive rights. Where is the outcry to protect contraception? The right to bodily autonomy ? The right to not have to live by someone else’s religion ?
If this much progress can be done, thankfully, for same-sex couples why can’t be done for women?
Exactly so, Karen. Under what sun* does anyone other than the woman have the right to make the decision regarding contraception? Why are women refused sterilization or medical treatments that might have a side effect of sterilization because “you might want kids some day”?
*originally, my fat finger typed “son”. There is the answer, part and parcel.
Ally, some years ago i read a book called Eunuchs for the Kingdom of Heaven which explains a lot of the nonsense about the Catholic Church's stance on many matters including contraception. Also there are lots of medical people who can't get past the idea of women as mothers. I know a few women who really do not like children, for example, but that is supposedly unnatural.
I would suggest reading the book which quite eyeopening. The professor who wrote it lost her job at a Catholic University. I would say a lot of people, even those who are not Catholic divide women into madonnas (wives/mothers) and whores.
The ERA has passed the requisite number of states to be the 28th Amendment. Bill to extend ratification deadline passed House, and Schumer needs to bring deadline extension bill to the floor. Equal Rights includes medical decisions—like reproductive rights.
Wow, this sentence must have really aroused the right wing back in the day. No wonder some nut job found Lennon. Lennon: a man who wants us to love. Not hate.
Cannot have that now. How would the Republicans win elections without somebody to point to to hate?
Karine Jean-Pierre said ”… marriage is a proposition…about…who you love, but also about if you're going to be loyal to that person…”. That echoes the marriage vows “…for better and for worse; for richer and for poorer; in sickness and in health…” A big part of this law is the right of your same-sex or different-race spouse to be able to get health information about, and make health decisions for, you when you’re unable to vocalize your wishes. It’s not a perfect law, but it does protect that right so that it no longer just exists at the whim of justices that seem intent in making sure that their rulings reflect their religion and the laissez-faire business laws (or lack of them) of the late 19th and early 20th century.
Carol and I have been married for 55 years, 6 months on December 17th. I just had a mitral valve repaired on October 31, this was open heart surgery and I am very thankful for skill of Dr. Murphy and team. Recovery is progressing, I wish it was faster but am happy to be here. Topping the list of things I am thankful about is that if necessary Carol could make health decisions. ALL, couples should, really must have this basic right.
I am happy for your mitral valve repair, hope it helps! My wife and I used to ride motorcycles, and we each carried a copy of our legal documents regarding medical decisions/durable power of attorney, etc. in case we were involved in a crash/medical emergency in “hostile territory.” Never needed them, thankfully.
We started riding late. In the 15 years we rode, I had a Shadow Spirit 1100, a V-star 1300 and an FZ1. Karyn rode a V-Tar 1100 and a lowered FJR 1300.
I had to stop riding due to hip issues (just went bionic last week) and Karyn had some other issues with comfort. We both agree that we miss wanting to ride the most.
The success in fusion research is great news, shows impressive progress, and probably has a good chance of supplying cheap energy about 50 years from now. We should at least double the funding for fusion research. In the mean time, we need to use solar, wind, geothermal, and maybe fission if necessary. We have already the technology to preserve a livable planet for large mammals. All we need is a WWII-size investment of effort and money. Worldwide, eventually, but it must start here. We have the money, the expertise, and the workers. Unfortunately only 2% of Democrats and 0% of Republicans think it’s a high priority.
Sorry to put a pin in everyone's balloon about the fusion results. They produced energy in excess of the LIGHT ENERGY from the lasers that were used to ignite the fusion process. What was not included in the "net energy" calculation was the massive amount of energy to power the huge lasers to produce energy from the fusion process. The reason they are talking about megajoules of energy and not megawatts of power is that the 196 lasers have extremely short pulses that have to all reach the target simultaneously. They got one ignition event--once with enough net energy to boil 2.5 gallons of water.
Yes, it is a breakthrough first step in the sense that if you can't get ignition you can't get sustained fusion, but there is a long long way to go.
"For the first time, US scientists produced more energy from fusion than the laser energy they used to power the experiment, resulting in a "net energy gain."
"In scientific and technical terms, the reaction is considered net positive. In real-world terms, it produced far less power than what would be expected of a commercial power plant. To produce the 2.05-megajoule shot, the laser system required 300 megajoules of power, Kim Budil, director of LLNL, said in a press conference today."
Yes, the technical challenges to creating a sustainable fusion reaction at a large enough scale to power a town are formidable. The reaction was very brief, and required a tiny sphere of hydrogen surrounded by a sphere of diamond to be made and then precisely targeted by 196 lasers. A sustained fusion reaction would require technology that does not yet exist (but then the technology for the moon shot did not exist in 1961, either). Still, this is thrilling stuff, and a HUGE step - NOT a baby step - in the creation of a useful fusion power grid.
During my life, fusion energy was always "20 years down the road". It will always be 20 years down the road, until one morning, we wake up to read that we have it 20 years ahead of schedule :)
Yes. Fifty years out for useful fusion energy is probably too optimistic. My point is that it doesn’t matter whether it’s fifty years, a hundred, or two hundred. Fifty years will be too late. We need to used what we already know to get off fossil fuels (and a bunch of other bad habits), but it appears exceedingly unlikely that we’ll do that. 90% of Americans are too busy whining about $5/gal gasoline to concern themselves with the investment required to avoid climate catastrophe, probably within the lifetimes of young people presently living on the planet.
that compares the amount of government funding for fusion research vs. subsidies for the fossil fuel industry.
"Given the pressing need to find future clean energy sources, I believe that it is imperative that fusion research be given stable and ample support. Since the mid-1990s, the US government has provided an annual budget of about half a billion dollars per year, adjusted to today’s dollars. While that sounds like a lot of money, it’s tiny compared to the direct government subsidies for the fossil fuel industry, which amounts to $20.5 billion per year, with some estimate for indirect subsidies being much higher. If the fusion scientific community had been funded at such levels, fusion power plants could well have been a reality today."
While I think the last sentence is too optimistic it does point to the impact that government funding decisions have, and those funding decisions are politically driven by industry lobbying efforts.
It is a big deal because it is a first, a dream with little hope of success. Science has the first word on everything and the last word on nothing. Nobody is claiming a fusion pump to power anything, just a gleam in The eye of the future
Good pin in the balloon, some reports was saying 50% more out than in. Might there not be helium produced by the process though, for safe balloon transport?
We should also check Stephen Hawking's calculations: "if humanity's use of electricity is accelerating at the present pace, the earth will be a glowing globe around 2600", and stop talking about 'sustainability' without timescale.
'Yesterday, scientists at the Department of Energy announced a breakthrough that could help make that sci-fi vision into reality. After decades of trying, scientists for the first time carried out a nuclear fusion reaction that produced more energy than went into it.'
'As a clean source of energy, nuclear fusion could help replace polluting fossil fuels and overcome climate change. And if the remaining challenges — of which there are many — are figured out, nuclear fusion could produce more energy than today’s technologies are capable of.'
'Serious barriers remain before that potential future, experts caution. Can scientists reliably replicate what they’ve done only once? Can it be done more efficiently and more quickly? Can it be scaled up? All these questions are serious enough that, if not overcome, yesterday’s announcement may ultimately amount to little.'
'Anything involving nuclear science can get technical and complicated fast. In today’s newsletter, I want to walk you through some of the basics so you can understand why the announcement could be a big discovery.'
'Imitating the sun'
'Fusion is what powers the sun and other stars. The sun’s massive gravitational pull constantly compresses hydrogen atoms and fuses them into helium, releasing bursts of energy. That energy is transmitted across the solar system as light and heat, in rare circumstances creating the conditions for life.'
'Back on Earth, scientists hope to replicate a tiny fraction of that process to power our other technologies and infrastructure, without emitting the climate-warming emissions that coal, oil and gas do or the radioactive waste that current nuclear power plants do.'
'Most nuclear fusion experiments have used doughnut-shaped reactors and magnetic fields to trap hydrogen, fuse it and release energy. Those experiments have not yet produced more energy than they used — the goal they need to meet to be considered a true source of energy.'
'What the Department of Energy’s lab did was different. It fired 192 lasers at a tiny hydrogen pellet. This heated up the pellet, causing it to implode, fuse into helium and release a blast of energy.'
'The lab had been conducting this experiment for years, tweaking how and where the lasers are fired. On Dec. 5, the changes paid off: The resulting nuclear fusion produced more energy — about 50 percent more — than the incoming energy from the lasers. (Although firing the lasers uses more energy — a different problem to solve.)'
“They can say unequivocally that they did a nuclear fusion reaction that produces more energy than goes in to start the reaction,” Kenneth said. “Nuclear fusion research has been around for 50 years, and no one has been able to say that before.”
'The goal now is to refine this approach further, hopefully to make it commercially viable and eventually to supplant other, dirtier sources of energy.'
'Remaining barriers
As exciting as the results are to scientists, they acknowledged that potentially decades of work remain before this breakthrough leads to widespread commercial use, if it ever does.'
'For one, scientists have achieved this kind of fusion reaction exactly once. Commercial use would require facilities to reproduce that result reliably and constantly, firing lasers up to 10 times a second.'
'Some of the fuel used for this particular process could also be hard to come by. Other possible fuels exist — potentially from mining the moon (yes, that’s as wild as it sounds) — but those would require a whole different set of breakthroughs to obtain and use.'
