Any constituency that supports an administration which separates children from their parents – in effect damages families – is an evil constituency. 

Families are forever.
My own Mormon culture taught me that long ago. It’s a beautiful concept that applies to everybody everywhere regardless of who they are or where they come from.

Are we going to let partisan political pretend-patriotism speed us further on our way to global villainy?


We will not be driven by fear into an age of unreason, if we dig deep in our history and our doctrine, and remember that we are not descended from fearful men … We proclaim ourselves, as indeed we are, the defenders of freedom, wherever it continues to exist in the world, but we cannot defend freedom abroad by deserting it at home. – Edward R. Murrow

It becomes impossible to remain silent.

There comes a time when those observers before whom the President performs – as if they were the actual majority of the electorate in this country – need to be called to account. They, not liberals and progressives, are those who have sway over what is falsely inflicted on the innocent in the name of American values. They and their constituencies seem to believe that Americans should approve of cruelty in the name of law.

We are NOT citizens of a nation founded by Konservative Intellectuals whose  generational grandchildren prance and posture on our national stage nowadays.

To  wit …

They were on wrong side of the American Revolution.

Approximately one third of the colonial population supported the English King George the Third. These Konservatives wanted no disruption. Afraid or trying to hang on to what they felt England had granted them, they did not want national independence. These Kindergarten Konservatives were not our original patriots.

Original American Konservatives supported protection of slavery in our Constitutional Convention. They wanted to count slaves in determining which states would be “slave states” but did not desire that they be citizens with voting rights.  These Kindergarten Konservatives in no way acted as Founding Fathers, rather as enforcers of their own power and influence at the expense of all others.

Our original Konservatives opposed tariffs to protect American manufacturing. In their Kindergarten-ness they were not able to understand any need to develop our own industrial base. They wanted no changes to a system based on cheap slave labor. They were not industrialists, but cash croppers – planters whose profits required no economic equality.

Our historical Kindergarten Konservatives supported “nullification”, which said that states didn’t have to enforce federal laws they didn’t like.

Our original Kindergarten Konservatives supported repeal of the Missouri Compromise so as to allow slavery in other states where votes and political clout was more vital than common good.

The ancestors of today’s Kindergarten Konservatives opposed the transcontinental  railroad, primarily because railroads carried people who might want to work on their own land and who wouldn’t want or need slaves in the western territories because it might encourage small farmers who owned no slaves in future non-slave states.

Which is why the Grandpas and Grandmas of today’s Kindergarten Konservatives were against the Homestead Act. They didn’t want more land-owners turning the American West into a collection of non-slave states.

Those old Kindergarten Konservatives opposed freedom of speech for Southern opponents of slavery. Perish the thought that southern adults and children might hear something other than the Konservative gospel.

And so Kindergarten Konservatives full of pretend patriotism and self-promoting civic piety disagreed with our sacred declaration that “all men are created equal.”  Their Kindergarten civic ideology was that “the black man has no rights the white man is bound to respect.” (Dred Scott v. Sandford), quite possibly the most foolish Kindergarten Konservative legal decision in our national history.

which led to a  Kindergarten Konservative support of destruction of the union rather than allow any restriction of slavery.

Konservatives were opposed the earliest civil rights legislation to enforce the 14th and 15th amendments. They obstructed, intimidated and harassed newly freed slaves who attempted to exercise their Federal civil rights, including the right to vote … and considered themselves god-fearing, civic-minded moral patriots.

Konservatives were against preserving the union. Back then they wanted secession and they got it.

Konservatives were also aggressively and brutally opposed to industrial workers forming unions. Sound familiar?

The ancestors of today’s Kindergarten Konservatives supported the acquisition of foreign colonies

… armed suppression of Filipino independence.

… opposed anti-trust legislation.

… opposed child labor laws.

… opposed universal free public education.

… opposed literacy for African-American citizens, in particular.

…  supported the legal theory of “separate but equal”, a sham that led to the  establishment of “Jim Crow” in the south.

… opposed state laws guaranteeing minimum wages and restricting working hours for  industrial workers.

… opposed the right to vote for women.

These are the real Moochers among us

These are the Kindergarten worshipers of that false American Exceptionalism that has cause more global and national grief than any noble achievement in the past 60 years.

These are the believers that uncompromising anger is civic wisdom, that blind and unblinking opposition is always better than compromise.

Look where it got them.
Look where it got us.


Note: When you look stuff up in the technological age, the sources you find are almost numberless. I have been looking stuff up for years and trying to share what I learn. In the case of this article, my principle inspiration and source is Joe Lyles, who authored, among other things, The Conceptual Guerilla articles a few years ago.


If I were in charge, what I’d do with “The Sacred Institution Upon Which This Country Is Based”


I started out with a different title :

Hypocritical Sanctimony meets Sanctimonious Hypocrisy.

Thinking that citizens are better served by an insistence that gay marriage deserves more concern right now than any other national concern, we ought to feel insulted by this kind of dumbing down tactice. With self-serving sober sanctimony, that gang – pretending to deep and profound thoughts – declares that we absolutely must defend that “sacred institution upon which this country is based.”


1. I’d worry more about those couples already married than about those who want to get married.

I’d be concerned and working toward seeing that they kept their jobs or, if unemployed, found good ones upon which they could economically stabilize their marriage.

2. I’d work intensely to stabilize marriage by doing everything in my and my administration’s power to achieve health coverage for every member of every family and every member-to-be of every family-to-be.

