Equal rights eh?

[IJ]

Something worth noting I'd completely overlooked. Sometimes the Swaggarts are swaggering because they've been caught with the hookers... it's called "reaction formation." Or maybe it's more often "projection." It's something.

"[A]reas of the country where divorce rates are highest are also frequently the areas where many conservative Christians live. Kentucky, Mississippi and Arkansas, for example, voted overwhelmingly for constitutional amendments to ban gay marriage. But they had three of the highest divorce rates in 2003. ... The lowest divorce rates are largely in the blue states: the Northeast and the upper Midwest. And the state with the lowest divorce rate was Massachusetts, home to John Kerry, the Kennedys and same-sex marriage."

-- Columnist Pam Belluck, The New York Times, Nov. 14.

[Bill Glasheen]

That's an interesting statement, and not a surprising one given the source.

I look at the cover of The New York Times now when going to Starbucks, just to get a chuckle. They can't help themselves. They are compulsive whining losers.

Sorry for the rant... There, I feel better.

Anyhow, the statement means nothing. If true, it shows an association w/o causality.

* Who in the "red states" are getting divorced? The Christians? The non-Christians? Both?

* Anyone look at religious denomination? There sure are a hell of a lot of Catholics in the northeast.

* Catholics don't do divorce. They pay for "annulments."

- Bill

[IJ]

All points worth investigating though I don't think the Catholic annulment rate anywhere approaches the typical divorce rate (I'll investigate). Then, it's folly to discard a piece of information because of where it was printed. I remember people very p-o'd about some information Al Franken distributed, but then no one was able to discredit the information or ANY information he'd distributed. The information itself is the item of interest, otherwise we'd have to discard everything from Fox, the WST's op-ed section, and the blather from a variety of other sources. I'd rather worry about the data, especially since even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

Keep in mind that 100% of commentaries on this matter will show correlation and not causation. Who's going to randomize states to gay marriage or not? If we want to throw out ALL data on the matter that's fine with me; it leaves us with equal rights vs not equal rights and that's a simple debate to win.

[Bill Glasheen]

Ian, it doesn't even pass the sniff test.

Since when am I an Evangelical Christian because I live in Virginia? And I suppose I support Pat Robertson to the east in VA Beach, and brother Jerry Fallwell to the west in Lynchburg.

Riiiggghhhtt....

It's it's... gasp religious intolerance? Stereotyping? Syllogystic fecal material? From the "progressive" New York Times?? Say it ain't so, Ian.

Whining losers...

God forbid (oops, there I go again...) factions actually unite for a candidate, or against another. Next thing you know, I'll catch homosexuality because I once hugged you...

Christians do their thing in "the red states." Non-Christians do their thing in "the red states." And last time I checked, none of those "red states" went 100% Republican. Not even in Utah!!

Did you know that in the (gasp) "conservative" state of Virginia, that I was married by a... a... Unitarian Universalist minister? A commie from New England? Wayne tells me that some of his coupled vowed to stay together "as long as they both shall love." Yep! Go figure...

- Bill

[Bill Glasheen]

Take divorce. It's true that in Denmark, as elsewhere in Scandinavia, divorce numbers looked better in the nineties. But that's because the pool of married people has been shrinking for some time. You can't divorce without first getting married.

***

Data from European demographers and statistical bureaus show that a majority of children in Sweden and Norway are now born out of wedlock, as are 60 percent of first-born children in Denmark.

- Kurtz

Lies, damn lies, and statistics.

- Bill

[Bill Glasheen]

This from the WSJ says it better than I did.

- Bill

POLITICS & PEOPLE
By ALBERT R. HUNT

The Culture Wars Still Rage
December 16, 2004; Page A17

Moral issues, with Republicans holding the high ground, will continue to reverberate in American politics over the next four years, and this is dicey territory for the GOP as well as Democrats.

This month's Wall Street Journal-NBC News poll suggests that while social issues are amorphous, lacking the focus or saliency of Iraq and terrorism or the economy and Social Security reform, they were a factor in George Bush's victory last month and remain a major concern to most Americans.

Peter Hart, a pollster who conducted the survey, has no doubt that the cultural wars will continue to rage. The bases of both parties, he notes, are dug in, unyielding on these issues, while the political center is wary of any major movements. The upshot: "Anyone who doesn't think social issues are going to be a big part of the political debate over the next four years doesn't understand American politics."