'And there are more practical questions about cost and scale. The Department of Energy’s laser complex takes up the equivalent of three football fields, Kenneth noted — “too big, too expensive, too inefficient for a commercial power plant.”
'Yet it’s typical for scientific breakthroughs to start in unrealistic lab settings before they are refined for public use. At the very least, this discovery shows that nuclear fusion can be a source of energy. Now the work begins to try to turn that into a usable technology.'
'The breakthrough might also help scientists study nuclear reactions without underground detonations.'
'Even if fusion power becomes a reality, it probably won’t happen in time to avert the worst near-term effects of climate change.'
“Perhaps the most important technological issue at the dawn of the 21st century is which nation will control nuclear fusion,” the futurist Lawrence E. Joseph argued in Times Opinion in 1995.' (NYTimes)
This is a tremendous achievement. Marriage is about who you want to make a life with. Who you love. Who you may have a family with. It is no one else’s business. The votes on this show who is against the freedom of love and beliefs we all deserve. This country was not founded as a religious but a secular one. It must remain as such.
Progress! Now the passage of VOTING RIGHTS LEGISLATION is a priority. The failure of the Senate to pass HR1 and HR4 has made voting rights a target for the conservation SCOTUS. Gerrymandering, partisan redistricting and voter suppression must be checked.
Democrats have been above board on their ability to control inflation. No promises, only to do what needs to be done within their power to bring down prices. If Republicans have a super, duper, triple top secret never before made available for public consumption plan that can only be accessed by drilling through 3 miles of arctic ice on the first full moon of the month where the first blue moon of the millennium appears...then, yes, we’ll wait. Anything less, we’ll have to pass.
As far as the right to marry who you are truly willing to devote yourselves to one another in love and in sickness and health has nothing to to what anyone else thinks or believes. Bless you and your ability to love and commit.
I have a question: heartbeat laws say fetuses are human beings with all the rights. Do those rights go away at birth? Dad in the TX case says his daughters don’t/can’t have the right of privacy. Can these folks have it both ways?
I came here to note this, too. Fetus is protected by federal law but live children’s rights are irrelevant? Infuriating to realize they think we are too dumb to connect these dots.
Reading the dissents in US v. Windsor (requiring the federal government to recognize marriages that are valid where performed- the first step invalidating DOMA) and Obergefell v. Hodges makes this legislation vitally important.
I am not sure why people who are not involved in a given relationship between two consenting adults need to have anything to say about the who, what , why and where. Usually they call people who go around snooping in other people's houses "peeping toms' or perhaps now we need to include "peeping karens" in this day and age. I guess some people are so afraid of themselves that they feel the need to regulate others so they don't have to face their own fears.
Here, Here! Governments and churches have enough of their own problems. Neither one needs to be in anyone’s bedroom.
And far too often we read reports of people working in Congress and especially the priests and pastors and other religious right thinkers being caught in one kind of sexual illegality or another. Governments and churches owned/run/operated and controlled by old, weak-minded sexually frustrated gray-haired men. Time to send them all to the farm.
Churches gin up the hate that puts so many taboos on all of us, government has, historically, done their bidding. Enough already
Jeri: SOME religious communities gin up that hate. Others work hard to foster openness and expanded imagery for what God created us to do with our lives. Broad brushes don't paint an accurate picture. Jesus' death and resurrection is an image of ultimate goodness sacrificing itself for others, not being defensive, not putting taboos on others, not trying to kill the enemy, not lashing out, and in the end, not dying. This is an image of what it looks like to live in a way that loves the enemy. I don't pretend to know how to do that myself. Personally, I want my enemies to be stopped. I don't want to be sacrificed by their contempt for what is good for all people. But I aspire to seek what might turn them around.
I read what you say. I know that there are some churches which are open and affirming and there are branches of another that are in danger of being torn asunder because of a difference of opinion on inclusion of the LGBTQ+ parishioners.
Religions have traditionally been far more exclusive than inclusive of LGBTQ+ people. You cannot imagine the pain of being told that “God loves you” and that because of who you love you’ll burn in hell.
What really pisses me off are the POSER CHRISTIANS, who never quote Jesus in their Buybull, but always Paul or some horrid shit from Leviticus (always cherry picked). Jesus said nothing against homosexuality. He even defended a whore. However he did say something against women who divorced & said their remarriage was Adultery (like that “christian” clerk that refused to issue gay marriage licenses – divorced multiple times). So, “christians” who cannot accept gay marriage would likely have other arguments with Jesus, starting with taking the log out of their eyes before looking for a speck in others’. “Oh Ye Hypocrites.”
So ‘they’ say she was a whore! Indeed what better way to subjugate the role of women in Jesus’ life. I sense she was probably his most loyal friend and confidant! She had to be smeared! After all can’t have a woman being a significant partner in HIH life’s work!
Matthew's Gospel attributes to Jesus the saying on divorce that you are referring to. BUT it is spoken to males: "Whoever divorces his wife, except on the grounds of porneia (sexual immorality), makes her an adulteress; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery." Women could not divorce. Men could declare divorce from their wives with a word, and the woman was out of the house, defenseless on the street. A "divorced woman" was put in that position by her husband. This saying is a defense of women and a condemnation of male power.
Ally House The ‘morality’ of the Catholic Church and evangelical ‘Christian’ churches is something that Jesus Christ would abhor. On abortion, for example, polls show that an overwhelming number of Catholics reject the Vatican’s dictates on abortion.
Can there be Christianity without Jesus?
A resounding YES! The hypocrisy of the religionists who pick and chose HIS teachings is a kin to those who pick and choose the Amendments of the US Constitution which suits their radical beliefs, yes you Alito, Thomas and the other right wing zealots on the stench court!
Brings to mind one of my early social work posts, when a young woman, all of 18 and very pregnant, sat in my office and explained to me how she'd found her belonging in the local Pentecostal Congregation. Long story short, she found some acceptance among the younger members of the congregation, but not the older members, who told her she'd burn in hell.
😣
But do remember Melinda, though Jesus was all of those things and could see the light in those of the lowest fringes of society, he had his limits--his biggest pet peeve being hypocrisy....
Jesus is not the only sacred person, nor Christianity the US’s only faith tradition.
Let’s not restrict anyone from practicing their faiths’ traditions, or force by law anyone to practice someone else’s.
Yes, lets not forget other faiths.
Alot of truth said. However, the Episcopalian Church is a model for how to deal with today's societal issues including same-sex. Were I to return to the Christian community it would be with the Episcopalian Church.
Also Unitarians.
Consider Greek Orthodoxy--the doctrine is akin to quantum mechanics....
We can celebrate the Christian denominations that are as welcoming as the Episcopal Church, including Lutherans (ELCA) and Methodists and United Church of Christ and. . . Thoughtful and faithful people see the gospel as an expansive embrace of all people.
Christians can certainly celebrate the Gospel—The New Testament.
Sikhs, Buddhists, Hindu, B’hai Bith, Shinto, Zoasterans (so?), Earth Religions, Muslims, and Jews—and I’m sure to be missing a few of the faith traditions practiced in the US—can certainly celebrate those they revere and their holidays with equal respect.
You’ve said that right!
Right on! Activists who demand basic federal gun controls are countered by rabid right-wingers raving about how the federal government should butt-out of their rights per their Holy Second Amendment. Yet they can't squeal loud enough about how the federal government should ban abortion, same sex marriage, and contraception. Here's what I have to say to them: Butt-out of my bedroom and my body!
Funny how one’s values do a flip flop when it’s convenient
It used to be that they tried to hide their hypocrisy, now they shamelessly shove it in your face out in broad daylight....
Display it proudly.
The difference between wanting to control gun ownership vs controlling who one has sex with - think about that. Guns kill vs sex does what? Gives pleasure. Left v Right
Ah, Harvey! Gives pleasure! No, no, no! Only to Be engaged to procreate!!
Raging anti abortionists, for the majority, are about controlling sexual activity!!! Not about unborn fetuses!!
To force a women to carry to term a pregnancy she does not want, as far as I can tell, is for no other reason than to punish her for have had sex. Any other reason is pure rationalization, saving a life = pure nonsensical rationalization.
even it was forced on her
Yes, even if she was raped. My position is very simply - who business is it. Who would know if she was pregnancy? She and her doc and the doc's business it to protect their patient - period! How does abortion become an issue if it were not for a bunch of sex abscessed mostly religious nuts. Saving babies is pure nonsense. There are plenty of babies to be saved that are not potential babies in some women's womb.
👋 👋 👋 👋 👋 👋 👋
I’m equally as puzzled by a person, who chooses to raise their children with a certain set of values and obedience, demands that a law should be established so his kid won’t be tempted to stray from his teachings.
Correct! The funny thing is, is that kids grow up and they are presented with many options or different thoughts that might be coming their way. Parents simply cannot stop that information unless they literally jail their children, allowing them no access to news or learning. I will give myself as an example. I was raised Jewish in a Southern Baptist town by Holocaust victims. My sister and I were always told we will marry a Jewish guy, a doctor or a lawyer. Both of us were quite rebellious and it was the 60’s, mind you. My sister never married and is happily single. I married a Catholic boy, had 2 daughters, and have been with the same guy for 52 years. Oh and we lived together too, before marrying. My poor parents were beside themselves. My dad threatened to disown me. My mother told him “Over my dead body!”. When we had kids, they both had mellowed out and were, of course, thrilled. “Love is love.” says Biden. Doesn’t matter what color, shape, or size and/or cultural differences. All of us bleed the same color.
