Comments for Macho Sauce

Comment on If Obama Read Sullivan’s Piece He’d Say, “I Did this? Really? Cool! Tell Everybody!” by Tamara Kelli Greenhill

Tamara Kelli Greenhill — Tue, 15 May 2012 15:56:50 +0000

Excellent!

Comment on I’m Not a Big Cher Fan. Don’t Dig Her Views Much Either. by Fozzie

Fozzie — Mon, 14 May 2012 20:37:13 +0000

Calling Tea Party members “teabaggers” is a shot toward that group and not gays. It’s mostly making fun of the name since it’s a group which embraces heterosexual norms but chose a name so close to a typically gay sex act. Of all performers you can’t honestly try to call out Cher as being homophobic when the Tea Party has sent out mailers warning constituents of the “queering of America” and how gay rights are “a distinct threat to the fabric of a society.” And don’t forget that just yesterday Bob Marshall tried to prohibit a gay man from obtaining a position in government for no other reason than he is gay. And a large part of the charges of racism toward the Tea Party comes from their attempted voter suppression of minorities. Ballot initiatives have been put forth, similar to archaic Jim Crow laws, which hinder the African American vote.

Comment on I’m Not a Big Cher Fan. Don’t Dig Her Views Much Either. by Jim Frame

Jim Frame — Sat, 12 May 2012 17:21:32 +0000

Thanks, AlfonZo, for this post. I’ve been a Cher fan for forever, it seems, but no more. I guess I didn’t wanna know her poli9tics because I liked her music and shows so much. Now, I’m complertely turned off to Cher for her hate speech toward people who believe differently than her………

Comment on I’m Not a Big Cher Fan. Don’t Dig Her Views Much Either. by Paul Martient

Paul Martient — Sat, 12 May 2012 16:49:45 +0000

AlfonZo Keep up the good work, I enjoy your work. Thanks for every thing you do.

Paul Martinet

Comment on A Bit of Hate Mail by Rhonda

Rhonda — Sat, 12 May 2012 05:09:16 +0000

Dear Zo:

Thank you for your enlightenment and hard work. I was struggling within myself wondering why I was having a hard time with a lot of black folk. It wasn’t just black people it was a certain characteristic I hated. The poor me victim status. Thank you for opening my eyes.

Comment on So, You Want A Marriage License? by Leroy Dodd

Leroy Dodd — Fri, 11 May 2012 21:05:24 +0000

Folks he delivers again! Dat’s wasup Zo!

Comment on So, You Want A Marriage License? by Peril

Peril — Fri, 11 May 2012 20:24:15 +0000

Well that was educational, thank you.

I suppose there does need to be SOME degree of regulation to prevent things like pedophilia and incest. Though, you would think that keeping those sorts of things illegal would pretty well handle it.
I wonder…couldn’t the inheritance issues be worked around through use of living wills?

Comment on So, You Want A Marriage License? by Terri

Terri — Fri, 11 May 2012 12:17:44 +0000

Marriage Licenses started around the 1500′s the era of the Tudor’s. Rather than arranging to have banns read (marriages announced) in one or more parishes for three weeks prior to the wedding, a couple went to church officers and paid for a license to be issued. The license required a statement that the couple knew of no reason why their wedding should not take place. As security that their statements were true, the couple was required to post a bond that would be forfeit if their statements were false. Signatures of bond guarantors were required.
In The New World–n the North American colonies, new settlers received land grants from the governors of the colonies, so potential questions of inheritance caused marriages to come under the jurisdiction of the governor. As the population of early Virginia increased, licenses were issued by governors who had no knowledge of the local parishes. For this reason, couples in Virginia routinely had to post bond guaranteeing that their licensing statements were true. In “A History Matrimonial Institutions,” George Elliot Howard notes that marriages in Virginia were always under the jurisdiction of civil magistrates. Ministers in each parish were required to keep records of their work that were submitted to the courts annually. In “Frontier Parish,” Carson A. Ritchie notes the complaints of early Pennsylvania clerics that governor Sir William Keith and his successor, Patrick Gordon, had issued marriage licenses to non-conforming (Presbyterian) ministers merely to raise money.

So that is the History of Marriage Licenses and we have thrown it all over the place now. But I am guessing it is still a money maker.

Comment on So, You Want A Marriage License? by Peril

Peril — Thu, 10 May 2012 19:56:08 +0000

I need to look more into the history of the marriage license. I know a heterosexual couple who were limited to a ‘spiritual’ marriage only, because the wife has Cystic Fibrosis (a terminal genetic ailment) and would lose her social security benefits and part of her health coverage if she acquires a marriage license. She isn’t strong enough to work a steady job, and requires extensive use of costly medications to keep her going. All lawyers advised them not to make even the spiritual marriage known, for fear that they could be investigated and deemed to be in a common-law marriage. As far as I’m concerned, they have a truer marriage than most–but they live in fear and are looked down on by certain members of society as unofficial and ‘merely cohabiting’.

Their situation is not unique. CF is the most common genetic disorder in the United States, yet they don’t have people advocating for them when it comes to marriage. So where’s all of the outcry and lobbying on behalf of their ‘rights?’

Comment on So, You Want A Marriage License? by Elise

Elise — Thu, 10 May 2012 19:56:03 +0000

I didn’t know the roots of marriage licenses, but as I was considering the issue today, I figured that was the gist of it. Typical. It is utter bs that ANYone has to get a license to wed the person they choose. I am morally opposed to homosexuality (just like I’m morally opposed to premarital sex and marital infidelity and “swinging”, not to mention lying, cheating, stealing… Lots of sins out there…) but I firmly believe it is not the state’s place to jump in and say who can be wed to whom. If a couple is sharing a home, sharing a bed, sharing a family, etc. then ultimately, what is the difference if THEY consider THEMSELVES spouses? If they’re going to do it anyway, let them at least commit themselves to one another. They don’t need my permission or my blessing. It’s a free country. In theory anyway. Get the government OUT of the marriage business.

Liberalism is an ironic thing, though. “Hey, I know: let’s court those who think that motherhood is beneath a woman’s dignity, the “Zero Population Growth” crowd, those who think unborn children should be disposed of if they’re inconvenient, and those who can not biologically reproduce with each other because they are the same gender, while the other party courts the Ann Romneys and the Michelle Duggars and the other Fertile Myrtles of America who take literally the command to “fill the earth and subdue it.” Wonder which party will ultimately prevail…” lol!