POLL RESULTS (Adobe Acrobat required)

It's not that they are the dominant issues; the last presidential election, more than anything, says Bill McInturff, Mr. Hart's partner in the WSJ-NBC News poll, was a "security" election: After 9/11, the Democrats' task would have been difficult with a perfect candidate, something they didn't enjoy.

But social or moral concerns are important in much of America -- blue as well as red states -- and that's a recurring problem for Democrats. Among those that care mostly about social issues, the GOP enjoys an overwhelming 61% to 19% advantage.

These voters are not limited to the evangelicals or "Jesus freaks" depicted by some on the left. The one-third of the electorate that ranks social concerns paramount cuts across demographic lines, notes Mr. Hart: These voters come from all parts of the country and all occupations." Of women with children -- a key bloc in tilting the election to Mr. Bush -- almost 40% place a high priority on social issues. Observes Mr. McInturff: "Democrats are kidding themselves if they believe this is a small cohort, isolated to simply evangelical religious conservatives."

(One striking feature of this poll is how little views have shifted since the election; Americans continue to have considerable confidence in Democrats on Social Security, health care and broad economic issues and prefer Republicans on terrorism, Iraq and promoting strong moral values.)

There is a trap for the president and congressional Republicans on these social issues. When asked about compromise, Republicans give the president and the GOP Congress wide latitude on Social Security, taxes, budget issues and even nominations to the Supreme Court. But 36% say the differences with Democrats are too important to compromise on social issues like abortion and gay marriage .

When asked about President Bush's claim that the election gave him a mandate on a host of issues, voters are very discerning. A clear majority say the president did receive a mandate to continue his policies on the war on terrorism and to stay in Iraq. There is a division on the tax cuts and nominating conservative judges. But a decisive majority says he does not have a mandate to establish more restrictions on abortions, amend the Constitution to ban gay marriage or limit the federal government's role in stem-cell research. (Voters also turn thumbs down on any mandate for Social Security changes.)



This provides an opening for Democrats to see if they can alter one of their great failings in recent elections (not involving Bill Clinton): an inability to expose the contradictions in the GOP coalition, particularly between the social conservatives and the free-market right.

But the problems with social issues for Democrats run deeper, precisely because they are rooted not in particular issues but in broad, entrenched perceptions: To many, Democrats are seen as indifferent to the traditional values that resonate in voting booths; they come across as elitist, more in tune with Hollywood, California than Hollywood, Florida or New York's Manhattan more than Manhattan, Kansas.

Democrats do well on universally shared values; asked in the December WSJ-NBC News poll which values are associated with the Democratic Party, Americans say ensuring equal opportunity, tolerance and compassion. But it's Republicans who score high on strengthening families, raising standards of public decency, religion and faith or personal responsibility. These are the politically defining social issues, the ones that affect votes.

My sense -- supported in part by this poll -- is the Democrats' and John Kerry's woes on social values had less to do with their publicized battles over banning gay marriage -- Sen. Kerry carried Oregon and Michigan handily despite gay-marriage initiatives on those ballots -- and more to do with this perception that the windsurfing nominee and his Democratic Party simply weren't in sync with most middle-class moral concerns.

Correcting this won't be easy. Denial is an impediment. One of the most prescient observers of American politics that I've ever known was the late Alan Baron. After the 1984 election, he advised his fellow Democrats to ask a central question: "Do you think an intelligent, well-informed, compassionate, open-minded, well-intentioned American could have concluded that Ronald Reagan's re-election was in the best interest of the nation in 1984?" If the answer was negative, this one-time Democratic activist concluded, that politician ought to look for another line of work.

A similar question should be posed to Democratic politicians today about more than a few of those red-state voters; Mr. Baron's conclusion is equally relevant.

[IJ]

The claim appears to be that some papers are to be dismissed offhand, as they are written by people who are "biased," and also "whining losers," while others with a conservative bent are ok. I'd propose we just focus on what was written and not where.

Back on the matter of the NYT columnists assertion, it wasn't, as you appear to claim, that everyone from red states are basically identical Christian Taliban. Ann Coulter is the only author I know of who would assume her target audience was soooo stupid they'd take such an absurd conclusion at face value.

I believe she was just explaining that the *preponderance* of voters in those states who voted against equality might want to look around at local problems (their own divorce rates, within their sects; the local divorce rates, within their sexual orientation) before taking on the 1-2% or so who might someday want to marry within their gender. Seems reasonable to me. Others might not / do not agree.