Back in the sixties, my widowed mother's Jewish matchmaker friend set her sights on that 44-year-old Jewish bachelor who lived with his mother. She made it her mission that this guy would marry my mother, no matter that they were of different faiths. She planned and schemed, even projected that any children born of that marriage would be known as either "Jacolic" or "Coowish!" And so it came to pass that they, indeed, wed. Best match for this pre-teen ; for he became my father. I felt whole again. And, oh, my "Coowish" sister came to be!
https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=matchmaker+matchmaker+make+me+a+match&docid=608041260817282867&mid=AD56CD3EC8452B6CAE1EAD56CD3EC8452B6CAE1E&view=detail&FORM=VIRE
My dad saw both Zero Mostel and Herschel Bernardi on Broadway. He loved the musical because it reminded him of home in Poland. Loved your story about your mom and dad!❤️
It is a great musical. I love your story, too, Marlene...morning!
What a delightful story, and good morning, Lynell!
Morning, Ally! There were mornings where the matchmaker and my mother would have coffee while my sister and I sat around and listened as she concocted the role we girls would play in the conspiracy!
What fun!!!
Great family story, Marlene. As for the color of blood, here's some news for you and the rest of us.
'When you think of blood, chances are you think of the color red. But blood actually comes in a variety of colors, including red, blue, green, and purple. This rainbow of colors can be traced to the protein molecules that carry oxygen in the blood. Different proteins produce different colors.' (NIH, National Institute of General Medical Sciences)
As a retired ICU nurse I can state that when anyone bleeds it is red due to oxygen ( a bit bluish if deoxygenated). However, I had only one anatomy and physiology class, one pathophysiology class to care for every “race” of people. Outside of superficial differences we are all the same. There is one race human. As a nurse, I learned to treat all people the same to not judge but instead provide the best care that I could. If your life depended upon it would you turn down help from someone who is different from you?
"There is one race, human." Salud Molly ! That is how I've always believed. I have always believed 'race' to be one of the worse case malapropisms ever uttered. Yes; there are multitudes of ethnic backgrounds, but all within the same human race.
It’s just skin people, but haters find all kinds of “differences.” Like Jewish people have cooties? We ALL are mutts. Do a little genealogy research and get a clue. Except maybe Elon Musk. His “tree” has likely been white, rich, spoiled and entitled for eons. He exhibits all the characteristics of inbreeding with same over time. Nature loves mutts, so says one…
It would seem that it was not always so. Homo Neanderthal and Homo Erectus [a group of archaic humans who emerged at least 200,000 years ago during the Pleistocene Epoch (about 2.6 million to 11,700 years ago) and were replaced or assimilated by early modern human populations (Homo sapiens) between 35,000 and perhaps 24,000 years ago] both coexisted with Homo Sapiens. We Sapiens apparently were able to not only cohabit but also interbreed with them before we crowded them out of existence, perhaps one of the first species we extinguished. Many of us carry remnants of Neanderthal genes in our DNA. Seems the law is finally getting us back to that fundamental understanding.
'...organisms with actual blue-colored blood are far from royal. They include snails, spiders, slugs, octopuses, and squid. The protein that carries oxygen in these creatures is called hemocyanin. Instead of iron, this protein contains copper.'
'Earthbound creatures with green blood include fantastically shaped sea worms, some leeches, and earthworms. These animals have a blood protein called chlorocruorin. '
About the blood of human beings, Molly Ciliberti, 'retired ICU nurse', you are absolutely correct.
'What color is blood?'
'There’s no need to build up the suspense: Blood is red. It might vary from a bright cherry red to a dark brick red, but it’s always red.'
“If you get a cut,” says Dr. Lichtin, “red is the only color you’re going to see come out.”
'The reason? It has to do with the hemoglobin molecules within your red blood cells. Hemoglobin transports oxygen throughout your body in a fast-moving taxi system that keeps your cells and tissues operating properly.'
'Each hemoglobin molecule includes a protein called heme that contains iron. When iron reacts to oxygen, it becomes red. That interaction is what gives blood its red color.'
'Does blood change color?'
'In a way, yes — but it always stays a shade of red.'
'Blood that just loaded up on oxygen while flowing through your lungs and heart looks bright red, notes Dr. Lichtin. Your heart pumps this oxygen-rich blood to the far reaches of your body. (Fun fact: More than 60,000 miles of blood vessels run through your body.)'
'As this arterial blood flows through your circulatory system, your body pulls out the oxygen it needs. As the oxygen leaves, your blood slowly darkens. Eventually, it looks muddy red in color, says Dr. Lichtin.'
'This dark-and-depleted blood is what you see in the blueish veins just under your skin. At that point, the venous blood is headed back toward your heart and lungs for reoxygenation.'
'Your blood, by the way, goes out and back about three times a minute in this amazing process.'
'Is blood ever blue?
Back to that vein on your hand. When you look at it, there’s no denying its blue hue. “That’s an optical illusion created by how light goes through your skin and the vein wall,” explains Dr. Lichtin. “Blood is not blue.”
'Well, at least in humans. Blue blood does flow through the veins of a few living things, including horseshoe crabs and octopuses. (The blood in those animals uses a copper-containing protein called hemocyanin to carry oxygen, which explains the blue color.)'
'You can even find green blood and purple blood in the animal kingdom, primarily in worms or similar creepy crawlies. And of course, the fictional character Spock from “Star Trek” bled green … but he was Vulcan.'
'A rare condition
While we’re in the green section of the crayon box, there’s a rare condition called sulfhemoglobinemia that can tint your blood that color.'
'The disorder happens when a sulfur atom changes the chemical reaction taking place within hemoglobin. The condition is typically caused by medications with sulfur-containing compounds. Symptoms include blood that carries a dark green tint.'
'The funky color is temporary, though. As new red blood cells form, your blood changes back to a more familiar look.'
'The final word
“Blue bloods” is just a term that references a noble family lineage or a college athletic team with a history of winning. Consider it a colorful phrase — not a medical description.'
“Blood is red,” reiterates Dr. Lichtin. “There’s not much else to say.”
https://health.clevelandclinic.org/what-color-is-blood/
What a fun read, Fern! Thanks!
Fascinating! Thanks for this mini lesson on blood color Fern.
Thanks for that link, Fern! There is just no end to all the fascinating subjects I've encountered while hanging out with all the smart folks who follow Heather!
Impressive ... hematology degree? I am an 'eartbound creature' & I am headed to a Lab Appt this am; I will have the PA check me out.
This was so interesting. Thanks for sharing!
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Fugates#:~:text=The%20Fugates%2C%20a%20family%20living,the%20skin%20to%20appear%20blue.
This is a yes and no question, because there are differences that arise from environment, experience, access, and bias. For example, maternal mortality for black women in the US is off the charts.
While we all bleed red and have the same parts in the same order, we have still not achieved health equity.
Thank you for this comment, Steph. I've been thinking the same thing as I scroll through the comments.
Not even close.
Thank you Molly; I still recall vividly the the self-cell-phone diaries of ICU nurses coming off long shifts during the first year of the CV19 pandemic; I will never forget them.
Thanks Fern and thanks for the science lesson! Fascinating info…
See my bloody update, Marlene. Cheers!
OK, FERN, I will ask : RED presumably oxygenated, BLUE needs oxygen; PURPLE mixed red/blue?; GREEN ??
Bryan Sean McKown "OK, FERN, I will ask : RED presumably oxygenated,"
Just out of curiosity, when one has blood drawn for testing, it is always red. At what point was the oxygen added? (Well, I have never seen any color but red but YMMV.)
Ron. I am definitely NOT the Blood expert in this Community but, those little alveoli in the Lungs have something to do with it. Blood will be drawn this am. Noon Pacific Update: definitely RED.
You are my digital advocate, so I cannot tell a lie -- to you. See my update; it's right in the neighborhood. Scroll up a bit...at least it is above you on my computer screen -- nearby, Advocate Boyd.
Sounds like you're mixing paints Bryan. Think proteins! My research door is closed, and I'm going to sleep.
Oh dern Zzzzzz ...
Speaking from my 40+ years in the Chicago area major medical centers: never saw "blue" blood, it is more of a dull darker red than.fully oxygenated blood. (There is a genetic disease which I believe is centered in the Appalachian area where the people are actually blue due to some mutation in their genes, perhaps their blood is more blue?) Neither have I seen purple. I once or twice saw blood that, when anticoagulated and the rbcs settled, the serum was green (the patient had severe liver disease and did not survive). I have actually seen blood that looked like tomato soup--that was due to a person coming to the hospital with a very high WBC due to undiagnosed leukemia.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Fugates#:~:text=The%20Fugates%2C%20a%20family%20living,the%20skin%20to%20appear%20blue.
Vulcan. They're among us!
Hmmm. The only blue blood I can think of is in horseshoe crabs.
