{"id":26237,"date":"2012-02-10T07:10:52","date_gmt":"2012-02-10T14:10:52","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/?p=26237"},"modified":"2014-11-05T15:26:03","modified_gmt":"2014-11-05T22:26:03","slug":"brian-s-brown-is-a-dolt-marriage-outlaw-frenzy-edition","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/2012\/02\/10\/brian-s-brown-is-a-dolt-marriage-outlaw-frenzy-edition.html","title":{"rendered":"Brian S. Brown is a Dolt (Marriage Outlaw Frenzy! edition)"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"\"<\/a>
Brian S. Brown, Dolt<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Hi, Brian. \u00a0You don’t know me, I shouldn’t think, but I know you’re the \u00a0Executive Director of the Education Fund for the National Organization of Marriage (NOM). \u00a0Now, I didn’t expect that you’d take the Ninth Circuit ruling in the Proposition 8 case in a particularly positive fashion. \u00a0But I had no idea that it would drive you apeshit insane<\/em>. Which is the only way I can understand your NOM Blog entry.<\/p>\n

Either that, or it’s one of the most amazingly demagogic solicitations for money it’s been my displeasure to see in many a long year.<\/p>\n

It all starts out with this headline.<\/p>\n

\n

UNBELIEVABLE COURT RULING-Judicial Overlords Declare Marriage is Unconstitutional!<\/h2>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Good Lord! \u00a0They did? \u00a0Where? Oh, wait … you’re talking about the Prop 8 case? \u00a0Really? \u00a0Because I’ve read the news summaries and the judgment, and I didn’t see anything that read as “marriage is unconstitutional.” \u00a0So, yeah, Brian, I guess it is “unbelievable”.<\/p>\n

Dear Marriage Supporter,<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Thanks, Brian. \u00a0While I’m not your usual reader, nor am I a contributor to NOM, it’s nice that you recognize me as a supporter of marriage. \u00a0I am very happily married, and am more than happy to speak out about how wonderful my marriage is. \u00a0In fact, I think marriage is so cool, I support it being extended to gays, too, so they can experience it.<\/p>\n

Yesterday’s ruling from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco was truly astonishing: Proposition 8\u2014and by implication the marriage laws at the federal level and in 43 states\u2014is unconstitutional.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Well, that’s a very interesting read of the ruling, Brian. \u00a0And also a very interesting reframing of what it was about. \u00a0Your position now seems to be not that the court ruled that marriage is unconstitutional, but that marriage laws<\/em>\u00a0are unconstitutional. \u00a0And, to be fair, it’s not all marriage laws (e.g., laws about consanguinity, or laws about the age of marriage), but laws explicitly restricting marriage to one man + one woman. And, of course, even that’s<\/em> not the case. \u00a0Because the Ninth Circuit ruling was about California’s situation explicitly, where the court had recognized a right, people had begun to exercise that right, and then a state-wide proposition took that right away<\/em>. That’s what the Ninth Circuit said. \u00a0It has limited to no implications for the no-gay-marriage laws of the federal government or the other states.<\/p>\n

Even while pretending their ruling was a \u201cnarrow\u201d decision, these judges effectively decreed themselves to be the supreme overlords of the people, invalidating the votes of over 7 million Californians and declaring that they, the vaunted elite in black robes and cloaked with lifetime tenure, will decide what marriage means in California and the nation.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Don’t beat around the bush, Brian, tell us what you really<\/em> think. Of course, there’s all sorts of wrong in what you write, Brian. \u00a0First off, the characterization of the ruling as “narrow” is not based on the number of people it affects, but the issue that it was judged on. \u00a0The court did not find a federal right for gay marriage, for example (nor did they look for one). \u00a0Their efforts were solely focused on whether a right, once granted, can be taken away by popular vote without some compelling reasons given, and were there such reasons. \u00a0Their decision was, based on the\u00a0testimony\u00a0that was given, was that Prop 8 was solely designed to take a right away from gays, and that<\/em> was deemed unconstitutional.<\/p>\n

What does that mean, Brian? \u00a0It means that if, tomorrow, the residents of the state of California vote to not allow people named “Brian” to marry, this case will prevent that from happening. \u00a0It says that a right, once given, isn’t up to popular vote. That doesn’t make them “overlords” — it makes them protectors<\/em> of every single citizen’s rights. \u00a0They didn’t\u00a0<\/em>declare (amidst all your lovely inflammatory language) that they were going to decide on the legal meaning of marriage; they declared that it wasn’t up to the populace or the legislature or, for that matter, the state courts, to take away a fundamental right, of any kind, once recognized.<\/p>\n