BUT, those others should ask themselves (just as Democrats can legitimately ask themselves the questions posed in the WSJ piece):

Is there any, any doubt at all, that if the BLUE states had a significantly higher divorce rate with Mass the worst and not the best, compared to the RED states, that the republicans would view this as proof of the moral bankruptcy of the Democratic party and how wildly left and out of touch the BLUE states and democrats are, especially since they were crushed in this actually narrow election, and isn't it damning how the HIGHEST divorce rate happened to in the capital of gay marriage, in Taxachusets?

I certainly have NO such doubt, zero zilch. Afterall, W pushed this issue without ANY data to speak of and won. Happily asserted that marriage had to be "protected," from, say, a pair of lesbians who've raised two kids over 20 years of partnership and "reserved," on the other hand, for Britney Spears, people on reality television, and the rest of the people who brought us a 50% divorce rate. FORGOT to mention any actual policies that might help strengthen marriages in this country (for example, reconsidering no fault divorce, which many feel is responsible for a large chunk of the high divorce rate). Afterall, this is the party that published a list of colorful adjectives useful for demonizing their opponents, illustrating their willingness to put propagandizing efficiency ahead of policy.

As for "sniff tests," there's a lot of "imperfectly clean" data and arguments in a complicated, untestable area such as this. I remember at one point, you pointed out that gay men are equal because they can marry women just like straight men? I was thinking to myself, "are you serious??"

C'mon, if you want to know how that sniff would go for W himself, imagine him responding to a law that allowed him "equal rights" to go to Temple or Mosque but not Church.

As for divorce rates, yes, we ought to be comparing not overall rates but rates per married couple per year.

[Bill Glasheen]

I remember at one point, you pointed out that gay men are equal because they can marry women just like straight men? I was thinking to myself, "are you serious??"

I didn't bring this up, Ian; someone else did. But under the law and under the present definition of marriage, it's a valid logical argument. And the church analogy doesn't hold. There's no interpretation involved in gender like there is interpretation involved in who god is. The only quibble here is who gets to "know" whom.

I have enough empathy, Ian, to understand how you feel when such an argument is made. But I also have enough logical intelligence to see that the argument has merit. Indeed the GLBT agenda is to change the definition of what constitutes a marriage, no? And the Christian right agenda is to establish a definition as a constitutional ammendment.

Do you ever read The New York Times, Ian? I read the front page - every day. I make a habit of going to half a dozen different news sources on a daily basis, just so I can get in touch with various points of view. In any case, a 5th grader could easily detect the existence of an agenda in just a day or two. It's so obvious as to be pathetic.

Yes, Fox News is quite pro Republican. But Fox News at least REGULARLY entertains opinions from the left. (My access to Fox, BTW, is XM radio. I don't do cable TV.) I believe I heard Geraldine Ferraro interviewed on Fox twice in the last two weeks. And she wasn't very "nice" the first time she was on. She still got invited back. I've also heard Al Sharpton as part of discussion panels on several occasions.

Plus... How often do you hear me quoting Fox News? I go out of my way NOT to do so, because most people view them as right-leaning (probably because they are one of the few that aren't left-leaning). I generally try to quote from WSJ or USA Today because these news sources (one a bit more academic than the next) try hard to stay out of the political feces.

On the Scandanavian marrage issue alone, I just about gave up quoting anyone, because all the news about lack of marriage in these countries came from right-leaning sources, and all the arguments talking divorce rates came from the left. There was NOBODY in the middle. I found NOTHING. Sad... Just a bunch of blathering idiots talking past each other, with nobody listening. No thank you.

Put "All the news that fits, we print" away, Ian. Re-read that WSJ article again. Carefully... Stop demonizing your friends, and listen to what the country is saying. I've told you all along you have friends in places you never considered. What you are fighting isn't the beliefs of those around you, but the unfortunate consequence of alliances in a two-party system. There are very few in either party (that I know of) that feel warm and fuzzy about EVERY point of view in the party tent they share. Many fiscal conservatives such as myself have no social agendas other than we want to raise our kids in peace. And I don't need either Hillary or Jerry Fallwell to tell me how to do that.

- Bill

[Panther]

Many fiscal conservatives such as myself have no social agendas other than we want to raise our kids in peace. And I don't need either Hillary or Jerry Fallwell to tell me how to do that.

Hear, Hear!