Judith you & FERN are on the right track. Per nationalzoo info, Horshoe Crabs have a different oxygen carrying protein, HEMOCYANIN, which makes their blood bright blue (abbreviated "Hc" per Wikipedia) Their blood is collected & is very expensive ($60,000/ gal.) as their bright blue blood with their immune cells are used to detect bacteria on medical implants among other medical applications.
I had read somewhere that the collecting of horseshoe crab blood has threatened the existence of horseshoe crabs although the Wikipedia article says that blood harvesting is declining and some Atlantic coast states have passed protective legislation. I was amazed that use of horseshoe crabs for bait far surpasses that of harvesting blood from them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horseshoe_crab#Blood_harvesting
Growing up on Chesapeake Bay, I well remember beaches blanketed with horseshoe crabs coming onto the beaches to lay eggs. I even have a couple of tiny shells found on the beach post-molting as they grew larger, just like regular crabs.
They do in fact have blue blood !
WOW!!! 🌈🌈🌈🌈
This applies to non-humans too. They deserve love too. Not brutality for food's sake, testing for medicine's sake, plucking/combing for comfort's sake, confinement for entertainment's sake, and so on. "Doesn't matter what color, shape, or size ... all of us bleed the same color." Let's stomp out speciesism while we're stomping out isms.
Absolutely right!! And your persistence paid off, even if it had to take Grandchildren for your parents to accept your marriage. Congrats on 52 years! We are 52 in August... :) I have to put in a plug for Cornell University, where I worked at the Health Center. We had annual diversity training, ++ so we could all meet the needs of our patients, and treat them with their specific needs in mind...no matter what color, gender, sexual orientation. culture etc. We had a sex therapist to help those working through difficult problems and created an atmosphere of acceptance and safety. Maybe I've said this all before. In summary, we are all people of different walks of life, differing needs, and no one way works for all, nor should it. What a boring world it would be if that were true. Good for Joe Biden.....
Bravo for your 52 years also, Barbara! And kudos to Cornell U for implementing sane care treatments for everyone!!
"All of us bleed the same color". Brilliant!!!
Fiddler on the Roof!
This isn't a person parenting. It's a jerk seeking the force of government to allow him to run everyone around. It seems the purpose is to ensure that other peoples' children in the neighborhood won't stray from his teachings.
Not good enough to hog-tie his own, pass it around
Contraception medications are frequently used for a purpose other than contraception. Some women and girls have serious and painful problems with menstruation. Contraception medications can help with some of those.
I can't imagine what kind of effed up religious gaslighting goes on in those homes where young women struggle with those particular problems. "Those agonizing cramps? Oh sweetie, that's just Jesus in there putting up new wallpaper, so you're ready for your own Beebe Jeebus when you get married. You'll crank then out like a dairy cow ever after, so these cramps are just preparing you for a life of endless pregnancy."
And then a diagnosis of endometriosis is missed. (Just saw a report on a young woman finally diagnosed with cancer, ignored as just painful menses since her periods started.)
I have a granddaughter with those problems plus IBS! Reading some arrogant jerk's "thoughts" on preventing women and girls from acquiring the medications they NEED to help them feel better & ease those problems turns my stomach! Women have been told what to do & how to do it by old mainly white men for way too long.
And don’t forget to ban those books! No Catcher in the Rye for them!
This person who wants a law to back up his rigid imposition on his kid knows how thin the chain he put on them really is.
I see a lot of people are puzzled about this. I think I can offer a bit of clarity. Hopefully.
"Traditional marriage" in the US, i.e. a "godly" marriage in the Biblical sense, is tied up with inheritance rights. An awful lot of the Old Testament makes no bloody sense at all without understanding some of the basics of how wealth and power was passed on through family lines. Three things were key: you must know who the father is, you must know the child's sex, and you must know the birth order. Because inheritance was passed to the firstborn son of the father.
Of course, you cannot truly know the father's identity. Even blood tests and DNA can screw up. But you can put a lot of restrictions on women to make sure they are terrified of having a child out-of-wedlock, especially a son.
This is the real core of the New Testament Christmas story, by the way, and it's an appropriate season to point that out. The faithful can believe -- as they always have -- that the Virgin Birth was just that, and I won't even question the matter. But the pathos of the Joseph and Mary story is completely lost if you don't understand that -- and this is strictly according to the story -- Mary became pregnant while betrothed, which means between what the Hebrews called Erusin and Nissuin, or what the Medievals called betrothal and consummation. By first century law in ancient Palestine, Jesus was conceived out-of-wedlock. The penalty for that, if the man did not claim the child as his own, was that the woman be stoned to death. And -- again, according to the story -- Joseph very nearly declined to claim the child as his. Jesus wasn't saved by shepherds or by wise men from the East or by the soft straw in the manger. He was saved by a dream.
Of course, we don't pass inheritance that way any more. But memories are short, and traditions shamble on like zombies, long after they've died and become so sanctified they no longer even stink of anything but incense.
Our legal system at some point developed the idea of the Last Will and Testament, which put the power to declare an heir into an ink-pen, rather than the more traditional sort of "writing implement."
So at this point in time, "marriage" means absolutely nothing in terms of inheritance. It's a default setting. Anyone can be written out of, or written into, a Will. But the zombie traditions live on, particularly those that were intended to make sure (or as sure as is ever possible) that the man knew that his wife gave birth to nothing but his sexually-differentiated children, in a well-defined order (especially with twins or tuplets).
Why are young women told they can't have sex until marriage, while young men are encouraged to "sow their wild oats" while they can? Why has divorce always stained a woman's reputation, but not the man's? Why was it impossible right up until the mid-1900's for a woman to divorce a man, but it was easy for a man to divorce a woman? Why do men "husband" -- i.e. manage, as in livestock -- their wives' sexual and reproductive options? Why are all the variants of sexual love branded "deviant" except for controlled man/wife breeding? Why is "ambiguous" sexuality such a horror? Why is ANY of this a matter of public interest?
Roll back to the Old Testament, the single most influential source of zombie stories in the US, and understand it was all about inheritance, and a great deal becomes very clear.
Joseph,
Thanks for one of the best posts I have read on this board. Excellent historical analysis of how cultural inhheritance norms helped drive suppressed sexual norms with a great insight into how close Jesus came to not even being around.
Yes indeed. Joseph had a dream.
18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.
19 Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a publick example, was minded to put her away privily.
20 But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.
21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.
22 Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying,
23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.
24 Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife:
25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.
Dreams played a big role in Judaic law and culture. Somebody in the old Testamant was always having a dream, which, often resulted in a lot of subsequent carnage.
But, here is a question. EVEN if Joseph had declared himself as the father, Mary was still impregnated out of Wedlock.
So, would she likely have been stoned to death EVEN if he declared himself the Father?
It think that probability is non-zero and maybe even pretty high.
________________________________________________________________________________________
In which case, Mary and Joseph saved Mary and Jesus life by recognizing the power that dreams had in Judaic culture.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fascinating. Because, One of Jesus very first acts in rebellion to Judaic law was to forgive a woman adulteress who WOULD HAVE BEEN STONED.
3 And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst,
4 They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act.
5 Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?
6 This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not.
7 So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.
8 And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground.
9 And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst.
10 When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee?
11 She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.
Ummmm? Merry Christmas Joseph!!!
It seems worth pointing out that before the Bible and all its injunctions were brought forth onto this continent a number of the indigenous peoples later known as the Haudenosaunee or Iroquois Confederacy in Northeastern America. They had their own founding story: The Great Peacemeaker first brought the warring tribes together in about 1000 AD and originally included the 5 tribes around the Finger Lakes & Great Lakes (Mohawks, Oneidas, Onondagas, Cayugas & Senecas. Their mode of inheritance reflected what seems a more natural indentification through maternal inheritance, mothers who also played a major role in selecting their Chiefs and had their own council meetings separately from the men's councils. Benjamin Franklin encountered them in the 1740-1750s as he participated in early efforts to develop treaties. He was reputed to have incorporated some of the aspects of their governance like counter-balancing powers into our new Constitution.
Yes.
But I an not Christian or Muslim or Jewish so Bible means nothing to me. The first Amendment protects me from religion. Drop the Bible since it doesn’t apply to much of our citizens.
My intent was not advocacy, only understanding.
You can't understand Boebert's support-base without understanding US Fundamentalism. You can't understand US Fundamentalism without understanding the role of the Bible within it. And you can't make heads or tails of the Bible without some historical knowledge of pastoral societies of the Levant back in the days when city-states were first forming. Unfortunately, Fundamentalists don't generally have any of that historical knowledge, particularly their preachers. Which is how zombie stories become Undead.
I grew up with Fundamentalism on my mother's side, and a lot of my early life required developing some understanding of it to preserve my own sanity. I have nothing good to say about it. But it still consumes about 25% of the US population, and that means it affects our national politics. So to understand US politics, you have to understand at least a little about Fundamentalist beliefs. Which means, understanding the Bible as a document, and also the way its twisted misunderstanding drives people ... well, drives them mad.
Thanks for explanation.
Actually it does, you just don't realize where all the "culture" got its start.
The Bible was definitely not the first sacred text, and came long after other cultures were well established around the world. Rather late to the party, actually
Property rights! Also explains the Catholic Church's insistence on priests' celibacy.
Except for the altar boys....
Lordy, nail it from every angle
So to speak, but I guess we revisit this as Easter ;-)
Gabriel got around a bit. Hey, if the story worked once, it was bound to work again.
