text:
Nov 6, 2008
Let The Mormon Boycott Begin
So, first up on the Mormon boycott list is Brent Andrus. Brent runs a few hotels, called the Courtyard Marriott, Fairfield Inn Marriott, Residence Inn Marriott and the Spring Hill Suites Marriott.
Please do not do business with these 14 hotels.
If they want to force their religious beliefs on others, there should be consequences. I personally won't do business with any Marriott hotels, as they are owned by Mormons. I'm done with this shit. They just use the money against us.
95 comments:
Thanks. I am spreading the word. Of course, it's best to also write a letter to Huntington Hotel Group to tell him why you are boycotting. Even better would be including a receipt from a competing hotel chain to show that you have taken your business elsewhere. Even if you don't need a hotel. You can just rent a room to throw a repeal Prop 8 party.
- November 6, 2008 at 12:09 PM
i'm not sure i understand how Mormons making legitimate donations to a proposition they support would in any way 'take away the rights of gay Californians to vote.'
since these 'rights' were granted by a CA Supreme Court in May and never actually voted on by the citizens of that state, the fact that prop 8 passed simply shows that a majority of the population in that state does not support gay marriage.
democracy: it works.
- November 6, 2008 at 2:02 PM
Except for some truths we hold to be self evident despite what may be popular at the time. One of those is liberty which by extension demands equality.
The Prop 8 struggle is not a gay/straight issue, it is an equality issue. It is Brown v Board of Education. Seperate but equal. It is akin to the rich tradition we had of not allowing women to vote in this country. The same arguements being used to support Prop 8 can find chorus with the voices that denied rights to women or people of color. As with those historic struggles we must understand that this issue is not about the people who's lives it may affect most but instead about our constitutional identity which we must continue to strive toward.
- November 6, 2008 at 2:22 PM
Hey (first) anonymous,
When the CA Supreme Court finally made it legal for interracial couples to marry in 1948, those 'rights' came from the court. They weren't voted on by the citizens. See, one role of the courts is to ensure that the majority doesn't violate the constitution and infringe on the rights of the minority.
Law: it works.
- November 6, 2008 at 2:25 PM
i hope you don't expect a comparison between interracial marriage in 1948 and same sex marriage in 2008 to change anyone's mind.
while you are correct that the rights granted to interracial couples came from the courts, one of the beauties of our democracy is that it has checks and balances. if enough people did not like that interracial couples were granted this right, they could have done the same thing that prop 8 did: put it to a vote.
- November 6, 2008 at 2:59 PM
To clarify what glenno said in response to the first Anon., the courts are there to interpret laws. Their decision was an interpretation to laws currently in place, and how all those laws jibe with the Constitution (both state and federal). Their determination was that the right for same-sex couples to marry was granted by the CA State Constitution, and therefore the decision didn't grant them the right at all. The decision only notified them that they had had that right all along, and that those who stated otherwise were simply misinformed.
As far as any boycott goes, Prop 8 didn't take away the right to choose where to spend your money... With a little luck though some day, somehow, we can make Demolition Man come true and all resturants will be Taco Bell.
- November 6, 2008 at 3:05 PM
- Dave Anthony said...
No, they could not have put it to a vote in 1948. California did not allow for propositions at that point in time.
So, you are wrong.
- November 6, 2008 at 3:13 PM
Nah, you've got the wrong idea, lets actually send MORE business to those hotels, by setting up a few LGBT conferences in the area. That ought to make his head explode.
- November 6, 2008 at 3:21 PM
- Mel said...
Aside from religion butting into government and the government butting into your bedroom, there are more problems inherent to Prop 8. Namely, constitutions have historically GRANTED rights to people. Prop 8 is limiting rights. It is a terrible precedence to set, regardless of the actual content. We've already got constitution-impinging practices (nearly anything DUI related, including but not limited no trial by jury, illegal search and seizure, and checkpoints).
- November 6, 2008 at 3:21 PM
Sent this mail...
Dear Sir,
I am a 44 year old veteran (USN) hetero male , married, with a son in college planning on taking a commission in the army after graduation.
I want to take this moment to express my STRONG disapproval of your support of the "yes on 8" campaign.
I do not understand why ANYBODY would think they should be able to legislate their on narrow version of morality. I want to tell you that A) I will NEVER stay in one of your hotels (I am a frequent business traveler), B) I will promulgate this message through multiple blog entries, C) I will take a great deal of pleasure in the ongoing fight against prop 8. After we have won here (and we will) I will ALSO be volunteering time and money to push this issue to the supreme court, and force all states to recognize the rights of same sex couples.
Enjoy your short-lived victory while you can. History will judge you as it does the bigots who supported laws banning miscegenation
"Whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap." Galatians VI
With all due respect,
Michael J. Murray-Magill
- November 6, 2008 at 3:47 PM
Anonymous #1, the government does not "grant" rights. The government guarantees the protection of rights we intrinsically have by virtue of being human beings.
If the Mormon Church is going to urge their members who do not live in California, and therefore have no right to vote in California elections, to donate sums of $1000 or more to a California ballot initiative that will create a Constitutional conflict, we, the residents of California whose rights are being infringed upon, have every right to boycott the businesses owned by out-of-state Mormons who obeyed their Church's directive to interfere in the affairs of our state.
Finally, judicial review is an essential part of our democratic system. When a minority is subject to the tyranny of the majority, there can be no democracy.
- November 6, 2008 at 4:40 PM
- Unknown said...
To those who say "put it to the vote and let the people decide," you need to go back to civics class. The real beauty of our federal constitution is that we have "majority rule with minority rights" and just to be sure you don't think I am some crack job liberal making that up, here it is http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/principles/majority.htm.
This bill is fundamentally against our American ideals as set forth by the founding fathers as it infringes on minority rights. As a californian, I was disgusted to hear that it only took a simple majority to change our constitution.
For those that support Prop 8, remember, you will not always be in the majority on all the issues and will need protection of minority rights that you have taken away from 49% of the population.
For mormons, I find it ironic that your people were forced to walk through the desert to escape persecution and yet here you are discriminating against another group of people. Or a more recent example, Mit Romney lost the GoP primary because the rest of the country felt uncomfortable with a mormon president.
And an hypothetical, what if people were to put on the ballot a measure prohibiting anyone from practicing the JCOLDS doctrine. Afterall, you don't choose to believe the JCOLDS doctrine anymore than you choose your sexuality, correct?
- November 6, 2008 at 4:47 PM
This post makes it seem that ALL Courtyard Marriott, Fairfield Inn, Residence Inn, and Springhill Suites are run by Huntington Hotel Group. I'm not remotely a supporter of Prop 8, but there should be a clarification that bigot known as Brent Andrus owns several Marriott-branded hotels in CA, TX, and MD. Full listing here:
He also owns a Hilton branded one in San Diego which should also be avoided like plague.
- November 6, 2008 at 4:54 PM
- Rob said...
I didn't know about this as I live in Florida. Butnow I can't wait to go on vacation and stay at a Marriot. Thanks.
- November 6, 2008 at 4:57 PM
- Dave Anthony said...
No problem Rob. Hopefully someone rapes you when you are there.
- November 6, 2008 at 5:00 PM
maybe he'd appreciate some mail expressing your views
15 Sandstone Cove
Park City, UT 84060
- November 6, 2008 at 5:04 PM
- Sandty Weston said...
LOL, Mormon boycott, now THAT is funny. I think the Mormons are nothing more than a misled cult. After all, who with an ounce of common sense could possibly believe their "own" book supersedes the Holy Bible. ROTFL what a joke.
- November 6, 2008 at 5:29 PM
- TheGigaShadow said...
Anyone who belongs to and follows any organized religion is a member of a misled cult. And yes, that includes all the ones that follow the "holy" bible.
- November 6, 2008 at 5:38 PM
HOMOSEXUALITY IS WRONG! I think that it is a joke that our society is so okay with this abomination! Think about it...
-Is it okay for a man to have sexual relations with a horse? NO! It's unnatural.
-Why don't male dogs have sex with each other? Because every animal on earth was born with a God-given natural instinct to procreate.
If you support gay marriage because "it doesn't hurt anyone", or because "it's up to the individual", then you might as well support bestiality, suicide, pre-teen sex, polygamy, etc.
We all know right from wrong... GROW UP AMERICA, AND QUIT TRYING TO DEFY MOMMY & DADDY!
- November 6, 2008 at 5:39 PM
Done and done, thanks for posting
- November 6, 2008 at 5:40 PM
- Bananarama said...
Of course prop 8 passed! the ads were deceptive and they had much more $. This is not democracy - it's capitalism, fear & ignorance.
- November 6, 2008 at 6:10 PM
Dogs don't have sex with eachother, sure. But male bonobos masturbate other male bonobos, as do female bonobos. There might even by some penetration going on amongst the males. And they are far more closely related to humans than dogs. Unless you don't believe in evolutionary science either, which is likely. But as an historian, I am confident that someday people will look back on this and shake their heads with wonder at our collective ignorance. "In Republics, the great danger is, that the majority may not sufficiently respect the rights of the minority". James Madison said that and it trounces any "moral" arguments anyone might have. In our REPUBLIC, majority does not rule. The absolutes of human rights do.
- November 6, 2008 at 6:20 PM
But, male dogs DO have sex with each other. A lot.
In fact, lots of animals display homosexual behaviors. For some species of monkeys it's the way they make up after a fight.
- November 6, 2008 at 6:27 PM
Mormon Boycott? Please! It was put to a vote... the people voted... you lost. Trying to pin your sore loser frustrations on any particular group is pathetic. A better solution to your flawed logic would be to find out the names of all 5 Million+ voters and boycott each of their places of employment. Give me a break.
- November 6, 2008 at 6:31 PM
So, we should boycott groups that make judgments on other groups. So, Mormons judged homosexuals. So, we should boycott Mormons. But then, we we are judging Mormons, so somebody will have to boycott us. But then, those people boycotting us will need to be judged by another group, and will also need to be boycotted by said group.