(At risk of getting people ticked at me... aw what the heck...)

It does not "take a village" to raise kids! Especially not one controlled by the likes of Hillary "rob'em" Clinton! What it takes is good parenting... preferably two of them... and preferably one of each gender, so the child can get an idea what the differences are. Now, that's the preferable way, but sometimes things have to be different for a number of reasons...

No fault divorce, at least in most places in the U.S., is here to stay. The courts have stopped making moral calls in most of those areas... such as adultry, abandonment, abuse. While those things can still be used to get a divorce, even in Massachusetts, the courts (especially in Massachusetts) frown on using ANYTHING but "irreconcilable differences". EVEN when there is hard and fast evidence of abuse! In some Massachusetts courts that pendulum has swung all the way the other way and a woman can go into court with medical records and photographic evidence of abuse and the court will STILL ignore that evidence and refuse it as the reason for granting a divorce... instead substituting "irreconcilable differences"! On the other hand, at least in the arch-diocese that I've seen dealings with in Massachusetts, you absolutely can NOT go in and just "buy" an annulment. HOWEVER, the Catholic Church is very willing to hear a pleading for an annulment that is accompanied by detailed evidence, medical records, doctor's statements, photographs, witness statements that all prove and corroborate physical/mental/emotional abuse. I know of more than one instance where the annulment was granted for abuse, but the courts in Massachusetts wouldn't even issue a restraining order against the spouse that had openly vowed to make his ex-wife "pay for it until you beg me to kill you, then I'll make you suffer some more before I grant your wish!" (Said in front of witnesses who later, at the last minute, decided NOT to testify to it in court because THEY and THEIR families were threatened by the abuser!) So.... Annulments aren't handed out like candy at Halloween and courts don't even want to hear about any real reason for a divorce. There's plenty of blame to go around... Oh yeah, Both Kennedy AND Kerry go to Catholic Church AND take communion, but NEITHER of them actually has an annulment from their first marriage... a "technical" violation of Church policy without special dispensation from the powers that be... and trust me, those are pretty hard to get.

[Gene DeMambro]

Both Kennedy AND Kerry go to Catholic Church AND take communion, but NEITHER of them actually has an annulment from their first marriage... a "technical" violation of Church policy without special dispensation from the powers that be... and trust me, those are pretty hard to get.

...and this we know definitively? Sen. Kerry himself has said he has an annulment. I'm not so sure about Sen, Kennedy, though.

Whch leads to another issue. Bill once called out someones grandmother for not going to church every Sunday. He also got his facts on annulment wrong...and still does in anti-Catholic fashion. Panther just wrote a critique on two folks receiving Roman Catholic communion. So the question is: How made you all the religion police?

And I noticed that no one's called out the Methodists for defrocking a lesbian minister.

So certain denominations can act to restrict their membership and we say nothing. but when certain Catholics do something inclusive, we get anti-Papist diatribes?

Gene

[IJ]

"It's a valid logical argument. And the church analogy doesn't hold. There's no interpretation involved in gender like there is interpretation involved in who god is."

You may *choose* not to see it, but the reason it's "ok" for me not to be able to marry while it is NOT "ok" for Bush not to be able to choose his place of worship is because Bush values his opinions on choosing religion and does not value my opinions on choosing a spouse. I believe it's been very clearly explained on Panther's forum before that the catch with a free society is it's nice not having your freedom trampled on but you have to give up the urge to tell other people what to do--unless there's a very good reason.

Religion is totally a matter of faith and opinion who has it right. We both believe the government should stay out of this. BUT governments even today and certainly going back into relatively recent english history (where religious and state disputes were synonymous) have had no qualms about imposing their religious beliefs on the masses. You're enlightened and view this as a matter of personal choice that the government should not intrude on. I fail to see what's different about marriage. Governments have been telling people what kind of marriage to have in what kind of church for a long time and no logic has been presented here to justify tossing out only one half of that tradition.

It simply makes no difference that gender is black and white*. THAT doesn't resolve this marriage discussion one bit. The discussion after all is not about what gender is, but whether you can make a union out of two males, two females, or just a male and a female. If you somehow think THAT is somehow a black and white, definitional and obvious thing, while religion is an individual belief, well, its time to expand horizons. There may be no interpretation going into what a breast or a penis is, but there sure as heck is a lot of interpretation going into whether biology and reproduction are the foundation of marriage, and whether people can complement each other in more important ways than with a yin yang set of reproductive organs. To say there's no interpretation in there.... because... why? Just because? THAT fails the sniff test.