Thought provoking post re inheritance rights, Joseph. I see nation building as a primary motivator for the early Hebrews, as reflected in our stories/folklore and laws. Social and religious norms were established that valued might, safety, childbearing, and unity Seems like laws in Leviticus made sure that any activity contrary to building a strong nation were taboo, and worse yet, punishable.
Brava!!!! Thank You, Joseph!!
Great post. Here is a rather clinical observation from my perspective.
I have a hypothesis that there is an increasing number of people who are homosexual and bisexual because the human race has reached a plateau of "comfort". In other words, we are not threatened with extinction, and so reproduction is not as necessary as it would have been during the last major glaciation (which ended about 20,000 years ago).
Sexuality can never be abandoned by any species because it must have a mechanism for survival of some major decline (such as a serious pandemic). So perhaps it is in our biology that under comfortable conditions we tend less toward sex for reproductive reasons. That would imply that the heterosexual sex drive is somewhat tied to a survival emotion as much as a drive for companionship.
Given that the goal of homosexual relationships are not (I could be wrong) driven by a desire to reproduce, then the legal aspect of marriage is not really a necessity. As you say, one can write a will to leave everything to his partner.
Another aspect would be if the couple does want to raise children. Then the motive of government benefits comes into play. Government benefits would include the married filing jointly tax benefit and spousal inheritance of some Social Security benefits. I'm sure there are others.
I believe the idea of having government acknowledge homosexual marriage has come to the forefront primarily for the sharing of tax and entitlement benefits. While that seems just, we must also be aware of the possible abuses, and the already tenuous state of our social safety net. I can imagine non-heterosexual persons getting married solely for the purpose of extending social safety net benefits, and particularly Social Security.
So the argument for shared benefit is well conceived, but the result may be a further erosion of the already tenuous social safety net.
I'm not offering any answer, just posing my opinion.
The social safety net in the US is only tenuous because a vocal minority here believes we should not have one.
Rather then heeding them and hoarding what little they would allow us to share with one another along lines of sexuality (or race--you could also argue for getting rid of interracial marriage for the same reasons, only using slightly more antiquated and already debunked premises. As is, supposing that reproduction only takes place in the context of heterosexual marriage is.. deeply questionable), I would hope that anyone who wanted something like an equitable society would be more likely to work toward expanding this safety net toward *anyone* who needed it, married or not, straight or not, white or not, male or female or not, or otherwise justifiable by white male conceptions of "natural law" or not.
Can you actually name someone who believes we should have no social safety net, or are you just picking that out of thin air?
Japan's pension fund is at 3.47% annualized Rate of Return.
https://www.gpif.go.jp/resources/en/images/home-v2/operation_2022_q2_en_62843759.png
Norway is another wise investor. 3.62%
https://gbedemegayo.medium.com/norways-oil-fund-lessons-for-african-sovereign-wealth-funds-eac49b905634
Social Security? 1.23%
https://www.heritage.org/social-security/report/social-securitys-rate-return
I don't think you understand how parties who have contributed to the social security system (including the spouses of workers) can be diluted by people who have not contributed at all. It hurts everyone, rich or poor, if the system goes into default.
There is a separate net for those who have never contributed to social security. Welfare is not pleasant, but it will keep you alive. It certainly should not be on an equitable basis with those who have worked and contributed.
Beyond that, the whole social security system is a rip off. Other countries invest and contributors are not losing money to inflation like we do with social security. We need to expand on the idea of encouraging individual retirement accounts. Such accounts also bolster the economy as an added benefit.
Those who refuse to think of their own and their children's future by saving for it may well be deserving of the Darwin Award they get.
Heather had an excellent post on "Boston marriages" that I had never heard of, and found fascinating. When you turn back to previous centuries, sexual variation was not that big a deal. As I recall Heather's post, the "horror" of (male) homosexuality was fallout from the two world wars and the security state that developed in the US after WWII, based on the idea that, since homosexuality was "shameful," it made homosexuals vulnerable to blackmail, and thus unsuitable for any government/industry position that required security clearance.
It's really hard to determine if sexual behavior has actually become more varied, or if it has simply become more varied within the living memory of old people today.
I recall a comment in one of Anaïs Nin's diaries, around the time she was working as secretary to one of those new-fangled "psychoanalysts," and then became one herself (it was not a licensed profession in those days). She said she saw a great danger in psychotherapy, particularly the idea of "neurosis," in that it defined mere variation in temperament as a kind of illness or abnormality. That got taken to an extreme in the 1950's in the US, and still hangs around in the terms "neurotypical" and "neurodivergent."
Good point. Is homosexuality becoming more prevalent, or is it just that we have better statistics. Difficult to say.
Gandi,
Am puzzled. If those same folks got married to women then the impact to the social safety net would be the exact same.
To me it looks like a no impact law.
You are looking at the law as though it is actually followed.
Here's the issue. Your "non-traditional" (gods, I hate that expression) spouse is critically ill and in the hospital. You want to visit, but the hospital rule is, "family only," and in many of the backwaters of America, you aren't family. You are denied admission, and this is arguably legal in that backwater.
Expand that out to any (and all) of the normal privileges that are automatic for heterosexual married couples.
Yes, you can sue to enforce your "rights" under the law, but by the time the courts have ruled, your spouse is either back home, or dead.
Wouldn't a law for civil unions accomplish the same thing? Also, there are advanced directives these days to accomplish the same thing.
As a heterosexual, I see heterosexual marriage as a different (not better) thing than a homosexual one. They are not identical.
My honest opinion. Your results may vary.
In concept and practice, a "civil union" is "marriage lite," a legal arrangement unencumbered by religious blessing.
The main practical difference is that a "marriage" has a hoary history that carries a lot of automatic compliance from society, both good and bad. A "civil union" carries only enumerated legal rights, and in many places, doesn't carry much weight.
To further extend my rather "clinical" analysis of marriage I submit the following.
Most Mammals form couple bonds essentially for the purpose of procreation. This is an essential fact which creates new life, drives evolution and continues life indefinitely, beyond the short life of the individual. Couple bonds at their best are for a lifetime and are centered around the protection, education and support of the next generation and beyond.
I submit that this is what differentiates a heterosexual marriage from a homosexual marriage. They are at their essence, two different things.
It will increase the load on the safety net. Nothing complicated about that.
I'm not saying it's bad or good, but just pointing out the likely result. It helps to look forward when you do these things.
It is some kind of cultural entitlement, in my observation. Someone in the "dominant" culture feels comfortable expressing a derogatory opinion about someone of a different culture.
It seems to me that the urge and sense of mission to dominate others is an expression of malignant narcissism. Yeah, some behaviors are legitimately objectionable, but not just by being different.
Yet we do it to animals every day for meat, milk, eggs, down, wool, leather, drug testing, etc. without thinking about it. It's called Speciesism : the new frontier.
They''re the same idiots you find on Next Door peering fearfully out their windows and thinking anyone walking down the street is going to rob/rape/kill them so they run to their phone and post "Danger in the neighborhood!" on crazy Next Door. The other day, two young Muslim guys knocked on our door. When I answered, they introduced themselves and said they had moved into the neighborhood with their mother, and wanted us to know who they were because they liked to walk in the neighborhood. and unfortunately, I knew they were right to do this because of all the Krazy Karens on Next Door.
TC, check out my comments on using "Karen". I love your writing, but can we stop with the Karen slams, please?
Yeah, I have an ex-wife named Karen, who sadly "is one." (unlike you) but I will find another term.
Thank you! Appreciate it....
Yes, please do. Not all Karen’s are alike. Thank you.
The use of Karen and Brandon in such clearly cynical rhetoric is just plain mean. It’s 10 steps backwards blindfolded. Ok I stand corrected. It is like taking your dirty underwear off, reversing it, putting it back on and calling it a change. When my Naval Commander uncle told us that was policy once a week. I couldn’t hardly believe it, so I asked Uncle Teme why when they had all that water. Us boys all joined the army.
To be honest - I've wondered WHEN someone named Karen was going to speak out about this. I'm sure theres a better descriptive "term" rather than someones name for these people. Possibly someone here could come up with it? I know how I'd feel if it was my name being used.
I also understand TC's reasoning - I have an ex too but also have several friends and acquaintances named Ed (ex name) so cant go there.
How about replacing Tom and Karen with Snowflake? Or are the implications of snowflake too different?
Something a bit more original than snowflake in order to enhance the cynicism. What I find most inspirational would be the ever evolving denigrations assigned to the one recently called gangreen. I would run with that refreshing originality. Much less collateral damage.
How about Snoopervisor?
Fitting, right?
Could work - already gets used by the "others"! So why not?
😣
What is "liberty" after all. Harming people is not liberty but in who is the victim when people of whatever race or gender fall in love and live together declaring they are coupled? Only when they ate prevented from doing so. "Defense of Marriage"? Bullpucky!
On another point, and this seems as good of a time as any, I've been meaning to ask this question: why is it that people who abhor derogatory, racist/sexist labels (as I do and always have) feel it's OK to use "karen" as a derogatory term? I now know how my brother named Tom feels. Stop it; it's beneath you. Thanks for listening to my rant. From a liberal baby boomer.
I suppose that IS one step worse than having one's name (John) used as a common substitute for bathroom or toilet...