- November 6, 2008 at 6:47 PM
As the commenter before me pointed out, it seems ironic at best to boycott a group for not agreeing with you. By doing so you commit the same crime of which you accuse others: intolerance. You describe "mormon intolerance", yet you spew the same vitriol of which you accuse others. California's constitution allowed this amendment to come to a vote and the people of California voted in favor of it. If you wish the law to be changed, put forth another amendment, but don't demonize an entire religion.
- November 6, 2008 at 6:59 PM
- Posting Editor said...
Voting with our dollars is the only things that makes sense to some of these people.
Show them we are serious! BoycottHate.com will list California counties which voted in favor of Prop 8 and donors who supported the spread of hate.
www.Stevenswood.com supported the fight against Prop 8 by hosting phone banks and rallies to fight Prop 8.
- November 6, 2008 at 7:15 PM
You're a bigot. Their church asked for volunteers to "support" the measure. Generally this is perceived as a donation of time and effort, but most people are lazy and just throw money at things. Members of their church donated, but I don't see any donations from this church itself. Post evidence and maybe sensible people will believe you.
Marriage was a religious institution in the first place. Non-religious people never cared about it. And for hundreds of years it was only accepted between a man and a woman. That's what the bloody definition of the word is.
It's got no place in civil law and should be removed from civil control. There should be no
Taxes and insurance policies should be based on dependents and those should not be designated by familial or sexual relations. I ought to be able to put my best friend on my insurance policy without regard to how we're related. But people like you make it an issue of whether there's a penis involved, and which hole it goes in. Because no one else but themselves apparently matter.
You're no better than them. It's your own little crusade and you'll never admit it because you're "fighting the oppressors" in your weak little mind. Instead of realizing that your a hate-mongerer.
Why don't you lobby to have marriage removed from civil law, so that then whoever wants to can form a church and marry whomever and whatever they want? Oh, wait, no, then you wouldn't be allowed to torch whoever you hated. Right.
- November 6, 2008 at 7:35 PM
Damian Hopper, you are fantastic. You are one of the only people out there that 'gets it'. The rights are OURS, we were born with them as FREE (wo)men. The government doesn't give US rights, rather WE yield the government the privilege to infringe on some small, well defined areas within the gigantic realm of natural born rights for the GREATER GOOD. Bravo Damien, please keep spreading the TRUTH!
- November 6, 2008 at 7:39 PM
Why wouldn't you just go there and have gay sex in their hotel rooms?
- November 6, 2008 at 8:20 PM
Wow, so many anonymous posts... what are you afraid of guys? Post a name at least.
I am a Mormon, and I think it is absolutely wrong that members of my church have fought to force another person into believing what we believe. We fought so long to have our own views be left alone. And when we have the chance to show love and compassion to someone else going through the same thing, we turn on them and tell them no. We're better than that, Jesus loves them as much as we do. And if it is wrong, God will be the judge in the end. If a homosexual marriage is evil and sinful, God will judge them later. Our job is to tell them how we feel, and hope that God will change what they do. But if they don't, Jesus says to love the sinner. And forcing them into a belief structure that they don't believe in, is absolutely wrong.
Had I been a Californian, I would have voted NO ON PROP 8. So not all of us Mormons are homosexual "haters"... just like we're not all conservatives either.
- November 6, 2008 at 8:21 PM
- 5s said...
Hey I'm staying at a Residence Inn right now in Charlotte NC. Please amend your post to focus just on the properties owned or managed by the perpetrator. The Marriott company is innocent, and owns or manages tends of thousands of hotels across the country.
- November 6, 2008 at 8:31 PM
- Jack Greenwood said...
Interesting, though, how the Mormon church agreed to officially relinquish approval of plural marriage in order to avoid being crushed by the encroaching US government. I'm gonna sponsor a ballot amendment to change those 8 words to read "marriage is between ONE man and/or ONE woman." I think they'll back me, no?
- November 6, 2008 at 10:03 PM
IMPORTANT - Please sign the petition at http://www.mormonsstoleourrights.com to strip the Mormon Church of its tax-exempt status.
Please help spreading the word.
Thanks a lot.
- November 6, 2008 at 11:16 PM
- Markienyc said...
I completely understand and appreciate your point, and only wanted to offer a few points by way of a friendly dialog. While I could not more strongly agree with the idea of moving Sundance, I wanted to make you aware of several key points about Marriott - a company I've worked for for over ten years. I am a concierge at the Marriott Marquis in NYC and am gay. Marriott is actually (as a company) quite progressive on lgbt issues. Our hotel has recently begun offering a special romance package for our community and advertising it in Out magazine. We plan on having a hotel float in this year's gay pride parade.
And most importantly (to me at least) my partner of 7 years, Michael, gets the same high quality health insurance that I receive - at no cost to either of us - as part of Marriott's domestic partner coverage. I wear a combo American and rainbow flag pin at work and don't feel conflicted about it.
I want full marriage rights and equality as much as anyone. I also think what the Mormon church did in California was abhorrent and part and parcel of their creepy homophobic obsession. I can say from the 'inside' however, there is a disconnect between the religion of the founder and his corporation. People will have to make up their own minds about this, of course, I just wanted to add a bit to the discussion.
- Mark Thompson email@example.com
(originally posted on http://iamatvjunkie.typepad.com)
- November 7, 2008 at 7:13 AM
When I travel, I usually stay at Courtyard hotels. Clean, comfortable, and there are often specials.
But no more.
So long, Courtyard, I'll miss you.
- November 7, 2008 at 8:31 AM
- This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
- November 7, 2008 at 10:02 AM
Quit blaming the Mormons... This was hardly there issue alone.. It wasn't a exclusively a white evangelical issue either quite the contrary.
So who really is to blame? 7 out of 10 african americans, 9 out of 10 latinos and 5 out of 10 whites. since whites are in the majority, that provides the greatest numbers, and latinos are in the next majoritiy and voted overwhelmingly against it and 7 out of african americans. It looks like a lot people from different races voted against it so it is hard to blame any group. Many of of Obama's supporters voted for prop 8 so quit thinking this is a neo-con conspiracy.....
Gay's do have equal marriage rights. They have exactly the same rights as married people.
The real issue is whether marriage should be redefined-- and, if for gays, why not for polygamists? Why not for pedophiles?
Despite heavy television advertising in California for "gay marriage," showing blacks being set upon by police dogs during civil right marches, and implying that homosexuals face the same discrimination today, the analogy is completely false.
Blacks had to sit in the back of the bus because they were black. They were doing exactly what white people were doing-- riding a bus. That is what made it racial discrimination.
- November 7, 2008 at 4:46 PM
Thank you for this site! We need a place to unite our concerns and direct our actions. I just hope that we are on the same page. I think the No On 8 campaign and directors failed us miserably! Promoting a boycott of all those that endorsed 8 is totally justified - Especially the hateful church of Mormon.
- November 7, 2008 at 5:14 PM
people are joining the movement! We all agree we need to BoycottHate.com
Check-in at BoycottHate.com for the comprehensive list of contributors and voting results county by county in California.
- November 7, 2008 at 5:19 PM
Are the Lesbian, Gay, transgenders, etc. people that dumb? Have you not thought about this without anger consuming common sense? You may begin to read this post and get upset and move on, but read till the end because I am going to make a point that may actually help you think logically. Utah is mostly Mormon. You may not realize this but the Mormon church supported Prop 8 because they saw it as a change to the traditional family and traditional family values. Not only do they object to gay marriage, but they strongly object to anything that threatens or could threaten that model (divorce, abuse, fighting, arguments, etc.). They believe that the only way our culture can withstand the ills of the world is to have a strong family with a mother and father who are committed to each other over everything else.
So your plan is to boycott them? How on earth do you ever expect to gain tolerance? By ram-roding your anger and discontent down there throat? By holding up signs saying "Mormons are bigots", "Go to Hell Mormons", or yelling obscenities while standing outside there temples which they consider holy and sacred?
Now if this hate was shown to my religion and beliefs, I would be furious. Don't you realize by doing these things you validate there concerns? I bet you after hearing this Mormons are thinking "I don't want this around my family or children anyways. I want people who, even though I may disagree with, don't become vicious and hateful. I don't want people around who are a threat to something I hold more important than anything in this world."
So the question is what will the boycott do?
Answer: It will help them.
Why: Because at this time a large majority of people in the USA don't agree with gay marriage. Utah is a great tourist destination. Those majority of people will see Utah as a place free of something they may find threatening or disagree with.
They will see Utah as a place that holds the traditional family values in high regard.
If the LBGT weren't full of a mafia-style agenda, and instead embraced a compassionate dialogue, they would get a lot further. It may take some patience, self-control, and ultimatley some sympathy towards other points of view, but eventually you would be able to have some good discussions.
Let me ask you this:
How many of you would attend a church if somebody told you if you didn't you would burn in hell?
Even better, how many of you would stop being gay if the mormons put in add on TV saying if you don't stop you're gonna burn in hell?
Not only would this make every LBGT pissed off, but I venture to say that it would make all people mad. It is not only ineffective, but damaging and illogical.
So why I on earth are the LGBT people doing everything the wrong way? You may say "We are sick and tired!!", "This is hatred, bigotry, blah blah blah". But when it gets to this people stop listening PERIOD.
My final advice: If I were in your position I would do the opposite of a boycott. I would call for enhanced travel, enhanced CIVIL discussion, enhanced contact with Mormons. This is the only way you will draw compassion and understanding. These Mormons have an incredible history of surviving persecution and I can promise you that a keystone of who they are is being able to be strengthened in times of hatred and abuse.
This is my 2 cents. Take it for what it's worth.
- November 7, 2008 at 6:38 PM
2 cents for that is about twice what it's worth...
- November 7, 2008 at 6:46 PM
If people can't be compassionate simply because we are fellow human beings then that IS the point.