I don’t know about you but my blood is boiling!<\/em><\/strong><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Have you had that looked at, Brian?<\/p>\n

Not only must our founding fathers be rolling over in their graves with the preposterous notion that marriage is unconstitutional, …<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

There you go, Brian. \u00a0That “preposterous notion” isn’t what was ruled on … … unless, of course, your position is that marriage itself is only what you decide it is. \u00a0Based on which, I’m sure you (or some other person) would argue that Loving v. Virginia<\/em>also made “marriage” unconstitutional because it invalidated Virginia’s laws against interracial marriage.<\/p>\n

I’ll bet you that ruling would have had at least some of our founding fathers rolling over in their graves, too. \u00a0What do you think of it, Brian?<\/p>\n

… but the ruling is an affront to the millions of Americans\u2014the vast majority of the nation\u2014who recognize that man does not have the right to redefine marriage.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Actually, the nation is pretty evenly split on gay marriage, Brian. \u00a0In fact, the most recent polls seem to be marginally in favor of allowing it. \u00a0I’m sure that none of the folks at the NOM offices feel that way, but, believe it or not, you don’t represent the “vast majority of the nation” … … unless, of course, that’s an argument you’re making just to make your supporters feel good and send you money.<\/p>\n

Regardless, ruling on the constitutionality of a law isn’t a matter of causing, or not causing, an “affront” to dozens or millions. \u00a0The law is not valid or not based on whether if makes you happy or offended. \u00a0Hard to believe, I know, but that’s the amazing thing about having a system of law and a constitution.<\/p>\n

After all, how can federal judges redefine something that man didn’t create?<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

But Brian, we’re not talking about religious<\/em> marriage, as a sacrament of God. \u00a0Churches are free to marry, nor not marry, gay people as their interpretation of God’s will states. \u00a0We’re talking about civil<\/em> marriage, which can be done with or without religious trappings, with or without references to God, by faithful Catholics or radical atheists or contemplative Buddhists.<\/p>\n

Believe it or not, Brian, the law and the constitution are not\u00a0<\/em>about sacramental blessings from God. \u00a0Other sacraments — baptism, confession, confirmation, communion, holy orders, last rites, whatever — are not part of our legal system; why do you think that sacramental marriage is what legal marriage is all about?<\/p>\n

If there is any good news, it’s this: the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals is the most overturned court in the nation, and the author of the marriage opinion, Stephen Reinhardt, is the most overturned judge in the country.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Fair enough. \u00a0So what are you worried about?<\/p>\n

And even this court, the most liberal in the land, couldn’t muster a unanimous ruling\u2014the court was sharply split in a 2-1 ruling. It’s almost as if even they couldn’t deliver the ruling with a straight face.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Well, with three judges, it’s either going to be unanimous, or a “sharply split 2-1 ruling,” right? \u00a0And what’s with the “straight face” line — do you think there’s some vast unanimous Ninth Circuit conspiracy that this time simply didn’t work because one of the judges got the giggles?<\/p>\n

We have to fight this outrageous ruling! Will you help us now?<\/strong> Click here to make a secure, tax-deductible donation to the NOM Legal Defense Fund today!<\/span><\/span> \"\"<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Okay, that’s Money Solicit #1.<\/p>\n

America is supposed to be a nation where the rule of law prevails.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Yup.<\/p>\n

Until this case yesterday, no federal appeals court had ever declared that marriage is unconstitutional.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

And as of yesterday, no federal appeals court has ever declared that marriage is unconstitutional.<\/p>\n

To justify its outrageous opinion, the Ninth Circuit had to totally ignore binding U.S. Supreme Court precedent that state laws like Proposition 8 defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman do not violate the US Constitution.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

The particular issue they ruled on bypasses that precedent (assuming you’re summarizing that correctly) because it has to do with where a right has already been recognized and acted upon, then is being retracted. \u00a0It had nothing specifically to do, in principle, with marriage or homosexuality or anything else like that.<\/p>\n

The two judges who formed the majority opinion dismissed this precedent with a mere mention in a footnote …<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Footnotes can be very, very important in a ruling, Brian. Believe me.<\/p>\n

… because it inconveniences their radical judicial activism.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

