Funny How THIS Flag Can Be Mandated to Fly Over All 50 State Houses

And the US Supreme Court didn’t ask you whether you were deeply offended by it. Strange how that works.
ap_vin-testa_ap-photo-e1435335607578-640x480
Everybody seems so blissed out, but somehow, this doesn’t feel like unity.
Screen-Shot-2015-06-26-at-11.12.09-PM-620x518 Screenshot from Daily Caller. No link because the auto-plays and redirects will drive you crazy, probably.

Earl sums it up nicely.
good-flag-bad-flag

Advertisements

About GruntOfMonteCristo

Fearless and Devout Catholic Christian First, Loving Husband and Father Second, Pissed-Off Patriot Third, Rocket Engineer Dork Last.
This entry was posted in LGBTQED, US Supreme Court. Bookmark the permalink.

11 Responses to Funny How THIS Flag Can Be Mandated to Fly Over All 50 State Houses

  1. solaratov says:

    A short essay on white supremacy, (to cornel west…from Fred)…

    http://fredoneverything.org/are-white-men-gods-ii-getting-the-facts-straight/

    šŸ˜‰

  2. WordPress flies it, too. WIthout a word of explanation and without asking if we think it’s pretty, or dumb, or just plain offensive.
    I actually think it’s pretty. Except that I know the political connotations, and they disgust me.
    Let’s allow mother-son, father-daughter, and brother-sister marriages, too, as well as polygamy. Why not? After all, everyone has a right to marry whoever they choose to.

    Yitzchak asks that I add that this was an obvious even to anyone who saw how the ails of society have developed over the past 150 years. Or something like that.

    • Well, I think you’re both right. This was inevitable, I guess. And I noticed the WordPress rainbow flag flying high yesterday, and it seemed pretty presumptuous to me, too. I also read that 35 major US corporations issued tweets celebrating the decision. Of course they did. Don’t want to miss out on the opportunity to schmooze.

      I still don’t get why this was such a big deal to so many people, gay and non-gay alike. The old gay couple on our block don’t give a rat’s patootie about it, and they’ve been living together, in peace, as a couple, in the same house, for 35 years. Nothing will change for them. They’ve been living here, without any trouble, in the most conservative neighborhood of the most conservative county of Colorado. Everybody treats them fine. They don’t have the slightest desire to be called “married” and have said so. They don’t want to be “married”, at any rate, because they appear to be not quite monogamous, anyway. This seems like an empty gesture to me. And if it stops there, and doesn’t immediately lead to demands for the enshrinement of every kind of perversion imaginable, I’ll be very surprised.

      • (Y)
        I’m referring to the “companionate marriage” back in the 1960s “companionship” was redefined as “s**”.

        From there the destination was a foregone conclusion. I’m shocked, and appalled that “marry who you love” could pass as a placard for gay marriage, Since when was a desire to get in bed with someone synonymous with love, or even a necessary requirement such that writing love can be used as a rhetorical substitute for the former?!?! Are they so closely equatable?

        That, in my mind, is a bigger part of the problem than anything else. They found a year or so back that people who married their best friend are actually really happy in the main, in a much more durable fashion than controls (who married for s**).

      • (Y, addendum)

        the only case that I know of where lust contributes to marital success is where the chemistry is so perfect that the couple in question does not know how to (ahem).

        I can only guess that in such cases, the desire is so powerful, that it prevents disagreements from boiling over in to acrimony by forcing the couple to compromise for the sake of getting back in bed. likewise such cases, unlike the normal scenario do not fade with time.

        But then, if the two of you haven’t already started planning your wedding within a month or two of meeting each other, you’re probably not one of those couples, and chances of finding that are slim to absolute zero (and hence not something that you can build a universal paradigm on).

    • I like your rationales, Rabbi! Well said. I agree 100%. Redefining everything as about s** back in the 60s was a disaster. I’m no prude, but life is about more than just the carnal, but some people just want to burn it all down, you know?

  3. This is hilarious. Obama: If you like your religion, you can keep your religion. As long as you change it to be what we tell you it has to be.
    http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/06/27/obama-on-gay-marriage-if-you-like-your-religion-you-can-keep-your-religion/

  4. Pingback: My Article Read (6-28-2015) | My Daily Musing

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s