"Re-read that WSJ article again. Carefully... Stop demonizing your friends, and listen to what the country is saying."

No need. My unwavering support of equal rights in his arena should not suggest that I am unaware of the election results, unaware that choosing a candidate involves a lot of complicated factors, unaware that not understanding those who differ from you means you risk getting voted down by them again. There is a campaign in this country to amend the Federal Consitution to limit the rights of the gay citizens and no solid argument for why has been presented; gay people HAVE been presented as a threat to heterosexuals and to civilization itself without justification. Only in a slightly warped culture would anyone paint my defense of civil rights for gay citizens as a "demonization" of anyone. Actually, the supporters of traditional marriage are doing the demonizing, and I'm refusing to lay down. Is anyone really surprised that a minority is annoyed when the government opposes one of the major building blocks of their lives?

Panther, I'm sensitive to your idea that kids should have an example of either sex, but then I do wonder what you'd propose about making sure their parents provide ample representative of religions, languages, races, and what not. No couple can be everything for their kids. That said, there are things about having a mommy that aren't culture, but biology, and I would never interfere with that relationship. I like how we're working it into an equal society with everything from maternity leave to breast pumps so women can do their mommy thing and not give up their interests outside the home.

PS: I'm well aware of the libertarian wing of the republican voter base and have never suggested that I don't appreciate their support on this matter. I appreciate everyone who takes a stand for their rights, my rights, or anyone's rights, including the rights to practice religions or belief system i disagree with or to say things that run counter to everything i believe. The people I'm most impressed with right now are those who are standing up for democracy in Iraq where doing so can get you beheaded, and in Russia, where doing so requires massive demonstrations and gets you poisoned with dioxin. These are some serious heroes.

*and to further cloud the issue I feel I should point out MTF, and FTM transsexuals, true and partial M or F hermaphrodites, and gender norm-bending people through history (gender is sometimes NOT black and white).

[f.Channell]

I'm in favor of banning all marriage.
The only ones who get anything out of it are the flower dealers, limo drivers and tuxedo renters.
We all know who benefits from the divorces.

Short of that I think anyone should marry anyone they want.
But there should be a five year test period.
I've been a witness at a couple of divorce hearings.
Good time had by all.

F.

[Panther]

Panther just wrote a critique on two folks receiving Roman Catholic communion. So the question is: How made you all the religion police?

Well, no one made me the religion police no how... You missed my point. Bill wrote "Catholics don't do divorce. They pay for 'annulments.'" Since I must have been incredibly obtuse, let me just give the points I was trying to make in a clearer fashion.

1) In Massachusetts it is very hard to get a "faulted" divorce. It happens, but the courts generally frown on it and in some courts it is so bad that even if a woman has witnesses and medical records of physical abuse the divorce cause is still listed as "irreconcilable differences". Personally, I think that is to keep the abuser from being branded... well, an abuser!

2) Yes Catholics can apply for an annulment. An annulment isn't a "no fault" situation, there must be valid reasons. Therefore, where the court is pushed to the "no fault" limit, getting an annulment isn't as easy. There MUST be reasons given, witnesses to the validity of those reasons, and as much proof of the reasons presented as possible. One other thing I should have mentioned... Getting an annulment has NO legal standing on the marriage, only a religious standing on the marriage. So if Catholics obtain an annulment without going through the courts and getting a legal divorce, then as far as the State is concerned, they're still married... and in the Catholic church the reverse is true as well. Get a legal divorce without getting an annulment and you may be "legally" divorced, but you're still married as far as the church is concerned.

3) The examples of people that go to the Catholic church and follow everything else while not going through the annulment process was to show that even within the Catholic church there is some leeway granted for "modern realities". It wasn't meant as a slam against those people, it's just that those are two well-known Catholics that fall into that situation and by using them as an example of the situation, I thought it would mean more to others who wouldn't know Joe Catholic.