So, Brian, are you another person who labels things as “radical judicial activism” when it’s simply a result you disagree with?<\/p>\n

The judicial overlords …<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

It must be nice to have such a hatred for (and misunderstanding of) a third of our governmental system.<\/p>\n

… on the Ninth Circuit have come to the amazing conclusion that once a court has imposed same-sex marriage on a state …<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Or, phrased another way, once a court (in this case, the highest court in California) has recognized that the state constitution encompasses a right that has previously been wrongly denied …<\/p>\n

… \u2014as the California Supreme Court did in 2008 in a hotly-contested 4-3 ruling\u2014the voters of that state are powerless to do anything about it.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Wow, you actually did<\/em>read something about the case. Long story short, that’s not quite right: \u00a0the voters need to demonstrate that they are not simply discriminating against a group just for being that group. \u00a0That, Brian, runs afoul of that irksome passage in the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution that says, among other things:<\/p>\n

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Thus the court ruled (emphasis mine):<\/p>\n

Although the Constitution permits communities to enact most laws they believe to be desirable, it requires that there be at least a legitimate reason for the passage of a law that treats different classes of people differently<\/strong>. There was no such reason that Proposition 8 could have been enacted. Because under California statutory law, same-sex couples had all the rights of opposite-sex couples, regardless of their marital status, all parties agree that Proposition 8 had one effect only. It stripped same-sex couples of the ability they previously possessed to obtain from the State, or any other authorized party, an important right: the right to obtain and use the designation of “marriage” to describe their relationships<\/strong>. Nothing more, nothing less. <\/em> Proposition 8 therefore could not have been enacted to advance California’s interests in childrearing or responsible procreation, for it had no effect on the rights of same-sex couples to raise children or on the procreative practices of other couples. Nor did Proposition 8 have any effect on religious freedom or on parents’ rights to control their children’s education; it could not have been enacted to safeguard these liberties.<\/em> All that Proposition 8 accomplished was to take away from same-sex couples the right to be granted marriage licenses and thus legally to use the designation of “marriage,”<\/strong> which symbolizes state legitimization and societal recognition of theircommitted relationships. Proposition 8 serves no purpose, and has no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California, and to officially reclassify their relationships and families as inferior to those of opposite-sex couples. The Constitution simply does not allow for \u00a0laws of this sort.<\/strong> ( <\/em>Aomer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620, 633 (1996).)<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

It’s pretty straightforward, if you ask me. The law is simply picking on a group of folks, taking something away from them for an arbitrary reason. \u00a0That’s a no-no.<\/p>\n

Maybe these activist judges think they are above the law, but we don’t!<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

No, I don’t actually think they do, Brian.<\/p>\n

In America, the people are sovereign, …<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Within the bounds of the law and the constitution — which, ultimately, belong to the people themselves, of course.<\/p>\n

… not elitist federal judges with their Hollywood values and lifetime tenure.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Stay classy, Brian. \u00a0Name-calling and\u00a0innuendo\u00a0are beneath you.<\/p>\n

By the way, do you know why<\/em> federal judges have lifetime tenure? \u00a0So that they don’t play politics \u00a0with the law, trading in their judgments for reelection. \u00a0That’s left up to the other two branches. \u00a0Does it mean that sometimes some dimwit or scoundrel gets to the bench and then is there until their behavior is so awful as to allow them to be impeached? \u00a0Sure. \u00a0But net-net that’s better than the folks who would be ruling for the crowd, not for the law.<\/div>\n

Nobody is above the law, and it’s time we reminded them of that fact!<\/p>\n

Not even “the people,” Brian, are above the law. \u00a0This case helped demonstrate that.<\/p>\n

Marriage supporter, please help us take this case to the United States Supreme Court where we can defend marriage<\/span>!\"\"<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

And there’s Money Solicit #2.<\/p>\n

Let me be clear\u2014I am upset about this decision, …<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Really? Man, I would hate to play poker with you.<\/p>\n

… but it is not unexpected. In fact, I have been expecting this since the very first Prop 8 hearing in the San Francisco courtroom of Judge Vaughn Walker. From the very beginning, Walker’s bias against Prop 8 was evident.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Yes, make sure you keep ginning up the resentment against Judge Walker, Brian.<\/p>\n