3. I’d work for increasing family incomes with minimum wage increases and expanding worker benefits. I wouldn’t stand there like a dope and pretend that corporate tax cuts have created meaningful long term income opportunities for that sector of society where the largest number of marriages are already at risk.

4. I’d understand that the sacred institution of marriage is placed more at risk when it attempts to survive with inadequate housing, bottom-line cheapskate and/or corporate slumlords, and home ownership as an impossible dream.

5. I’d take a long look and seek answers from those who truly know about failed marriages among our minority populations and stop thinking that unfettered capitalism includes within its framework some sort of naturally-occurring equal opportunity for every citizen to succeed in some idealized cookie-cutter manner.

6. I’d give priority to our married soldiers and their spouses. I would certainly not let those who never served  write out political and military checks that the children in our families – built on our sacred institution of marriage – will have to cash.

7. I’d focus on those military families and single soldiers in another significant way – I’d care about what happens when they come home and are no longer tactical plastic markers on a map. I’d make sure that the VA is truly an effective and functioning VA – a boon to our society of veterans and something for which we as a nation can all be proud and not suspicious.

8. I’d see to it that families and the marriages that build them are not hampered by an urgent need for food assistance and other welfare.

9. I’d sustain our sacred institution by getting out of the business of trying to control one gender’s right to chose. A truly moral and ethical president would trust our processes of education and scientific study and encourage responsibility around human sexuality as a national concern and effort rather than a divisive argument based on polarized personal moralities.

10. I’d sustain and advocate for the sacredness of our marriage institution by educating and protecting our precious human national resource – our children. Rather than prance around sounding pious and sober about gay couples, I’d march around obsessed with doing something about the factors that do greater harm to our families and their young members.

I’d work to encourage the nation to go after on its domestic abusers and family abandoners in a major way.

In short, as President, if I ever started defining marriage as “the sacred institution upon which this country is based,” I’d be ready to start encouraging an intervention in all those things that form the framework for failed marriages, failed families and ruined lives.

I’d resist in every way the notion that the American people believe that banning gay marriages is the answer to solving social problems.

I’d talk the necessary God-talk to challenge the Christian Right to prove that God is as narrowly focused on righteous intimacy as they are.

Actually in terms of “pro,” I support choosing and accountability for choice. I usually come down on a side that counsels against a choice to have an abortion but I’m very much against criminalizing the act and its associated legal retribution. If Christians want to construct a “moral” world then it must be non-coercive in order to get God out of the extortion business.

“Do it my way or I’ll send you to hell” is extortion and the least reason why someone would make “good moral choices.”

Good moral choices from my perspective are first founded on ethics. Those who practice good ethics ought to be doing so as a direct application of the golden rule and a genuine desire for the highest good.

They absolutely are not subject to an innerant Bible nor those who think they have interpreted the Bible for everyone else.

I think that open discussion of what most fundamentalists have unwittingly portrayed as God’s obsession on human sexuality is imperative if, in fact, God is obsessed with the intimate details of human sexuality.

Since the subject provokes more intense moral outrage, it should be discussed openly and with an eye single to teaching it as a spiritual concept rather than relegating it to a discussion of the mechanics of physiology.

In that regard, such conversation can’t help but throw a spotlight on the demagogues who raise the issue for selfish reasons. In that kind of revealing moment the loudest moral mouths are forced to throw open their own cloaks of privacy and flash to the rest of us what they are really after.

Who owns the definition of marriage two human beings are using or contemplating?
The word marriage already has some meaning – including purpose and definition – that reflects a sense of relationship and longing for something with which to define and portray themselves as a couple.

It’s also important to remember that if it is not a personal definition it is someone else’s – it is someone else’s magic. Someone else’s magic in life is either dispensed or loaned and as such, remains the exclusive property of the lender/dispenser. The lender/dispenser will not validate any usage of their magic if it is contrary to how they expect it will be utilized.

Some folks insist that “marriage” is a word they own or that God owns; that God, although not a respecter of persons as written scripturally, is still particular about who uses His word. Such a jealous God will not recognize as holy and sacred what already is holy and sacred to many human beings.

This circumstance will be valid only so long as couples contemplating marriage are in harmony and, more significantly,  in subordination to that same point of view. In reality, no one owns that word more than any word is owned. Marriage is each couple’s to define and around which to appoint to a couple’s purpose.

My wife and I were married in a Native-American ceremony presided over by a Christian Native-American Shaman who is a member of the Cherokee Good Medicine Society. We were not joined in holy matrimony by a priest, pastor, reverend, preacher, bishop or any other god-talker. And certainly not a justice of the peace.

I think God in reality is too busy trying to stay untangled from the prayers of the self-righteous to take the time to do nit-picking over who owns words and their definitions.

Discussion of politics and religion is taboo? Sure it is.

Image result for politics and religion

Peaceful people reluctant to quarrel
with neighbors or co-workers
about faith and politics
hide, afraid – until the day comes
when moderates,
liberals, and non-Christians
meet consequences
intolerably unpleasant.

Speak out as you are able.
Oppose a conspiracy
against people of faith
by preachers
who want to protect
all people of all faith
by whining about judges
marriage and women’s rights.

Unpleasant consequences
portrayed through emotion,
imagined senses of offended-ness,
and indignation
fueled by cynics
and rash pretenses
of outrage.