4) I'm not Catholic. I am no religion and all religions... I figure I'm doomed anyways, so I try to cover all my bases... OK, that's not really true completely, but it makes a point. My wife is Catholic and my brother-in-law is a Deacon... and I'm learning the ins & outs of their church because I want to. I was raised Protestant, but disagree with some of the positions of the church I was raised in so don't consider myself a member there anymore at all. I don't know definitively if either of them have an annulment, I'm just going on what I've heard from various Catholics (not just my immediate inlaws). One thing that is known is that Teddy Kennedy's ex-wife, Joan, has fought against it for years. And, given the way annulments are handled as far as I know, and having heard that there was no "valid" reason for an annulment in either of those cases... along with hearing Catholics make comments about the situations during political times... Their having annulments would surprise me more than them not having them. And here's another little tidbit of information, which will give some insight into why I know about this... If two people meet and wish to marry in the Catholic church, because one is Catholic, and the NON-Catholic person is divorced (legally in the courts), regardless of the fact that the person is a NON-Catholic, regardless of if the person's prior marriage was Protestant and non-Catholic, regardless even if the person's prior marriage was a civil union performed by a JP... The Catholic church requires that the Non-Catholic obtain a Catholic annulment BEFORE the Catholic church will recognize the new wedding within the confines of the church... and the Catholic priest can't perform a ceremony without that Non-Catholic obtaining an annulment either... even outside the church. And the hardest part comes in when the Non-Catholic person has long since parted ways with their ex and any witnesses. Even if the ex is amicable to the annulment, there still needs to be "reason" by Catholic rules for the annulment to be granted. The process makes any other divorce look like an afternoon in Vegas.

And I noticed that no one's called out the Methodists for defrocking a lesbian minister.

hadn't heard about it... Last I heard the Methodist church had given it's full blessing to gays.

So certain denominations can act to restrict their membership and we say nothing. but when certain Catholics do something inclusive, we get anti-Papist diatribes?

You can be defensive if you wish, but I would hardly call it an "anti-Papist diatribe"...

Ian, Please know that I put in the ideal. In an ideal world, I'd be wealthy and not have to work so hard, but the world isn't ideal. I tried to acknowledge that by saying, "sometimes things have to be different for a number of reasons"... Those reasons are many. People can be "against" gay parents and for "straight" parents, but that really doesn't give the whole picture now does it? What if the straight parents are a controlling abuser and an enabler... and the single gay mom is a college professor with a loving home? For me... the child is better off in the loving home. As you point out, things aren't so black and white sometimes. Despite the impression I may have left, I DO know that... And as Bill has pointed out many times, don't count out those on your side just because sometimes we have debates and play the "devil's advocate". Trust me, from what I know of you, there are a number of kids I'd rather see being raised by you than in the situation they're in... But we don't live in an ideal world.

[Gene DeMambro]

I am impressed by your response, Panther. I'm not sure I agree with you on the difficulty of obtaining a "fault" divorce in MA, but I am still impresed none the less.

Gay pastor dispute divides Methodists

While I am heratened by your attempt to learn the ways of the Catholic church, I am still put off by Bill's continuous sniping at Papists. Examples upon request.

Gene

[Bill Glasheen]

Gene, Gene, Gene... Tis the season; where's your true spirit of Christmas?

But if you have a burr in your behind, by all means rant. It's not healthy to keep it inside.

Bill once called out someones grandmother for not going to church every Sunday.

No Bill did not. Apparently the point I was making escaped you, because you were too busy perceiving my discussion as being anti-Papist. (It actually was anti-Kerry).

My point was that this devout woman who chose not to go to church every Sunday may be a wonderful Christian, but she's not being a good Catholic. That's the rules, baby; I didn't make them. Sorry, bud... Too many years in parochial school to let that one slip by.

Power to granny. I think she's right on the money.

He also got his facts on annulment wrong...and still does in anti-Catholic fashion.

Good thing I have you here to straighten me out, Gene.

If a (wo)man wants to get away from a spouse, by all means do. But don't air you dirty laundry in public, get money-hungry lawyers involved, trash someone's life/reputation, or otherwise engage in "un-Christian" acts all while f***ing up the lives of your kids. And then don't go back and try to put a pretty wrapper on it all. Divorce and marital disharmony ******. There's no need to make it any worse, or pretend that it's something that it is not.

The way I see it, Gene, I (and others) have every right to practice religion any way I (they) damn well please. But I'm not going to call myself Catholic - regardless of my baptism and my training - when I am diametrically opposed to several key teachings.

You are free to believe what you want, practice religion as you see fit, and call yourself whatever you want to call yourself. But I can't respect someone who says one thing and does another. That my prerogative.

He's not the kind you have to wind up on Sundays.

- Jethro Tull

- Bill