Of course then there's Peter for male anatomy,
or Mark (a person who believes everything he or she hears or is so out of place that they are easily targeted by people that mean harm or fair game for bullies. That person is so easily fooled everyone can tell that they are a mark.)
I fear the list could be amended many times over.
Ahh well...
I'm in trouble now...my husband is a Mark. 😆
Sadly, I fear we are ALL in trouble somewhere in the webverse! 😖
Depending on the times, a name can surely morph into a heavy burden placed on the innocent can't it?
Sure can....well said, Ed. It seems like such a minor thing, and I and other Karens have laughed it off on Zoom calls, but after a while I started to wonder why people who hate the use of other names don't even think about it. And it explains why my brother used Thom for awhile...just something we all need to be mindful of.
I have 3 good friends by the name of Karen. Since it became the go to name to push the derogatory connotation, I cringe everytime I hear it. Perhaps because I know 3 positively wonderful people by that name,
I always think how would you like it if (fill in the blank) was used so casually to brush off a rude person.
Some Karen’s made the news being, well, self-righteous bitches. Sorry, I know a great Karen, so I know the moniker is undeserved for most. Maybe we can substitute SRBs
Never ever underestimate the mendacity and hypocrisy of humans desperate to maintain their power and status. Control of bodies of non-dominant (female) and marginalized (BIPOC, LGBTQ+, etc) people is all about power not about so-called morality.
Yup, “they” say, “Keep the dern gummint out of our gun sheds and ammo rooms, but it’s OK for the gummint to peek into ‘certain’ bedrooms.” Love the transparency of their “convictions.”
How about "peeping Clarences?"
Well, he kinda was right? Peeping Clarence.
Anita Hill caught him peeping at various porn magazines right in front of her eyes, including one that apparently contained "Long Dong Silver", if you can imagine whatever that was.
I remember some of my friends talking about that at a neighborhood party. We were wondering what on earth that was.
Of course, that was totally OK but Amurca managed to demonize Anita Hill.
LOL! "Long Dong Silver," as I recall, was a male porn star with a singularly lengthy endowment. I seem to recall there were some interviews with him, and he was said to be a really nice guy.
Love it
lol
I've started a conversation on Twitter with someone who responded to the Respect for Marriage Act by saying "God does not condone what his own Word calls a sin. God would then be a liar. God is not a liar." I replied: It's just that the Word you are referring to, in Leviticus, is over 2000 years old, & includes other "sins" like eating shellfish or wearing two types of fabric. So even if Leviticus did ban gay sex, why is it ok for other laws to evolve but not that one?"
Another person answered politely, "Because it's also condemned in the new testament." I think we are having a respectful conversation and I'm happy to see where this goes.
Good for you, Chaplain. Engaging with folks of differing views is a positive possibility. A Biblical discussion would probably hinge on “literal” vs “interpretive” as well as the veracity of translations. In discussions I have had with Biblical conservatives, I usually ask whether the Commenteer(s) believe the Bible LITERALLY. If not, why not? I also ask what translation version(s) are verifiable and by whom.
Thank you Paul. I've been pondering how much discussion about "factual" thoughts would be effective. so your suggestions are very helpful. I'm tying to go for understanding rather than persuasion. And you never know at first if you're up against the whole patriarchal modus where nothing may be questioned. So then finding common ground is almost in spite of religious beliefs.
Have at it, Chaplain! I have spent considerable time on Newsmax over the past six years. Polite conversation there is very difficult to attain. I have had several “good and possibly productive” discussions over the years. I’m not sure that I have changed many minds, but, just having discussions between opposing viewpoints CAN be helpful to our nation.
For example, it appears to me that “down deep” MAGA Republicans actually FEAR that Biden will run in 2024. They say Biden is too old (yes, even Democrats fall into that trap). They say he is losing his mind, is suffering from dementia, wears a diaper (cuz he poops his pants - yes, they say that.). NOW, if Biden is sooooo weak, then they should be ENCOURAGING him to run for President in 2024. Why? Because if he is sooooo weak, he should be sooooo easy to beat.
This makes for an interesting discussion. Of course, on Newsmax, I get called all sorts of names, but….I might be able to plant a seed or two.
Good response Paul. I am a very literal type but through my studies, I've realized that much in the Bible was not meant to be taken literally.
I am surprised how many people who claim the Bible as authoritative can be so biblically illiterate. Case in point: everyone knows the outcome in the Creation story: it turned out to be Adam and Eve. What they don’t notice is the PROCESS of getting to that result. According to the creation narrative, after G-d decided it was not good for Adam to be alone, G-d begins to create possible companions, and brings them to Adam for naming. But none of them was deemed a “suitable companion” for Adam. WHO decided that? From the context it could ONLY be Adam. So here is the uncomfortable question for Bible-thumpers: “Why do they feel comfortable telling others who qualifies as a suitable companion for them, when even G-d was unwilling to do so?”
It's more than simply a religious issue. If you trust science you know that heterosexual unions are capable of reproduction and homosexual ones are not. In nature pair bonds are formed for the purpose of reproduction and the survival of the species. Homosexual sex exists in nature, but the bonds are quite different, and arguably not as durable as the bond between a couple and their offspring.
Why not call an apple (heterosexual marriage) an apple and an orange (homosexual marriage) an orange. You can extend the same social benefits to both unions without giving them a common name. Civil Union or whatever name they chose to give such a bond is fine.
It's the current theme of forced pronouns and changing definitions of words that many people are objecting to. Our language is being severely diluted when it should be made more definitive and succinct.
Avoid the morons.
I am also interested in seeing where this conversation goes as many use that argument.
And then you have Thomas who feels HE needs to "regulate" everyone, despite his own personal choices. He does not deserve that robe he wears.
And how about "peeping Padres"? This wouldn't have taken 70 years had the American Roman Catholic Bishops minded their own business - nor would we have 1/3 the dysfunction and discord that we witness today. "Agents of God's Peace"??
Well stated Pamela.
Why then are these couples seeking the approval of government?
Gandalf,
I think you may not have read much or any of Dr. Richardson's writing.
"Those couples" were not and are not seeking the approval of government.
Rather, Biden has forestalled the government's ability to DENY approval should (anyone) decide to avail themselves of all of the legal advantages of Marriage.
Including: Tax benefits, inheritance laws, investment law regarding beneficiaries, etc.
You just gotta pay attention on this board Gandalf. Here, sound bites, thoughtless input, shallow thinking? Are not quite non-existent since, thank goodness, you are here.
But, HCR readers are not Fox News Fake Blonde fans waiting for a one sentence sound bite to grab their beer and run outside to howl at the moon about.
He is the fly in the ointment, deliberately.
Well, he probably spends many hours a day watching Fake Blondes hand him fake news and demonization on his favorite propaganda network.
Faxe News.
Your fantasy has overwhelmed your sense of reality.
Your world is a caricature of reality.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/caricature
Aye. Perhaps Gandi.
Or perhaps it is your world that is asunder?
Alas!
Yes, the comment was deliberately seeking discussion If you don't like discussion, then why are you here?
Yes, I am well aware of the reason folks want their marriages acknowledged by government. The argument for this acknowledgement is valid, but we should also be aware of the consequences.
We may be further endangering our social safety net. I discuss this in another thread. Same sex marriage as a legal status is another avenue for abuse and further degradation of the systems that so many depend upon to live.
What consequences? No one seems to consider there are negative consequences to heterosexual marriage.
In this case the exact same consequences making Gandi’s remark a true puzzle.
Marriage is hard. It's a challenge for anyone including homosexuals. What is your point?
The "risk" to the social safety net, the consequences -- which is your statement--is the same whether the marriage is heterosexual or homosexual.
You assume much. The comment was submitted as a rhetorical question. Note the substance of the comments in other threads. Yours are simply presumptuous and based upon a biased assumption. That is why this thread is a dead end and not others, where people are actually willing to debate the issue honestly and without prejudice.
“These couples” are seeking to “prevent” a Court from officially declaring them “unequal” by virtue of that Court’s decidedly religious interpretation of “the union” of two consenting adults. As citizens, they should enjoy the same rights in their civil union as those couples joined together in a religious ceremony
Its a legal thing. When religions make something civilly illegal, laws to protect some citizens are needed to protect “from” religion
They are not seeking approval. They are seeking protection from perverts who take pleasure in hurting others from being able to employ the force of government to harm them.
How is government able to either harm homosexuals or protect them from harm?
The only purpose I can see is to extend benefits such as social security to additional persons.
Why not call an apple an apple and an orange an orange, and simply extend to both identical rights?
Awwww, poor Gandalf….
You know you love me. Any good discussion craves an antagonist.
It is indeed not about who one loves, but the loyalty that comes with true love. I am a "straight" person,who stayed loyal to my wife of 29 years, throughout her decline, until the day she died. Why should any other person, loving another, not have that right?
One of my ex-students is marrying is marrying her love on the 17th. I have other ex-students who are also have same sex marriages. I hope this keeps them safe. Sexuality fall on a broad spectrum and should not be the under the purview of a bunch of right wing justices who are following their religion and not the law. And what a hypocrite Thomas is....we can examine same sex marriage, but not interracial marriage. He is and has long been as embarrassment to the Court.
No kidding, Michele! He is more of an embarrassment now since we know of Ginni’s sidework.
They do make a pair, both totally without integrity and she at the very least seditious.