- November 7, 2008 at 6:48 PM
I agree. We have never held anything against Mormons until THEY have taken these hateful stands. Look, they supported and passed Prop 22 and Now Prop 8.
Isn't it ironic? Mormons who are known for their less than conventional marriage practices are so protective of marriage?
- November 7, 2008 at 6:50 PM
Big protest rally Saturday Nov.8 at 6pm in Sunset Junction. Info at www.afterprop8.org.
- November 7, 2008 at 10:53 PM
I was born and raised in Utah. My grandfather was a Stake President in the Mormon Church. I know far more about the workings of that "organization" then I would like to. Proposition 8 passed BECAUSE of the Mormon Church. Without their tampering it would not have passed. They made this political when they directed some of their extensive financial resources into the "Yes On 8" campaign. I fully support this boycott of Mormon owned businesses, and I will do just that. The rights of a lawful minority should NEVER come up for a vote. That is just plain wrong.
As far as the issue on punishing the Mormons who didn't support Prop 8, that's just too bad. You are who you associate with, and perhaps those good people should distance themselves from the hate mongering majority. The Mormon Church preaches a doctrine of hate and disguises it as "God's will". Horrific!
- November 7, 2008 at 10:59 PM
I was struck by one of the first comments saying democracy works.
How would the Mormon's feel about a ballot initiative directed at them. Do they think the catholics and evengelical protestants (who consider them a cult and fund missionaries to "save" people from mormonism) will come to their rescue at the ballot box?
They've set a precedent that could come to haunt them.
- November 7, 2008 at 11:28 PM
Mutual respect is the only way this issue will ever be resolved, and honestly many of the gay people (and those who are not gay) on this blog and marching in protest don't have that for Christians; especially Mormons. At least that is how it appears.
Also, I would not recommend starting boycotts during a recession... it could turn on innocent people and I really don't believe that it is very patriotic.
What about the people who work at these hotels? Do they deserve your wrath? I doubt they know what the owner does with his money (although I am sure they have good suggestions for him ;).
Why should these people suffer because you're angry.
What if Christians catch on to your idea and then start boycotting places owned by gay people? I have a friend who is a DJ here in Utah (yes I live in your favorite state).
He also happens to be gay and he is open about it. If the Christian groups started to boycott companies owned by gays he could lose his business. Is that fair? Are you willing to sacrifice others to make a point?
What if it goes to far and gay people everywhere start losing their jobs and businesses... is that OK?
I would guess you would say that is discrimination, but isn't it discrimination to do the same to Mormons?
I happen to work in weddings and know that the workers up in Park City are hurting this year because travel is down. Why hurt them more? Why hurt people's children?
That is just plain wrong. If you want to hurt some business owner then say what you want or better yet get him on Ellen's show;)
I have several friends and relatives who are gay and we all seem to get along just fine. We have mutual respect for each other. They know that I do not believe their lifestyle is right and they don't believe mine is either. PERFECTO! Some of us have even debated it and in the end we all just agree to disagree.
What you need to better understand is that many of us Mormons you are coming after don't want you to hurt.
I don't want you to not be able to be with the one you love, and I guarantee that our church leaders don't either. But we all believe that God forbids it. So what are we supposed to do? What am I supposed to do? Because I do believe that God is more important and I love Him more than anything on, in or of this world.
Why am I not supposed to stand up for what I believe? What is it wrong for my Church to spend $8 million on a campaign when I just read a report (CNN.com) that stated gay individuals and activist groups spent around $35 million on the same campaign.
I don't understand why you cannot see our side of this puzzle, when so many of us do try our very best to really understand what you are going through.
Also, it is important to note that this is not an issue of equality. Civil Unions give a married couple all of the social, financial and legal rights as any other couple, don't they?
Marriage is a religious ceremony that Christian groups (like the Mormons) have used to incorporate this joining together under god. In fact, my marriage bond is separate from my legal bond. To some of us marriage is defined as an eternal bond between a man and his wife. In our religion you can lose the eternal bond while still being married legally speaking.
If this issue was truly about rights then you must look at a religion's right to protect a ceremony that has always been part of it.
So the second anonymous is wrong in his/her account, and as for another comment the sad fact that black people where discriminated against was only a legal issue because it was the law that permitted them from taking part in their rights. A good example of this is this:
If a gay person gets married in Massachusetts and then gets a civil union in CA does it matter that the marriage isn't recognized by CA? (I know logistically this would be very hard for many, but I am trying to make a point .)
Or how about you just have a ceremony that says you are married to go along with a civil unions. Is there something wrong with Civil Unions?
I know that if I were to get married through my church and for some reason that marriage wasn't valid in my state or country I could care less because I would know that it is true in my heart and through God.
Anyways, we need to all learn to have respect for one another and we really need to try and really understand each other.
Maybe if gay people opened their hearts to Mormons and vice-versa, friendships might blossom and a greater understanding may come from it and even though we may not agree on some serious issues at least we could all be friends anyways.
Hokey kind of thought... I know, but I also believe that nothing is impossible.
The best to both side and love, joy and health to everyone.
- November 8, 2008 at 2:04 PM
mid - your thoughts are somewhat sweet and innocent.
Bottom line though, why should YOU care if I marry another man?
I certainly wouldn't have the ceremony in a Mormon church, so why would YOU care?
Also, there are some major differences between Civil Unions and Marriage, not the least of which, the fact that people like you need there to be one.
Most people told the blacks that the water in their water fountain was the same water as the one the white people used.
The fact that there was a separate one was the point.
- November 8, 2008 at 2:54 PM
- Skowronek said...
Nothing better than reciprocated hate (yes, that's called bigotry and intolerance too you know.)
- November 8, 2008 at 5:00 PM
Regarding anonymous. The majority cannot vote to strip the minority of their rights. If we follow your democracy works logic then whites could vote to enslave asians. But they can't and your a moron.
- November 9, 2008 at 6:51 PM
Don't worry.... be happy...
the Mormons need to learn this too..
They can cannot buy a stairway to heaven or control the choices of others.
The Mormons have no more say over the future than the republicans or the Illuminati or any other power monger based organization. All one has to do is know enough about Physics and Karma and the laws which govern them to know that these poor ignorant power-hungry (therefore powerless) people are in for a BIG lesson.. stay out of the way and stay vocal about keeping your freedoms..
- November 10, 2008 at 4:39 PM
- chuck703 said...
Mid, how would you feel if Californians voted to not acknowledge marriages made in Mormon churches - or in the state of Utah - and you moved to California and had to get re-married to enjoy the same benefits you have now? That's what you propose, for gays - if they're married in Massachusetts, and move to California, they should just get a civil union, it's no big deal!
It's even worse for gays than my example - if we get married in Massachusetts, and move to all but a very few states, our marriage is effectively erased, and we don't even have the option of a civil union. We lose the right to visit our beloved in the hospital, or to make funeral arrangements for them if the worst should happen; our legal wills can be challenged, in most states, by family members; etc. Is that fair? And even in states where we can be married, we don't get the tax benefits that straight couples do - we even have to pay income tax on health benefits that we get through our employers, to cover our spouse. Is that equitable? Is that what Jesus would want?
I think the big picture is that we're not going to get anywhere with this issue until we can all understand that there are TWO kinds of marriage, just as several people have suggested in their posts: there is CIVIL marriage, which is the province of government, and grants certain rights and benefits to the participants; and there is RELIGIOUS marriage, which belongs to churches and extends certain spiritual benefits. The problem is that we allow clergy to perform one ceremony to accomplish BOTH kinds. Maybe the fair thing would be to do what some other countries do, and separate the two. People would have to get a civil marriage, to satisfy the requirements of the government and gain access to the rights and privileges that the state grants, and would have to get a separate marriage to obtain whatever spiritual benefits their church bestows. No church should have to allow participation by anyone they don't want to, but EVERY citizen must have the same benefits under the law.
That would be fair, and would maybe make the religious folks feel less threatened. Even if we continue to allow clergy to combine the two ceremonies into one, and act as a proxy for the state while they conduct the church ceremony, we can maintain the separation of church benefits vs. state benefits - as required by a little document called the CONSTITUTION.
As for the Mormons ... there are good ones and bad ones. Sometimes the good ones do bad things. I've done bad things with good Mormons - but that's another story. Love them or hate them, but think about what you're trying to accomplish, before you decide what you'll do with your money - whether it's a boycott, or crushing someone's dreams in a state you don't even live in.
- November 10, 2008 at 9:56 PM
The Mormons WERE NOT the only religion who spoke out about prop 8---MANY Christian churches spoke out so why aren't you boycotting the Catholics, Baptists, Evangelicals, Congregationalists, etc?!? Why aren't you boycotting them?!? NO ONE is trying to force their views on anyone. The definition of marriage is: "the uniting of a MAN and a WOMAN." It is the basis for the family. The legal basis of marriage is the government. Each state or nation sets up ist own requirements for a valid marriage. There are many restrictions placed on marriage; minimum age requirements, you must have a license, there must be a civil or religious ceremony, 1st cousins can't marry, etc. The VOTERS OF CALIFORNIA had the opportunity and duty to vote on this issue and THEY DID! Their voices were heard and so be it. WHY people are blaming only the Mormon Church is ridiculous. MANY in the Christian world spoke out on this issue and made their voices heard, which is their right to do and it was they stood up for what they believed. I, for one, was proud to hear people defend their religious beliefs again. This was not a GAY BASHING issue, it was an issue about standing up for family values and the true definition and sanctity of marriage. God loves ALL of his children but He doesn't love all of the choices they make. The Bible speaks loud and clear about what marriage is---THE UNION OF A MAN AND A WOMAN. And He also makes it clear that we should LOVE ONE ANOTHER. Let's stop the bashing and boycotting and hatred now. The vote is in, the people have spoken, and God's word is the same today as it was yesterday.
- November 11, 2008 at 12:08 PM
Very interesting that the Huntington Hotel Group link for the list of their 14 hotels takes you to this:
This site has been taken down for Maintenance.
We apologize for the inconvenience.
