Uncle Roger's Notebooks of Daily Life
My life is, to me, ripe with frequent challenges, occasional successes, spontaneous laughter, adequate tears, and enough *life* to last me a lifetime. To you, however, it surely seems most pedestrian. And therefore, I recycle the name I used previously and call this my Notebooks of Daily Life. Daily, because it's everyday in nature, ordinary. These conglomeration of events that are my life are of interest to me because I live it, perhaps mildly so to those who are touched by it, and could only be of perverse, morbid curiosity to anyone else. Yet, I offer them here nonetheless. Make of them what you will, and perhaps you can learn from my mistakes.
An RSS Feed is also available.
Monday, February 13, 2012
Last week, Mittens "Magic Underwear" Romney weighed in on the historic 9th circuit court ruling that Prop 8 is indeed unconstitutional. As a Mormon, Mittens is well aware of so-called "non-traditional" marriages. In fact, it is my hypothesis that the reason the Mormon church is so rabidly anti-equality is that if same-sex marriage is legalized, people might start asking why polyamory isn't legal which, of course, would get people started looking at the Mormon church.
For those unfamiliar with the LDS church (as they like to be called these days), their prophet Joseph Smith was big on the idea of each guy having multiple wives, something that caught on pretty quickly with his followers. The only problem with that is that the good ol' USA wasn't having any of this "non-traditional" marriage stuff. Facing federal seizure of all church assets and prison terms for church officials, church President Willford Woodruff had a little chat with God who conveniently decreed that polygamy was no longer allowed. This paved the way for Utah to become a state in 1896.
Fast forward a century and a quarter and we have Mittens Romney running for president of that same United States, once again trying to curtail civil rights. His take on the ruling in Perry v. Brown:
“Today, unelected judges cast aside the will of the people of California who voted to protect traditional marriage. This decision does not end this fight, and I expect it to go to the Supreme Court. That prospect underscores the vital importance of this election and the movement to preserve our values. I believe marriage is between a man and a woman and, as president, I will protect traditional marriage and appoint judges who interpret the Constitution as it is written and not according to their own politics and prejudices.”
In case that was a little too much politicospeak, I'll translate (and comment):
Unlike Romney, I actually value the constitution and the system our forefathers set up so I won't be voting for Mittens this November. But you already knew that, didn't you?
The real question, as far as I'm concerned, is will you be voting for him and, if so, why?