And he a pervert!
Thomas is much worse than an embarrassment. The man is full of hate and dangerous.
Sadly, I’m not certain that Alito isn’t more dangerous.
He’s smarter and more Machiavellian, Clarence is just a useful hate wad
I was going to say something about Alito who I agree is probably more dangerous.
Biden's great mistake.
I couldn't agree more.
Oh yes. Every time Thomas comes up I think about those hearings which were a travesty. And I blame Joe.
Would not vote against Thomas because he was black!
Perhaps but it was a black woman accusing a black man of sexual harassment. Hill’s testimony was indeed, brilliant but the questioning she went through by the panel was demeaning. It was man vs. woman and the man won in those days.
They may have been determined to put another black man on the Court.
I am not sure what the politics were. That might have been part of it.
I am certain his decision claws at him.
It should.
That too and he's showing his venom now that he has a bunch of like minded "justices" who will vote with him.
Sold his soul long ago
I heard the Supreme Court is being moved to Salem.
Not sure he ever had one to sell for he seems to me to be soulless like so many of the current far right wing nuts. As an aside, many years ago, on the Maddow blog, I was taken to task by a religious person who maintained that all souls belong to God, so can't be sold by people. We had an unpleasant exchange where I was treated to a lot of snippiness. So glad that I seldom see that here. What a pleasure to be on a blog where people are civil.
Let’s not forget Anita Hill. She was(is) absolutely credible and I’ve never forgotten her accusation of sexual harassment against Thomas.
I remember her testimony very well. The whole hearing was disgusting in terms of the Senators.
She will get the last laugh.
I hope so.
Livermore resident and, until my term ended last night, council member. So proud of LLNL. And, basking in reflected glory: my husband worked on NIF target design for 40 years--until he retired a few years ago. This is hard stuff, with generations of scientists designing and fabricating targets and the laser facility. It is grand to see this step. Also, to see the number of women at every level (including Sec'y of Energy and Lab Director) leading the way.
Thanks for the post--puts a bit of a human face on all the raw science, multitude of scientists and technicians and the calculations. I did a BA in physics at Rice right when lasers were "appearing"---what massive strides since then!!
Patricia, congrats on your service at city council. I live in the East Bay, Martinez. I just wanted to tell you that my daughter’s ex-fiancee is on that team of scientists and engineers regarding the lasers at LLNL. He actually told me about that project about 6-7 years ago and I saw how animated he was when he was talking about it. So proud of him as it is a huge team accomplishment.
My husband counts himself as second/third generation out of four. It is an amazing project indeed! And thanks for the kind words!
While it is great that this legislation has been passed and signed into law, I am still leery of what this right wing Supreme Court will do with it.
I don't understand how the Supreme Court can have anything to do with something which has been signed into law. I thought Roe v. Wade was vulnerable because it was a legal precedent, not a law? Not so?
Laws can be declared unconstitutional.
I see. And nobody is above the law, not even the President who authorised it. As tfg considers himself to be above the law, no wonder he thought the Constitution should be scrapped. So by definition the Supreme Court is rather like the Holy Inquisition, to be dreaded. It certainly needs to be stacked with a view to a balanced structure.
Nice analogy!
Like sections of the Voting Rights Act
The remaining section of the Voting Right Act is essentially the 14th Amendment which binds the likely 5-4 majority ... majority of what ... the Fedralist Society?
This question was not directly addressed: Isn’t it virtually certain that the right will file suit against this new law on some freedom-of-religion grounds or other, and that the current SCOTUS will be happy to hear it?
The law specifically states that nothing in the Act requires any religion to sanctify or recognize any union which violates its doctrine, and refusal to recognize the union will not affect the tax status of the Institution. So they will get county clerks—again— to sue for refusal to issue marriage licenses to same-gender couples.
My priest told me years ago, after Obergefell I guess, no minister was required to perform a SSM if their faith tradition did not allow it. So ministers have always been protected.
Interesting.
Here are two views on Gay marriage from two different "men of God".
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/06/05/us/samesex-scriptures.html
Very true. But Sen. Collins insisted on having that amendment added to the bill because GOP propaganda was claiming otherwise.
I suspect that what will eventually happen is that there will be a marriage in one state that legalizes same-sex marriage in one state. That couple will then for whatever reason go to a state which does not and seek the recognition of their marriage. A clerk will refuse to sign the papers, claiming that it inhibits/limits their religious freedom, and then off we go. With the current Supreme Court, I would not bet a lot on the survival of this new law.
Right. Until the College of Cardinals leaves the SCOTUS no law on any privacy issue is safe.
California does have a state Constitutional right of privacy, Art1, Sec 7. Try it you'll like it.
Hmm, yes...California...I think I'd like it there.
Native. Lots to love here. Parts a bit pricey.
Florida has a distinct amendment, actually uses the word privacy. DeSantis obviously ignores it…
(Laughter)
I am.
lol ~
Obergefell v Hodges remains good law ... for now. SCOTUS risks the further descent of its waning legitimacy to alter "black letter law" for chaotic, balkanized state law.
I’m m happy for all the good this bill will do/: help people love with more peace, less stress, more dignity, less hell
And not to take anything away from that, I cannot get over how poorly women are faring with their reproductive rights. Where is the outcry to protect contraception? The right to bodily autonomy ? The right to not have to live by someone else’s religion ?
If this much progress can be done, thankfully, for same-sex couples why can’t be done for women?
Exactly so, Karen. Under what sun* does anyone other than the woman have the right to make the decision regarding contraception? Why are women refused sterilization or medical treatments that might have a side effect of sterilization because “you might want kids some day”?
*originally, my fat finger typed “son”. There is the answer, part and parcel.
Ally, some years ago i read a book called Eunuchs for the Kingdom of Heaven which explains a lot of the nonsense about the Catholic Church's stance on many matters including contraception. Also there are lots of medical people who can't get past the idea of women as mothers. I know a few women who really do not like children, for example, but that is supposedly unnatural.
The Catholic Church has for thousands of years recognized/recognizes only 3 types of women: madonnas, whores , and nuns
I would suggest reading the book which quite eyeopening. The professor who wrote it lost her job at a Catholic University. I would say a lot of people, even those who are not Catholic divide women into madonnas (wives/mothers) and whores.
The ERA has passed the requisite number of states to be the 28th Amendment. Bill to extend ratification deadline passed House, and Schumer needs to bring deadline extension bill to the floor. Equal Rights includes medical decisions—like reproductive rights.
Petition at ERA Coalition
❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️
It matters not
who you love,
where you love
why you love
when you love
or how you love.
It only matters
THAT YOU LOVE.
-John Lennon
Wow, this sentence must have really aroused the right wing back in the day. No wonder some nut job found Lennon. Lennon: a man who wants us to love. Not hate.
Cannot have that now. How would the Republicans win elections without somebody to point to to hate?
It has been their go to for most of my long life, along with greed
Greed and hate.
Amazing. 73 Million Americans following hate and greed Jeri.
Your letters mean so much to me. I cannot thank you enough.
Karine Jean-Pierre said ”… marriage is a proposition…about…who you love, but also about if you're going to be loyal to that person…”. That echoes the marriage vows “…for better and for worse; for richer and for poorer; in sickness and in health…” A big part of this law is the right of your same-sex or different-race spouse to be able to get health information about, and make health decisions for, you when you’re unable to vocalize your wishes. It’s not a perfect law, but it does protect that right so that it no longer just exists at the whim of justices that seem intent in making sure that their rulings reflect their religion and the laissez-faire business laws (or lack of them) of the late 19th and early 20th century.
Carol and I have been married for 55 years, 6 months on December 17th. I just had a mitral valve repaired on October 31, this was open heart surgery and I am very thankful for skill of Dr. Murphy and team. Recovery is progressing, I wish it was faster but am happy to be here. Topping the list of things I am thankful about is that if necessary Carol could make health decisions. ALL, couples should, really must have this basic right.
Glad you’re here with us, too, Dave! My best to you as you recover.
Dave, this is a great example! Thanks for providing it.
I am happy for your mitral valve repair, hope it helps! My wife and I used to ride motorcycles, and we each carried a copy of our legal documents regarding medical decisions/durable power of attorney, etc. in case we were involved in a crash/medical emergency in “hostile territory.” Never needed them, thankfully.
Ally,
I still have my 1978 Kawasaki KZ200 (looks and runs like new) and my 1999 Suzuki SV650.
Only put about 120 miles on them this past summer.
At 62 that old feeling of being lucky and invulnerable has substantially waned.
:-)
We started riding late. In the 15 years we rode, I had a Shadow Spirit 1100, a V-star 1300 and an FZ1. Karyn rode a V-Tar 1100 and a lowered FJR 1300.
I had to stop riding due to hip issues (just went bionic last week) and Karyn had some other issues with comfort. We both agree that we miss wanting to ride the most.
Ah…how are you feeling after getting your new “gear”?
Quite nicely, thank you!
The success in fusion research is great news, shows impressive progress, and probably has a good chance of supplying cheap energy about 50 years from now. We should at least double the funding for fusion research. In the mean time, we need to use solar, wind, geothermal, and maybe fission if necessary. We have already the technology to preserve a livable planet for large mammals. All we need is a WWII-size investment of effort and money. Worldwide, eventually, but it must start here. We have the money, the expertise, and the workers. Unfortunately only 2% of Democrats and 0% of Republicans think it’s a high priority.