- November 12, 2008 at 1:56 PM
Also, religion has no place in this AT ALL - this is the reason for the separation of church and state. What if I don't believe in your bible? Why should your religious belief be shoved down my, or anyone else's, throat? This is what bothers me so much about so many so-called "christians"; they seem to think everyone must follow their thinking. I've read the bible and I do believe that if Jesus were here today he'd say to these people "How dare you use my name to spread your hate? Have you not read my words; listened to my teachings?" Christ taught love, forgiveness and non-judgementalism; more people need to pay attention to that!
- November 12, 2008 at 2:10 PM
- Unknown said...
First, as a free person, I can (and will) boycott anything I like. That's the American way.
I've been a fencesitter on Mormonism - now I'm not. This did it.
I'm not going to do other people's homework for them - but the information about the LDS donating funds directly to the Prop 8 campaign is publically available and has prompted an investigation into the tax exempt status of the LDS.
At least the Catholics had the good sense to use a front (Knights of Columbus, which is its political branch). Actually, the Mormons built a fairly opaque dummy corporations to funnel their political contributions through as well - but mostly, they let their individual members put their names/business addies on file - for all of us to see.
I don't think they thought through this plan - but I do remember what my constitutional law prof said:
a devoted minority WILL be heard in America...no matter how long it takes.
No amount of tooth gnashing - especially in this economy - is making me feel warm toward Mormon businesses, and it's not over till the boycott has its effect.
- November 12, 2008 at 7:22 PM
- Kes said...
While I respect your words, I have to disagree. First off, there's a huge difference between civil unions. Federal taxes, lack of interstate reciprocation and recognition, Immigration rights, etc, all mean that someone with a civil union is a second class citizen. Would you like it if you couldn't bring over the person you loved from another country because immigration would be too hard? Would you want to file two tax forms with your spouse because the federal government doesn't recognize your relationship? Would you want to worry about losing insurance coverage if you moved to another state because your rights to insurance may not be recognized? This is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the separate but equal status of same-sex marriages.
Regarding religious rights, why are you forcing your god down someone else's throat? I'm not for forcing the Mormon church to recognize and perform same sex ceremonies in their temples. For all I care, Mormons could be required to only marry people with blonde hair, blue eyes and 6 fingers on one hand. All I care about is that I'm allowed to express my love, and my respect for my god in my ways. You are denying me that right to enlightenment, to spiritual uplifting. Just like you would not like it if I forced you to go to a Muslim church, I don't want to be forced to follow the beliefs of christian-based churches. Doing so is just unfair.
- November 13, 2008 at 5:06 PM
Great, got it Mariott. But I don't stay in hotels every day. What other Mormon businesses am I supporting without realizing it? Given the fact that they tithe, any dollar I spend that goes into a Mormon's pocket winds up in the coffers of the church and can be used to hurt my community. Is there a list? If we're going to do this thing, let's do it.
- November 14, 2008 at 2:04 PM
Newsflash: There are Mormons who live in California. About 700,000 of them. So stop with idiotic argument that "out-of-state" Mormons bought the election. And maybe we should revoke the tax-exempt status of churches that donated to the No on 8 campaign for being too politically involved.
- November 14, 2008 at 4:45 PM
Boycott Italy! Boycott the Vatican City! Boycott BET! Boycott the South! Boycott Snoop Dogg! Boycott California! Boycott God!
Boycott! Boycott! Boycott!
- November 14, 2008 at 4:47 PM
What INTOLERANCE from those who claim to be fighting intolerance! It is shameful. Free dialogue without recrimination is essential for the survival of democracy. Fight the Gestapo tactics. I urge support of the Proposition 8 contributors.
- November 15, 2008 at 12:30 PM
The Huntington Group must be a little nervous. Their site is down for "maintenance" now.
- November 15, 2008 at 3:30 PM
- SteveB said...
- This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
- November 15, 2008 at 4:39 PM
Don't forget the eight year boycott against Disney, for among other things, offering domestic partner benefits. The Mormons were not involved, but their sidekicks, the Catholics, were.
Turnabout is fair play...
- November 15, 2008 at 10:39 PM
I'm boycotting the Twilight series because it's creator is a moron, err, i mean, mormon. I'd love to see some of their missionaries show up at my door.
- November 16, 2008 at 7:45 AM
This is the dumbest thing I've ever seen or heard of. Gays are only distancing themselves more from the rest of society by doing this. You are all so angry that you have to take it out on someone, don't you?
Do you have too much time on your hands because you don't have any kids? Is that where you're getting all that free time to protest?
People contributed FOR prop 8 and AGAINST prop 8. I'm sorry you lost, but let's not kick and scream like little babies until you get your way.
Also, the Mormon church will not lose its tax-exempt status. As a tax attorney, I can tell you that you are wasting your time even considering it. They didn't break the law by any means.
Lastly, the idea to "boycott" the mormons is moronic. Not all of Utah is full of mormons. Gays work for organizations owned by Mormons. And just as there are gays just about everywhere, there are mormons just about everywhere. They are intertwined in this thing called "society". If you boycott mormons you are also hurting your own. My head honestly hurts from your stupidity and ignorance.
- November 18, 2008 at 12:13 AM
The members of the Mormon church donated the money not the church itself.
- November 18, 2008 at 10:22 PM
The question we should be asking ourselves, "Can two gay men have sex and naturally produce offspring, or can two lesbian women have sex and naturally produce offspring?"
You would know also by observing nature that every animal on earth follows the most distinct law of reproduction; a male uniting with a female to produce offspring, which would make the act of homosexuality contrary to this fundamental law of nature.
Therefore, I disagree with homosexuality because it is contrary to the laws of nature.
- November 18, 2008 at 10:46 PM
So I'm interested in the response to Elton John's statements which echo many prop 8 supporters views. He said, basically: heterosexuals marry, gays have partnerships. (If you don't believe he said it, look it up. It was in USAToday of all places).
- November 19, 2008 at 7:19 AM
Thanks for the tip. I'm heading out on vacation in a few days. I'll have to look up a Huntington Hotel and stay there.
- November 19, 2008 at 9:10 PM
If you believe that marriage is about procreation and sex, then you have got it wrong. Never in history has there been a litmus test to prove if a person is fertile or not. Maybe that explains why the church allows for divorces so people can trade an old spouse for a better spouse. Should people who can't have children be denied of the happiness of marriage? Let's get rid of the terminology of Marriage altogether to have those ignorant tunnel visioned people out. If you think about sex whenever you think about happiness and marriage, then you are not thinking with your head, but are thinking with your p.... Hmmm.. you need to get out more. The fact that there are people out there who share loving relationships have their rights taken away by hateful prop 8 is purely wrong. If you fail to recognize passage of laws to take people's civil rights is wrong, you can't be helped.
Let the boycott begins. Ask if a business was involved in the passage of the hateful prop 8; then walk out if they said they donated money for it. Your money should not go to help those businesses that spread hate.
- November 25, 2008 at 2:39 PM
Hmmm. Lots of anger and hatred here, Let's look at a few numbers. Prop 8 was passed by the vote of around 5.1 million voters. Total LDS population in CA (children included) is 0.7 million. It would more than fair to assume that of that 700,000 Mormon population, 350,000 are adults (more likely 200K or less, but go with 350K)..........
If EVERY Mormon adult voted for Prop 8 - every last one of them got up out and voted (highly unlikely) - their total vote would only account for LESS THAN SIX PERCENT of the total Pro-Prop 8 vote. 6%!.............
Your rabid attacks on the minority voter are an example of misplaced hatred and fiendish temper - your goals are to hurt, to punish - not to accomplish. In reality, any victim would do for you.
Even worse, politically speaking, you are swaying public opinions - and fence-sitters - away from your cause and shining an ever-brightening spotlight upon your vehemence and irrationality.........
You are making a martyr of your "enemy" and a mockery of your integrity. Rethink this.
- November 28, 2008 at 7:43 AM
- Iconservation said...
This debate is amazing. Donny Osmond recently declared his support for the church...but stated, essentially, that he was not opposed to homosexual tendencies, but opposed to acting on them. WHAT? In other words, gays are wrong!!!! This is the dangerous message being sent.
Additionally, Gays are married and accepted in some churches, such as Episcopal church, the Quakers. So now, Gay marriage is a religious issue as well. We have one religion telling us that we cannot practice ours. The Mormons are spreading hate and false information that we are lesser people. I support any boycott against them. Not buying the Killers new album even though I wanted it badly. Google famous Mormons for a full list then search to see if they have released hateful comments like Donny Osmond has!!!
- November 29, 2008 at 4:05 PM
Why is it okay to target an entire group of people for their beliefs, simply because their beliefs do not fall in line with yours?
You are targeting an entire religion. An ENTIRE religion. Trying to intimidate and force them to change their views.
I'm sorry but 52% of California voted "yes". The fact remains that 52% of California are not Mormon. Regardless of money spent on advertisements, people are allowed to vote however they like. THats how the system works.
It's not Vote, protest, vote again, boycott, and try to get your own way despite the will of the voting.
Vote all you like dude, but boycotting, and insulting a religion is extremly hypocritical.
But then again, this is the internet, and my little post certainly wont change any minds. Rather, people will glance briefly, label me a Mormon or a biggot, and point out the spelling errors.
But all of that said, you should not target an ENTIRE group of people because you can't handle the democratic process.
People voted. Better luck next time...
- December 1, 2008 at 10:43 AM
Out of curiosity when does rebuffing traditional marriage end? Should polygamy be allowed in the US? Should we not allow bisexual groups of three or more the same privilege? What about age limits? Why are 13 year olds not allowed to marry other 13 year olds or those older than themselves? Why am I not allowed to marry myself to receive the same rights as those who enter loveless straight contracts? Perhaps if this a civil rights, rather than a gay/straight thing, we should consider loosening the reigns to allow for marriage to be between any peoples which deem themselves in love. Or perhaps the 'Mormon' stance is set to protect what should be a loving institution from mutating into something we can't fully fathom now but would manifest itself had they not stood for their own truths.
While $21 million was combined with another $10 or so million from across the entire US, only 2% of California's population is Mormon (Latter-day Saint), to include children who are less than the voting age and yet 52% of California, with their extremely liberal upbringing which aided in voting our first African American president into office, voted for Prop 8 and yet only 2% of California is being targeted. Additionally, since the Supreme Court is the judicial sentry of this situation, which allowed for such a Prop to be instituted, who should really be considered the "culprits" of an "unconstitutional" allowance?
I am offended that my homosexual brethren with rage-filled protests within the US would remotely think that their plight is anything near the Civil Rights Act/Voter Rights Act coalitions during the mid-1960's. I do not remember anywhere in history where the Dutch stole homosexuals from their families and shipped them to the US to be placed on sale; forced to stand nude on boxes, having their anuses poked and prodded along with every other orifice to test their sturdiness to plow fields and pick cotton. As a side note, Joseph Smith, a prophet of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (a church with a riddled history of targeted discrimination since the early 1800's, involving countless acts of lynching, tar and featherings, rapes and deaths at the hands of the US government, and are still referred to in what was originally used as a fool's derogatory term 'Mormons' rather than addressed by the actual name of their institution), when running for presidential candidacy in mid-1800's, as part of his campaign sought to end slavery in 5 years. There were no notable homosexuals aiming to overcome slavery at the time nor in all of noted history.
Women's suffrage in the 1920's is hardly comparable to a man allotted the right to call another man his wife. The right to democratically vote was being squashed by the US American male for the shear reasoning that women were second-class citizens and thus disallowed an actual constitutional civil right. There is no positioning of homosexual personages as second-class citizens through the prohibition of allowing homosexuals seeking to make their unions appear as heterosexual unions.
If there is any chorus akin to 'Mormon' ideology in dealing with the rights of US citizens it rests in the ideology that peaceful demonstrations of democracy are the way to institutionalize laws keeping that which is sacred, sacred. It is interesting to see the uproar and outright discrimination on a group of people claiming to be discriminated against. Of course, 200+ years of hate crimes toward Latter-day Saints have gone unnoticed, allowing for but the "civil right" of a man to marry a man. My 'Mormon' Latter-day Saint friends have sent cookies, replenished water supplies, and posted signs of love to those angrily protesting outside their temples all the while receiving putrid, hate-filled stabs at both them and their children (yet again, at ages disallowed to vote).
It is still hard for me to understand the demand for what people term a civil right to marry. "Marriage is an institution, not a civil right. It has nothing to do with first- or second-class citizenship. Marriage either has an enduring, unchanging definition, or it will have no definition."
"The General Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, also known as our state legislature, is an institution, and membership in it is not a civil right. Membership in the legislature is only available to those who satisfy particular criteria, not to all those who have opinions on legislative matters and would love a chance to vote on pending bills. By definition, the Massachusetts legislature is a closed, exclusionary institution. It's fair to ask: Is barring those who would love to be senators or representatives from membership in the Massachusetts state house a violation of their civil rights?
If the answer is yes, then all barriers to exclusion, including elections, should be dropped, and anyone who wants to be a member of the legislature should be allowed to join. But, if the answer is no, then our definition of "civil rights" must be independent of our right to membership in institutions, and as such, our duly elected senators and representatives should take a new look at the issue of same-sex marriage." (Kinnaman, 2004)
If you want to make a change in the tradition of such Freedom Fighters as Abraham Lincoln, Rosa Parks, Martin Luther King, Pope John Paul, Gandhi, and Lech Walesa perhaps taking their stances of passive resistance would be more beneficial rather than answering peaceable democratic voting with fiery anger seeking to destroy and defame.
On a personal note, I do not believe in homosexuals being allowed the same marital privileges as those able to reproduce and actually add to our US society. While there are some mommies and some daddies that can't reproduce, the only possible way for children to come into this world is through heterosexual reproduction or the artificial manipulation of the aforementioned process. From a biologic standpoint, species exist to do such: reproduce. When boiled to a rudimentary level, nature dictates species exist to beget more its species. Two daddies or two mommies will never be able to reproduce by themselves unless one or the other gender is used to manipulate the natural process in every homosexual couple. So why should a privilege, not a civil right, be given to those of us who are not able to further our species and who were allowed their inalienable right to disagree due to a male and female of our species consummating.
From a religious standpoint, marriage is a religious rite. "Most ancient societies needed a secure environment for the perpetuation of the species, a system of rules to handle the granting of property rights, and the protection of bloodlines. The institution of marriage handled these needs." What bloodlines are protected in homosexual marriage? The oldest form of writing comes from ancient Mesopotamia referred to as cuneiform and all tales told reveal marriage was solely between man and woman, securing the "perpetuation of the species." If God created man in his own image then laws of creation would logically enable the union of man and woman alone, as through such means are the powers of procreation plausible.
Furthermore, where does the idea of discrimination end in a society built on the ideals of religious freedom? Considering it discriminatory/unconstitutional for churches, who carry their own belief systems supposedly separated from state, to deny marriages in churches which have expressly opposed such beliefs of same-sex marriage would no longer be considered a violation of their civil rights. The 'discrimination' is then retorted with actual constitutional discrimination based on religion. If there is to be a distinct separation of religion and government and marriage is a religious union why is "homosexual marriage" taught in some New England schools. The list can go on and on.
The whole notion seems disjointed and is inanely simplified to: "If one person loves another why shouldn't they be allowed to marry;" which would then bring us back to the first paragraph of this statement conversely retorting "where does it end?" and "who are we to decide unless religion is left out of the equation and biological matters takes hold eliminate the plausibility of homosexual marriage. All in all, on various levels the idea of homosexual unions trying to exist as though they are exactly similar to heterosexual marriages other than in name and in the idea of being built on love is a fallacy. In this case love is not enough. I love my brother, but does that inherently allow me the supposed civil right to marry him.
Our homosexual brethren/sisters to, with severe angst, threaten the 2% scapegoat of California's population is absurdly discriminatory. That being said, that in no way means homosexuals as a whole should be denied any actual civil liberties awarded via the constitution (state or federal) nor should they be solely targeted for those of the 48% of California who continue spit hatred into the faces of those holding strongly to their inalienable rights afforded via the same constitution in question. If we are ever to resolve this matter, only peaceable conversation will beget peaceable actions.
Respectfully and with the Utmost Sincerity,
Your US Brother (Juan H.)
- December 1, 2008 at 1:50 PM
It's extremely ironic this is a site built on unconstitutional religious discrimination, thus, perpetrating a hate crime, yet aims to fight against discrimination based on sexual orientation.
- December 1, 2008 at 2:48 PM
- RightKlik said...
The Mormons didn't force anything on anyone with their support of Prop 8.
- December 3, 2008 at 9:22 PM
The Mormon Church was instrumental in organizing the foot soldiers that went door to door soliciting votes in favor of Prop 8.
The Mormon Church also directed its flock to contribute to the YES on Prop 8 ballot. If you people don't understand why that makes it culpable in the passage of prop 8, then you are truly stupid people!
Let the boycott begin.
- December 3, 2008 at 11:17 PM
- Unknown said...
In defense of my gay friends, relatives and customers(I fear they may suffer the backlash from your behavior), please stop destroying your own credibility through religious bigotry.
For those who complain about the out of state contributions of Mormons, please consider the numbers below.
For Proposition 8
$25,388,955 In-State Donations
$10,733,582 Out-of-State Donations
$36,122,538 Total Donations
Against Proposition 8
$26,464,589 In-State Donations
$11,968,285 Out-of-State Donations
$38,432,873 Total Donations
$51,853,544 In-State Donations
$22,701,867 Out-of-State Donations
$74,555,411 Total Donations
Source: Tracking the money, Los Angeles Times
In fact, the No to Prop 8 side had marginally more money both from out-of-state and in-state, than the Yes to Prop 8 side. The money donated by Mormons did not come from tithings, nor from the Mormon Church, but from individual Mormons, and others of like mind. In fact, Mormons make up 2% of California, but 70% of blacks voted in favor of Prop 8.
- December 4, 2008 at 5:39 PM
Thanks for the list. I shall patronize every hotel I can. I hope your homosexual boycotting backfires in your face!
- December 4, 2008 at 10:37 PM
If being gay was normal and ok with God, then he would have made it possible for two men or two women to be able to procreate with eachother. He only intended a man a woman to procreate! And it is in the Bible, the Old Testament(Leviticus 18:22), that says being gay is an abomination before God. God is the same yesterday, today, and forever. He is never changing. Just because society changes doesn't mean that God has changed and that He will accept sin just because it is more acceptable here on earth. Traditional family is what God created and the traditional family is central to His plan. Mormon's feel strongly about traditional family and had the right as American's to vote for what they believe. It is hypocritical of you to expect tolerance of your lifestyle and then show no tolerance for others who don't agree with you. And why are you singling out the Mormon's? It is a fact that they only represented 2 percent of the votes. Why are you not against the other groups? Why is it okay for you to vandalize places of worship and to make threats to anyone who voted for the traditional family? If the tables were turned, and those things were happening to you, it would be considered hate crimes. If you want tolerance, you need to show it also.
- December 5, 2008 at 10:23 PM
Well why didn't those against prop 8 organize some "foot soldiers" to get the vote out. It seems that those foot soldiers are sure organizing now that they didn't get their way.
- December 6, 2008 at 4:03 PM
Hmmm... I notice that you are not advocating a boycott of Black or Hispanic businesses - but the Black and Hispanic voters cast the majority of their votes against Prop 8.
Could it be possible that you are afraid of being labeled "Politically Incorrect" to boycott Black and Hispanic businesses?
Or could it be that targeting businesses run by people from a particular religion is "Politically Correct"?
And besides, they're such attractive "white-bread" targets!