Sorry to put a pin in everyone's balloon about the fusion results. They produced energy in excess of the LIGHT ENERGY from the lasers that were used to ignite the fusion process. What was not included in the "net energy" calculation was the massive amount of energy to power the huge lasers to produce energy from the fusion process. The reason they are talking about megajoules of energy and not megawatts of power is that the 196 lasers have extremely short pulses that have to all reach the target simultaneously. They got one ignition event--once with enough net energy to boil 2.5 gallons of water.
Yes, it is a breakthrough first step in the sense that if you can't get ignition you can't get sustained fusion, but there is a long long way to go.
"For the first time, US scientists produced more energy from fusion than the laser energy they used to power the experiment, resulting in a "net energy gain."
https://www.cnn.com/us/live-news/nuclear-fusion-reaction-us-announcement-12-13-22/index.html
"In scientific and technical terms, the reaction is considered net positive. In real-world terms, it produced far less power than what would be expected of a commercial power plant. To produce the 2.05-megajoule shot, the laser system required 300 megajoules of power, Kim Budil, director of LLNL, said in a press conference today."
https://techcrunch.com/2022/12/13/world-record-fusion-experiment-produced-even-more-energy-than-expected/
Yes, the technical challenges to creating a sustainable fusion reaction at a large enough scale to power a town are formidable. The reaction was very brief, and required a tiny sphere of hydrogen surrounded by a sphere of diamond to be made and then precisely targeted by 196 lasers. A sustained fusion reaction would require technology that does not yet exist (but then the technology for the moon shot did not exist in 1961, either). Still, this is thrilling stuff, and a HUGE step - NOT a baby step - in the creation of a useful fusion power grid.
During my life, fusion energy was always "20 years down the road". It will always be 20 years down the road, until one morning, we wake up to read that we have it 20 years ahead of schedule :)
Thrilling stuff, indeed, Steve. Baby steps for the politics that needs to catch up to what science/technology is showing can be our future.
Baby steps first! Thanks, Georgia.
Fusion probably will never amount to much. Way too much complexity.
Yes. Fifty years out for useful fusion energy is probably too optimistic. My point is that it doesn’t matter whether it’s fifty years, a hundred, or two hundred. Fifty years will be too late. We need to used what we already know to get off fossil fuels (and a bunch of other bad habits), but it appears exceedingly unlikely that we’ll do that. 90% of Americans are too busy whining about $5/gal gasoline to concern themselves with the investment required to avoid climate catastrophe, probably within the lifetimes of young people presently living on the planet.
An update: A related article
https://www.cnn.com/2022/12/14/opinions/fusion-experiment-success-lincoln/index.html
that compares the amount of government funding for fusion research vs. subsidies for the fossil fuel industry.
"Given the pressing need to find future clean energy sources, I believe that it is imperative that fusion research be given stable and ample support. Since the mid-1990s, the US government has provided an annual budget of about half a billion dollars per year, adjusted to today’s dollars. While that sounds like a lot of money, it’s tiny compared to the direct government subsidies for the fossil fuel industry, which amounts to $20.5 billion per year, with some estimate for indirect subsidies being much higher. If the fusion scientific community had been funded at such levels, fusion power plants could well have been a reality today."
While I think the last sentence is too optimistic it does point to the impact that government funding decisions have, and those funding decisions are politically driven by industry lobbying efforts.
It is a big deal because it is a first, a dream with little hope of success. Science has the first word on everything and the last word on nothing. Nobody is claiming a fusion pump to power anything, just a gleam in The eye of the future
Good pin in the balloon, some reports was saying 50% more out than in. Might there not be helium produced by the process though, for safe balloon transport?
We should also check Stephen Hawking's calculations: "if humanity's use of electricity is accelerating at the present pace, the earth will be a glowing globe around 2600", and stop talking about 'sustainability' without timescale.
'Yesterday, scientists at the Department of Energy announced a breakthrough that could help make that sci-fi vision into reality. After decades of trying, scientists for the first time carried out a nuclear fusion reaction that produced more energy than went into it.'
'As a clean source of energy, nuclear fusion could help replace polluting fossil fuels and overcome climate change. And if the remaining challenges — of which there are many — are figured out, nuclear fusion could produce more energy than today’s technologies are capable of.'
'Serious barriers remain before that potential future, experts caution. Can scientists reliably replicate what they’ve done only once? Can it be done more efficiently and more quickly? Can it be scaled up? All these questions are serious enough that, if not overcome, yesterday’s announcement may ultimately amount to little.'
'Anything involving nuclear science can get technical and complicated fast. In today’s newsletter, I want to walk you through some of the basics so you can understand why the announcement could be a big discovery.'
'Imitating the sun'
'Fusion is what powers the sun and other stars. The sun’s massive gravitational pull constantly compresses hydrogen atoms and fuses them into helium, releasing bursts of energy. That energy is transmitted across the solar system as light and heat, in rare circumstances creating the conditions for life.'
'Back on Earth, scientists hope to replicate a tiny fraction of that process to power our other technologies and infrastructure, without emitting the climate-warming emissions that coal, oil and gas do or the radioactive waste that current nuclear power plants do.'
'Most nuclear fusion experiments have used doughnut-shaped reactors and magnetic fields to trap hydrogen, fuse it and release energy. Those experiments have not yet produced more energy than they used — the goal they need to meet to be considered a true source of energy.'
'What the Department of Energy’s lab did was different. It fired 192 lasers at a tiny hydrogen pellet. This heated up the pellet, causing it to implode, fuse into helium and release a blast of energy.'
'The lab had been conducting this experiment for years, tweaking how and where the lasers are fired. On Dec. 5, the changes paid off: The resulting nuclear fusion produced more energy — about 50 percent more — than the incoming energy from the lasers. (Although firing the lasers uses more energy — a different problem to solve.)'
“They can say unequivocally that they did a nuclear fusion reaction that produces more energy than goes in to start the reaction,” Kenneth said. “Nuclear fusion research has been around for 50 years, and no one has been able to say that before.”
'The goal now is to refine this approach further, hopefully to make it commercially viable and eventually to supplant other, dirtier sources of energy.'
'Remaining barriers
As exciting as the results are to scientists, they acknowledged that potentially decades of work remain before this breakthrough leads to widespread commercial use, if it ever does.'
'For one, scientists have achieved this kind of fusion reaction exactly once. Commercial use would require facilities to reproduce that result reliably and constantly, firing lasers up to 10 times a second.'
'Some of the fuel used for this particular process could also be hard to come by. Other possible fuels exist — potentially from mining the moon (yes, that’s as wild as it sounds) — but those would require a whole different set of breakthroughs to obtain and use.'
'And there are more practical questions about cost and scale. The Department of Energy’s laser complex takes up the equivalent of three football fields, Kenneth noted — “too big, too expensive, too inefficient for a commercial power plant.”
'Yet it’s typical for scientific breakthroughs to start in unrealistic lab settings before they are refined for public use. At the very least, this discovery shows that nuclear fusion can be a source of energy. Now the work begins to try to turn that into a usable technology.'
'The breakthrough might also help scientists study nuclear reactions without underground detonations.'
'Even if fusion power becomes a reality, it probably won’t happen in time to avert the worst near-term effects of climate change.'
“Perhaps the most important technological issue at the dawn of the 21st century is which nation will control nuclear fusion,” the futurist Lawrence E. Joseph argued in Times Opinion in 1995.' (NYTimes)
How come no one talks about thorium when nuclear energy is the topic of discussion???
The topic is fusion, not fission.
This is a tremendous achievement. Marriage is about who you want to make a life with. Who you love. Who you may have a family with. It is no one else’s business. The votes on this show who is against the freedom of love and beliefs we all deserve. This country was not founded as a religious but a secular one. It must remain as such.
Progress! Now the passage of VOTING RIGHTS LEGISLATION is a priority. The failure of the Senate to pass HR1 and HR4 has made voting rights a target for the conservation SCOTUS. Gerrymandering, partisan redistricting and voter suppression must be checked.
Should be on everybody’s CRITICAL list
I am thrilled by this huge moment. touched by so many comments by folks whose lives matter. Go Biden! You are a fine man!
Democrats have been above board on their ability to control inflation. No promises, only to do what needs to be done within their power to bring down prices. If Republicans have a super, duper, triple top secret never before made available for public consumption plan that can only be accessed by drilling through 3 miles of arctic ice on the first full moon of the month where the first blue moon of the millennium appears...then, yes, we’ll wait. Anything less, we’ll have to pass.
As far as the right to marry who you are truly willing to devote yourselves to one another in love and in sickness and health has nothing to to what anyone else thinks or believes. Bless you and your ability to love and commit.
I have a question: heartbeat laws say fetuses are human beings with all the rights. Do those rights go away at birth? Dad in the TX case says his daughters don’t/can’t have the right of privacy. Can these folks have it both ways?
I came here to note this, too. Fetus is protected by federal law but live children’s rights are irrelevant? Infuriating to realize they think we are too dumb to connect these dots.
Reading the dissents in US v. Windsor (requiring the federal government to recognize marriages that are valid where performed- the first step invalidating DOMA) and Obergefell v. Hodges makes this legislation vitally important.
Concur.