- December 7, 2008 at 10:48 AM
ABSOLUTELY BOYCOTT the Mormons! For those Mormons who are now crying foul, let me introduce you to empirical evidence:
That ^^ kick ass site ^^ will give you the NAMES of the Mormons who donated; it will give you real dollar comparisons; it will give you real statistics that show you how the douche bag Mormon church used it's congregation to a political end! Once your done reading all of that, why don't you go and sign my petition to have the LDS church investigated!
- December 12, 2008 at 9:48 AM
Looks like you have the Hunington Group running scared. I clicked on the link and it is "down due to maintenance".
Thanks for the information though. I will not support bigotry.
- January 9, 2009 at 4:29 PM
My gay mormon boyfriend and I just stayed at a Springhill Suites in Texas - one owned by the man in this story. I am happy to report that we had hotel-rockin gay sex the entire time we were there. We even did it on gideon's bible and for good measure we also did it on the book of mormon.
- January 13, 2009 at 11:07 AM
I support equality, and I do not support hatred. For that reason, I was against Proposition 8 and am *also* against this boycott of the LDS church. Mormon *people* certainly donated to support Proposition 8, but the boycott of the entire church (in the sense of boycotting any business owned by a member) is simply ridiculous. It simply pushes the idea of the "homosexual agenda," a phrase which makes me cringe every time it is uttered. More attention should be paid to the support of institutions and organizations which are in agreement with providing equal rights under the law to all.
Now, I am most interested in responding to anonymous post that was signed by a Juan H. Let me point out, Juan, that I appreciate the reasonable nature in which you laid out your ideas. Please allow me to respond to them in the same way.
With regard to marriage as an institution of the state, it is about the rights and convenience of the people entering into it, two consenting individuals who willingly enter into a partnership which grants them certain gains above an "unrecognized couple" -- the ability, for instance, to file joint taxes, to visit your partner in the hospital despite not being related, and so on. Of course, this naturally takes place in a loving relationship. The nature of marriage as an institution of the church is much different. It is a covenant before whatever god it is chosen to recognize, whether it be the big-'g' "God" or any one of the others pe. Any church choosing not to recognize or perform the marriage of any people whatsoever is not an infringement of rights -- it is the free practice of religion. The denial of any government to present a marriage contract to a consenting couple is an unfair practice, as it denies citizens the same rights that it grants to others. Of course, you might say next, why doesn't the government then let children who claim to be "in love" to marry, or let a 30 year old marry a 12 year old? That's easy. Marriage is a contract that is to be made with a full comprehension of its consequences. A child does not possess the same capacity to understand this, so the second kind of marriage should be illegal for the same reasons that pedophilia is illegal. The first kind should be illegal because neither party has the capacity (and more importantly, the legal standing) to enter into a legally binding contract at all! These same kinds of points are the reason that the whole "man will marry dog" argument is also completely ridiculous. As for marrying yourself, that kind of institution would bring no legal benefits (and would express no "love") that suggests the need for a legal contract, so that point is fairly irrelevant. As for polygamy and group marriage, I actually find this to be less of an issue than the others. Marriage is traditionally a union between two people. The religious side of this is fairly clear. The governmental side of this is a little more hazy, but consider for instance that marriage gives one person the primary decision making power in case of a medical emergency. How would that be handled in a larger marriage? So really, what I'm saying is that there isn't a whole list of reasons for marriage to be limited to two people that are not religious (or at least inherently moral) reasons, but it sure does make things more convenient on some issues. If anyone can think of a stable and not absolutely ridiculous way for large marriages to take place, I'll definitely give it some more thought. But I don't really see that as being a huge issue anyway.
I agree that the targeting of such a small number of people like the Mormon church is somewhat odd, given the large numbers of other voters who showed their disapproval of same-sex marriage. And as I said before, I do not support a hateful boycott of any church. I believe the Mormon church (and any other churches) who tried to impose their definition of a religious marriage onto the state were wrong in doing so, but that does not justify the actions being taken against them. As I said, there is no need to make the evil "agenda" myth of destroying marriage, the church, the child, and God all in one fell swoop seem even more real to those who invented it. We need to show kindness and compassion, while simulataneously assuring that we have our rights that we deserve as human beings.
Comparing homosexual rights movements to the events of the 1960's is done far too much. Homosexuals have pretty much all but one "type" of right in common with heterosexuals. This type is regarding legal partnerships and the rights relating to such partnerships. Homosexuals have not gone through the same problems as racial minorties have. I find your paragraph on this matter amusing – for example, "There were no notable homosexuals aiming to overcome slavery at the time nor in all of noted history." What does being homosexual have to do with slavery? It's not recorded because sexuality is not relavent to the situation. This is akin to saying that there were no notable left handed people or, say, pastry chefs, depending on the reader's view of choice and sexuality, who were opposed to an issue like allowing women to vote. Even though homosexuals have not had the same problems as other groups, this is still a civil rights issue. And it still has yet to be resolved favorably, that is, in the way which grants equal rights.
"There is no positioning of homosexual personages as second-class citizens through the prohibition of allowing homosexuals seeking to make their unions appear as heterosexual unions." This is completely untrue. Consider any previous comments, or better yet, do a little bit of outside reading, on the rights associated with marriage, big and small.
"If there is any chorus akin to 'Mormon' ideology in dealing with the rights of US citizens it rests in the ideology that peaceful demonstrations of democracy are the way to institutionalize laws keeping that which is sacred, sacred." Ah, yes, this is all sound and good … except that marriage as an institution of the state is not sacred. I prefer, much like the constitution, to have the religions of our citizens free from our government. I applaud the kindness shown by your Mormon friends during the protest of their church. Please ask them to respect our government's process of defining marriage in the same way that our government respects theirs. (Not that the LDS church is unfamiliar with changing its definitions when it is convenient to do so … remember the whole polygamy issue?)
Whether or not rights relating to marriage are properly called "civil rights" is not the issue. The issue is that the government has no business determining that two people of the same gender cannot receive the same benefits under the law as two people of the opposite gender. Call it what you have to … it's still an issue.
The comparison you quoted to the state legislature of Massachusetts is completely unfounded. That institution exists for the purpose of representing the citizens of Massachusetts. As such, the criteria for citizens trying to become a member of the legislature should naturally concern themselves with being prepared to do exactly that. That's why, for instance, there is an election to determine these members! The institution of marriage, as governed by the state, exists for the rights it grants to those consenting individuals who enter into it. For that reason, it is of no business of the government to bar two individuals entry into this contract solely because they are of the same gender. The marriages offered by the church are, however, a completely different story. They exist to form a union in the eyes of some god, and if two men or two women entering into this union is against that particular god's teachings, then this naturally will not happen.
"On a personal note, I do not believe in homosexuals being allowed the same marital privileges as those able to reproduce and actually add to our US society." This is a confusion of what marriage is actually about. Marriage is about two individuals. It does not exist solely for the raising of children, and even further, it certainly does not exist solely for the biological production of children. The production of more of our species is not the same as adding to our society. People should be allowed to get married and have absolutely no children, whether by choice or because nature prevents it. People should be allowed to get married and adopt a child, whether or not they can produce children on their own. Marriage is not about "bloodlines," and it is not about preserving the future of our "species." There will always be the urge of many to reproduce, and more and more we see that reproducing is not exactly always a good thing. In that sense, marriage would actually hinders our species – why shouldn't all the men try to impregnate as many women as possible? Then the strongest of us would survive, and the species would be better off. This, quite obviously, should make it obvious that it makes no sense to deny homosexual couples the right to marry because they cannot "further the species" in a biological sense. As for your statement, "From a religious standpoint, marriage is a religious rite," this is simply not true. Part of the reason for marriage is indeed in the quote you gave, and guess what … it had nothing to do with religion! If you say marriage exists because of the stable background it provides for raising a child, then that doesn't seem entirely unreasonable, even though I don't believe that is the purpose for marriage. But where does God come into that reason? In general, it just plain doesn't.
It would *never* be discriminatory (in a legal sense) for a church to deny marrying or recognizing the marriage of any particular couple or type of couple. The government has no business in this realm. The church has been and will be free to marry whomever it chooses.
Marriage is not just about who loves whom. Not many would agree that you should be able to marry your brother if you choose. But what is wrong with giving your brother all of the legal benefits that would be bestowed upon a spouse, save for perhaps the taxation privileges (and maybe a handful of others)? The problem here is that the word "marriage" almost always implies some sort of sexual relationship … and the public would generally frown upon that situation! In the end, though, the issue of homosexual marriage often boils down to whether being gay is a choice or not, and if it is a choice (or I guess even if not) if acting on it is inherently wrong. But of course, you do bring up an important question for even outside of this issue – what borderline determines who can and can't get married? To me it seems the answer is that marriage as a legal institution is incapable of deciding this. Because of the very important separation of church and state, the morals on which any such decisions are based should be almost universal. This is a rather unsettling situation, and it is really the problem from which the issue surrounding homosexual marriage extends, as regarding homosexuality as a terrible sin is a widespread but nowhere near universal moral idea. But to a lesser extent there was significant "moral" resistance to interracial marriage, and we consider this to be a no-brainer today. This shows the ineptitude of legal marriage to determine who should and who shouldn't be able to get married. I find it unsettling that the state has any say whatsoever in the matter. That marriage even really exists in the government seems to be an establishment of religion, in some sense. But this institution will not be easily overturned, and more importantly returned to its unadultered state in the hands of the church. Due to this, we can only make the best we can out of it, by making it as fair as possible.
As I said, though, I do not agree with the targeting of any church. As long as everyone has "played by the rules," there seems to be no need to lash out. But I will note that to avoid supporting the business of anyone, for any reason, is a choice that anyone should be willing to make, whether or not it makes sense. I merely hope that the homosexual community can take a step back to rethink what it has started.
Thanks of taking the time to read this …
- February 7, 2009 at 6:17 PM
- February 25, 2009 at 4:17 PM
What's next? pedophilia? We wouldn't want to impose on the rights of people who are attracted to children... After all they were born that way, and well they have a right to love and feel the way they do right? Just because you disagree with same sex marriage, doesn't make you a bigot. I'm not opposed to civil unions which afford the same rights as married couples.
I have gay family and friends. I love them, but disagree with what they are doing - just as much as I'm opposed to drugs but don't hate drug addicts. I don't think homosexuality is morally right, and I'm entitled to that view- just as you are to feel otherwise.
I agree that there are extremists on both sides of the issue and these People would break the law to force their views on others. Everybody is entitled to their opinion. Everyone needs to stop being so sensitive and live their lives according to the dictates of their own consciences. If you are gay and want to get married, go to a church that allows you to do so. If the state only honors it as a civil union - so what? I really don't care what the state thinks about my relationship - why should you or anyone else?
- March 17, 2009 at 3:48 AM
First of all, Marriott isn't owned by Mormons. It's a public company, and a franchise. Which means it's owned by millions of investors. Franchises are individually owned - and non-mormons and mormons alike are allowed to own one. It's a free country. Marriott was founded by a family who happens to be mormon - but what does that have to do with anything?
The television, the artificial heart, and the electric guitar were invented by mormons as well. May as well boycott those too.
I would just like liberal extremists to admit for once that they are just as ignorant, narrow-minded, and bigoted as their right wing counterparts. Get the facts. Open your mind and your hearts to differing points of view. Isn't that what you preach?
In California, there are only a few hundred thousand mormons - more than 5 million people voted for prop 8. Which means that lots of people don't think redefining marriage is a good idea. It doesn't mean they are all bigots, although some may be. May as well boycott these people unless you believe that everyone must listen to the mormons because what? they are organized? Wait it wasn't people that just had a different opinion - it was the mormons that made them do it. Give me a break!
- March 17, 2009 at 4:33 AM
Great Offer If you want to get Barcelo.com discount & voucher so click
- September 24, 2009 at 2:28 AM
What's one gay person called who was sent to the moon....1 problem
what's two gay people called who were sent to the moon....2 problems
what's all the gay people called that were sent to the moon....problem fuckin solved.
Gay people need to shut the fuck up, go to hell, and quit being little bitches.
- January 4, 2010 at 1:10 AM
- Unknown said...
I like this blog, good luck ..! also visit hotel in bandung or nikon digital camera cases
- October 19, 2010 at 12:55 AM
- hotel in bandung said...
I like this blog, good luck ..! also visit hotel in bandung or nikon digital camera cases
- October 19, 2010 at 12:56 AM


text:
Steaks at Tequila restaurant are offered with sautéed chard and roasted red potatoes.
- Yield
- 4 servings
- 1 large dried ancho chili*
- 1/2 dried New Mexico chili*
- 1 large plum tomato
- 1 cup water
- 4 tablespoons olive oil
- 6 garlic cloves, chopped
- 1 cup (or more) chicken stock or canned low-salt chicken broth
- 1 cup beef stock or canned beef broth
- 2 cups dry red wine
- 2 tablespoons (1/4 stick) butter
- 1/2 teaspoon minced fresh rosemary
- 4 6- to 7-ounce beef tenderloin steaks (about 1 inch thick)
- Place both chilies and plum tomato in heavy medium skillet. Toast over medium-high heat until chilies are fragrant and deepen in color and tomato turns black in spots, turning occasionally, about 5 minutes. Remove from heat. Cool. Stem, seed and tear chilies into small pieces. Chop tomato. Place chilies, tomato and 1 cup water in small saucepan. Bring to boil. Reduce heat and simmer until chilies are tender, about 10 minutes. Puree chili mixture in blender until smooth.
- Heat 3 tablespoons oil in heavy large skillet over medium-high heat. Add garlic and sauté 1 minute. Add 1 cup chicken stock and beef stock, then wine; boil until reduced to 1 cup, about 15 minutes. Stir in chili puree, butter and rosemary; simmer 1 minute. Season sauce to taste with salt and pepper. (Sauce can be prepared 1 day ahead. Cover and refrigerate.)
- Heat remaining 1 tablespoon oil in large nonstick skillet over medium-high heat. Sprinkle steaks with salt and pepper. Add steaks to skillet and cook to desired doneness, about 4 minutes per side for medium-rare.
- Bring sauce to simmer, thinning with more chicken stock if necessary. Place 1 steak on each of 4 plates. Top each with 1/4 cup sauce. Serve, passing remaining sauce separately.
- *Available at Latin American markets, specialty foods stores and some supermarkets.
Related Video
Nutritional Info
- Calories763
- Carbohydrates11 g(4%)
- Fat53 g(81%)
- Protein39 g(79%)
- Saturated Fat19 g(93%)
- Sodium306 mg(13%)
- Polyunsaturated Fat3 g
- Fiber2 g(6%)
- Monounsaturated Fat25 g
- Cholesterol169 mg(56%)

subset: commoncrawl


text:
- Home
- Fashion
- Men
- Tops & T-Shirts
- Cayler & Sons New Standard Black T-Shirt
Cayler & Sons New Standard Black T-ShirtAED179.00 Jump to: Details - Specifications - Reviews
Cayler & Sons New Standard Black T-Shirt
Brand: CAYLER & SONS
Cayler & Sons New Standard Black T-Shirt
(a) Deliveries are made between Saturday and Thursday and will be undertaken by a third party appointed by Virgin for and on behalf of Virgin. Virgin makes every effort to dispatch Products on time. If the ordered Products are not delivered within the time period Virgin specified in the confirmation email, please contact Virgin's Customer Services quoting the order reference contained in your order confirmation email.
(b) Delivery occurs when the ordered Products are delivered to the delivery address you specified when placing your order. At this point, responsibility for loss, breakage and damage passes to you. Ownership of Products purchased passes to you when payment is received by Virgin in full. You will be asked to sign for acceptance of the Products which will note that the Products are correct and have been received in good condition.
(c) If you are not at the delivery address, Virgin will assume that any adults that are present at the delivery address are authorized by you to take delivery of the Products that you have ordered. If above criteria are not met or if there is no one at the delivery address, Virgin will not leave the Products at the delivery address. Virgin will contact you to arrange an alternative delivery time.
(d) Please note that the delivery people will only deliver the Products to your front door.
Virgin does not deliver to any residence outside of the United Arab Emirates.
Similar Products
Product details
CAYLER & SONS provides authentic, creative headwear, bags and apparel for a young, forward thinking generation that truly cares about expressing their style and wants to make a bold statement with the way they dress seven days a week.
Washing Instructions
Machine wash at 30 C
Do not bleach, tumble-dry or dry-clean.


text:
Your shopping basket is empty.
Yankee Candle Store at Clintons
Fantasia the pink Unicorn from the Beanie Boo's collection.
This lovely soft toy with sparkling eyes is an official Ty product with the authentic Ty heart-shaped tag and handmade with the finest quality standards.
Warning! Not suitable for children under 3 years due to small parts. Choking hazard
Product Details:
No reviews present
This website requires cookies to provide all of its features. For more information on what data is contained in the cookies, please see our Cookie Policy page. To accept cookies from this site, please click the Allow button below.


text:
While Mendoza is the wine powerhouse of Argentina, there are other regions within the country that are not as well known here in the Northern Hemphisphere. This wine comes from the Neuquén Valley of Patagonia, south of Mendoza and west of Buenos Aires. The chalky soil means that most of the country's sparkling wine is made there, but they also produce Argentina's most well known grape, Malbec.
The name Ruta 22 refers to a national highway that runs from the east coast port of Bahia Blanca and ends in the western vineyards of Neuquén. The brand is in the portfolio of the Chilean-Argentine partnership Dos Andes, who also make one of the most delightfully named wines ever: Lai Lai from the Bio Bio region.
2011 Ruta 22 Malbec
Neuquén Valley, Patagonia
100% Malbec
$11, 14.5% abv.
There's a nose of ash and wet stone with black plum notes underneath. Full dark fruit flavor with firm tannins and a long aftertaste. Not jammy, but fairly well balanced. I served this with grilled cheeseburgers, and think that it would work well with lots of casual fare.
Note: This wine was received as a sample.
14 November 2012
5 comments:
- fredric koeppel said...
Lai Lai from Bio Bio is one of my favorite wine names too, it sounds like a song from "South Pacific." I also like Hecla from Yecla.
- 14 November, 2012 05:50
- Benito said...
Both are just the right amount of whimsical wordplay without being moronic or cute.
- 14 November, 2012 07:10
On condition that you still necessitate best wines for dinner, it is possible to try that website malbec wine at this website. They have got a varied choice you are able to pick from.
- 19 November, 2012 06:30
I just had my wine rep present this to me today.....very nice and at a country club setting I will be pairing this with several burgers and a cedar planked salmon dish as well!!! Not a judge fan of malbecs but this opened my eyes!
- 25 February, 2013 14:17
Huge fan not judge lol
- 25 February, 2013 14:19
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)


text:
Rand Paul, voting rights, and 'objective evidence'
There can be no doubt that Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) wants to be seen as an inclusive, color-blind kind of politician. A few weeks ago, the senator insisted, "I don't think there's anyone in Congress who has a stronger belief in minority rights than I do." Soon later, Paul added, "There is no greater defender, truly, of minority rights … than myself."
The boasts of an easily confused, crass egomaniac? Perhaps, but there's more to it than that.
Paul is absolutely convinced he's the guy who'll expand the Republican Party's reach to racial and ethnic minorities. Sure, he's on record opposing the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Sure, he's long opposed the Voting Rights Act and the Fair Housing Act. Sure, he found a neo-Confederate who celebrates the birthday of Abraham Lincoln's assassin, wrote a book with the guy, and then hired him to work on his Senate staff.
But never mind all of that, Paul says. When it comes to "minority rights," the Kentucky Republican expects you to believe he's every bit as bold a champion as John Lewis.
As is too often the case, the senator doesn't understand what he doesn't understand.
Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) says there's no "objective evidence" of racial discrimination in elections.
"The interesting thing about voting patterns now is in this last election African-Americans voted at a higher percentage than whites in almost every one of the states that were under the special provisions of the federal government," Paul said Wednesday according to WFPL's Phillip Bailey. "So really, I don't think there is objective evidence that we're precluding African-Americans from voting any longer."
So says the man who describes himself as one of the world's greatest defenders of minority rights.
Unfortunately, it appears Paul understands this issue about as well as he understands the use of drones and the Federal Reserve.
As Ian Millhiser explained, "If Paul is not aware of the evidence indicating widespread efforts to prevent African Americans from voting, then he must not be looking very hard."
During the 2012 election, black and Hispanic voters waited nearly twice as long to cast a ballot as white voters. In Florida, lines of up to six hours led an estimated 201,000 people to become frustrated and leave the polls. These lines existed largely because of a voter suppression bill signed into law by Gov. Rick Scott (R-FL) which reduced early voting hours in the state. After the election, top Republicans admitted that the purpose of cutting early voting was to reduce Democratic turnout. One Republican operative conceded that early voting was cut on the Sunday proceeding Election Day because "that's a big day when the black churches organize themselves."
Meanwhile, voter ID laws are rampant in states led by conservatives, despite the fact that these laws cannot be justified by any legitimate purpose…. [E]ven conservative estimates suggest that 2 to 3 percent of legitimate voters will turn turned away by a voter ID law – and these voters are disproportionately African American.
For Paul, one gets the sense that he looks at the surface and comes away satisfied – people of color turned out to vote in healthy numbers 2012, and the percentages did not decline after new voting restrictions were imposed, so it stands to reason that no one is interfering with African-American voting participation. Indeed, as far as the senator is concerned, there must not be any "objective evidence" at all.
But the absence of poll taxes and literacy tests does not mean the systematic Republican campaign to undermine the voting rights of the poor, minorities, students, and anyone else the GOP suspects of leaning Democratic doesn't exist. The sooner Rand Paul tries to understand this, the easier it will be to hear his chest-thumping about his heroism on minority rights without laughing out loud.


text:
The Challenge
The operator of a pipeline in the Southwestern U.S. was searching for a case ring material for pumps that would enable improved operating efficiency, increase equipment reliability and avoid the seizing or galling problems encountered with metal components.
The pumps were nine-stage horizontally split units made by Sulzer Bingham. The process fluid consisted of natural gas liquids (NGL) at ambient temperature.
Tighter clearance. Reducing clearance between the case ring and the hard metal surface of the impeller is a proven method of increasing pump efficiency, but reducing the running clearances would increase the frequency of contact between the case ring and impeller, which increases the chance of galling or complete seizing.
Process upsets. Survival of case rings under run-dry conditions caused by process upsets is highly desirable.
The Solution
Vespel® CR-6100 parts.
The operator replaced metal components with Vespel® CR-6100 parts for nine case wear rings along with center, throat and throttle bushings in one of its pumps. Clearance between the case rings and impeller OD was just 0.010 inch (254 μm), about half the API-specified clearance for metal components in such pumps.
Key Advantages
- Higher efficiency. The operator measured a 3% gain in pump efficiency over the pump manufacturer's performance test curve.
- Run-dry survival. Shortly after installation of the Vespel® CR-6100 parts, a control problem caused the pump to run "blocked-in" with both suction and discharge valves closed for 38 minutes. After the pump was shut down and cooled, operators were surprised that the rotor still turned freely. They then replaced mechanical seals, checked alignment, and returned the pump to normal operation.
- Increased safety. The operator reported that the continued operation of Vespel® CR-6100 parts during the process upset helped significantly in avoiding a release of hazardous material.
- Long life. The pump continued in operation for the next six months, completing its planned production cycle. During this time, there was no noticeable change in pump vibration or efficiency. At the end of the cycle, the pump was disassembled to inspect the rotor. The Vespel® CR-6100 parts had survived the incident with no measurable wear, and there was no damage to the pump rotor.
- Extending the benefits. Based on the proven 3% efficiency gain and run-dry capability of Vespel® CR-6100 parts in this particular situation, the operating company installed CR-6100 parts in the pipeline's eight additional pumps.


text:
Roda, Reserva - 2010RP 91 WS 91SpainGraciano, TempranilloRed Wine
Roda, Sela - 2012RP 90 WS 88SpainGarnacha, Graciano, TempranilloRed Wine
Roda I, Reserva - 2008RP 93 WS 86SpainTempranilloRed Wine
Spanish wines are some of the finest in the world. Wine Kart carries Spanish wines from three of the its finest regions - Rioja, Toro and Tudela del Duero - producing world class boutique wines. Spanish red wines are fresh, refined and concentrated. Spanish white wines are light, crisp and refreshing. The Spanish wines available on Wine Kart are it's world famous Rioja wines made from Tempranillo grapes; oak aged and producing textured, complex wines with well integrated tannins. We also have the signature Spanish Grenacha wines that are fruit forward. We have some fabulous Tempranillo and Syrah blends that are rich, fullbodied with silky tannins. If you are looking to savour delicious Spanish wines you have come to the right place. Explore Spanish wines with Wine Kart!
Compare Products
You have no items to compare.
My Cart
You have no items in your shopping cart.


text:
In the "Sutta Nipata," the Buddha is recorded to have said, "Know from the rivers in clefts and in crevices: those in small channels flow noisily, the great flow silent. Whatever's not full makes noise. Whatever is full is quiet." Recently, the world has become increasingly aware of two empty heads of nuclear states, their bellicosity belying any notion that either one is full of anything other than a massive ego.
I do not wish to imply a perfect correlation between the Kim Jong-Un regime of North Korea and the Trump administration of the United States. Despite the horrific human rights abuses perpetrated by the United States from the near eradication of the indigenous peoples encountered by settlers and the genocidal policies these natives have faced up to the present day to the collateral damage resulting from the carpet bombing of the Middle East, North Korea is still hell in comparison – at least within in its borders and for its own people.
South Korea was my home for more than 10 years. During that time, I came to learn many things about ancient Korean culture and history as well 20th century Korean history. I learned that Russia and the United States were (and are) mostly to blame for the divided peninsula. I learned that a perverted dependence on Confucian deference to authority plays a large role in the ability of the Kim regime to brainwash and control the citizens of the North. I met a few North Korean refugees who finally made it to the South after a winding journey throughout southeast Asia. Though many of these refuges had discovered a burning hatred for the Kims, they did not possess any love for the US.
Now that Trump has threatened "fire and fury" on the North, there have been three missile tests and one nuclear test, the energy of which was one hundred times greater than the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. According to many experts, the tips of the mid-range intercontinental ballistic missiles test-fired by the regime in the past two months can hold a nuclear warhead. North Korea is already a nuclear power. Neither UN sanctions nor hyperbolic threats from the US president can prevent that.
I will be the first to say I do not envy the responsibilities of the presidency. I would not want that office, and while I have serious issues with the current occupant, I do respect the position. When it comes to North Korea, the only options seem to be diplomacy or full-scale invasion. The current administration appears to be playing "good cop, bad cop," depending on who's at the mic, but a clear strategy seems to be lacking.
On May 1, 2017, Trump said in an interview that he would be willing to sit down with Kim Jong-Un "under the right circumstances." While controversial, I wonder what could have happened if Trump had sat down with Kim rather than threaten "fire and fury?" Might tensions have de-escalated, and the Korean peninsula (and the world) be a safer place today?
Who knows what such a meeting would have produced, but it likely would have gone down in history as either the beginning of the greatest achievement or the chief failure of the Trump presidency. But I think it would have been worth the chance. If I were to occupy that office, it's the chance I would have taken. Alas, now we're left with worthless sanctions or a war that will cost tens of millions of lives in the first few days. That might still be true had a meeting between Kim and Trump occurred, but we'll never know. Trump's bluster has seen to that.
"Whatever's not full makes noise." The emptiness within both Kim and Trump is a void seeking filling, a void which craves approval and attention above all else. The "sea of fire" language is quintessentially North Korean, but it's something new from the office of the American presidency. It's not yet clear whether Trump's language is purposefully excessive, but if it's not, I fear we've been set on an irreversible path of increased tensions and possible devastation.
What we need now more than ever is a president who "flows silently," who thinks before he speaks and seeks wise counsel before he acts. Regrettably, we have a president who prefers to "flow noisily," believing bluster to be preferable to peace and tranquility. His presidency reflects his spirit: chaotic, insecure, and needy.More grounded views may win out. Thankfully, some advisers in the Trump administration prefer dialogue and diplomacy to a war to end all wars. One can only hope these voices of reason triumph. The Rev. Daniel Payne is an ordained minister with the Progressive Christian Alliance and director of religious education and community outreach at Harvard Unitarian Universalist Church in Harvard, Massachusetts. He is the author of "From Faith to Freedom: A Gay Man's Escape From Christian Fundamentalism," which will be published in the fall of 2017 by Apocryphile Press.. He may be reached at firstname.lastname@example.com.
Here's one opinion. What's yours? Click here to write a letter to the editor of up to 200 words or leave a comment on the story. Read more columns, editorials and letters


text:
Showing 1–12 of 15 results
We are glad to announce that we have launched our online ordering system. If you are an existing dealer with Blossom, please click the button to login. Once you logged in, you will be able to see the price, stock status, and place orders, etc.If you don't have an account with us, please CLICK HERE to open account with us.


text:
Specialising in Channel Islands, IOM, Stamps/Postal History and Worldwide Stamps/Postal History
The next Auction is 2nd October 2019 The catalogue is now available to view in pdf format.
To be informed when the next sale is online, please register and subscribe to the Postal Auction newsletter.
To visit the Postal Auction Catalogue - Please click here
There are many Thematic catagories, if you are looking for a particular one, please enter the term in the search box for all issues with this in the set name. Examples below.
Smaller Channel Island or Bailiwick issues