By the way, that “deeply divided court”? \u00a0They were unanimous in agreeing that there was no reason for Judge Walker to have recused himself. \u00a0(They were also unanimous in agreeing that the Prop 8 here had standing — which doesn’t sound like a defiant conspiracy theory to me.)<\/p>\n

Ruling after ruling went against us, despite the evidence and legal precedents.\u00a0Three times the backers of Prop 8 had to appeal Walker’s orders, once all the way to the US Supreme Court where they won a key reversal.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Yes, SCOTUS agreed that the trial should not be televised (in one of those “deeply divided” 5-4 rulings). \u00a0That seems “key” insofar as it kept the Prop 8 proponents from looking like dolts on video, rather than just through transcripts.<\/p>\n

Make no mistake about it\u2014yesterday’s ruling will also be reversed by the Supreme Court.<\/strong><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Keep telling yourself that, Brian. Or, rather, keep telling your supporters that (ch-ching).<\/p>\n

I believe that God will stand by those who stand by His design for marriage.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Hmmm. I think we have different ideas about what “His design for marriage” is, or what it means to stand by it.<\/p>\n

We have to do our part to get the case to the Supreme Court, where we can win the ultimate victory to preserve Prop 8 and traditional marriage across the land.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Yes, it’s all about “ultimate victory,” Brian.<\/p>\n

Your donation is tax-deductible and will be kept confidential. Whether you can give $10,000, $1,000, $100 or $10, we need your help today!\u00a0Every penny you give will go directly toward the Prop 8 legal expenses.<\/strong> Will you help us?<\/strong> Click here to make your most generous tax-deductible gift in defense of marriage right now!<\/span><\/span> \"\"<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

And there’s Money Solicit #3.<\/p>\n

\u00a0The legal costs of defending Proposition 8 exceed $10 million.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Good thing there weren’t any hungry to be fed or homeless to be sheltered. \u00a0They might have distracted from this important cause.<\/p>\n

NOM has contributed hundreds of thousands directly, and helped raise additional funds,\u00a0but we must do more.<\/strong>\u00a0It’s going to cost several hundred thousand dollars just to ask the Supreme Court to take this case. NOM is committed to raising $100,000 in the next week to support the defense of Proposition 8.\u00a0But we can’t do it without you. We’re stretched incredibly thin with marriage fights in Congress and in numerous states\u2014New Hampshire, Rhode Island, New Jersey, New York, Minnesota, Maryland and Washington state. It’s almost overwhelming. But we must step up and make sure that the outstanding legal team fighting for Prop 8 and traditional marriage across the country have the resources to win the battle.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Golly, Brian — for such a holy and righteous cause, you’d think people would be willing to do it for free. \u00a0Or else that God would cause $100K checks to appear in your mailbox.<\/p>\n

We are counting on you to help us help preserve marriage as God Himself designed it\u2014the union of one man and one woman.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

If that’s who your church wants to limit marriage to, I certainly support your right to only marry people that fall into that category. \u00a0I just resent your imposing your theological definition of marriage as you understand God to be desiring it upon every other citizen in the nation, whether they belong to your church or not.<\/p>\n

Together, we will prevail.\u00a0Please help us right now<\/span><\/span>.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Aaaand … Money Solicit #4. Though you forgot the little red donation button on this one.<\/p>\n

Faithfully, Brian S. Brown, Executive Director, NOM Education Fund<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

So is this considered educational<\/em> funding, Brian?<\/p>\n

P.S. Please do not delay. We need the funds right away to fund an immediate appeal to the United States Supreme Court. We have 7 days to raise as much money as we can.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Because people contribute more if they think there’s a deadline!<\/p>\n

WE CAN WIN THIS FIGHT! But only if you stand with us. Please stand by us in this fight by making\u00a0an urgent, online, tax-deductible gift<\/span><\/span>\u00a0to the NOM Legal Defense Fund today.<\/strong> \"\"<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Aaaand, make that Money Solicit #5. \u00a0Five in one blog post, Brian!<\/p>\n

Can we make a guess as to what your priority is here?<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Hi, Brian. \u00a0You don’t know me, I shouldn’t think, but I know you’re the \u00a0Executive Director of the Education Fund for the National Organization of Marriage (NOM). \u00a0Now, I didn’t expect that you’d take the Ninth Circuit ruling in the Proposition 8 case in a particularly positive fashion. \u00a0But I had no idea that it … Continue reading “Brian S. Brown is a Dolt (Marriage Outlaw Frenzy! edition)”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":26255,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_seopress_titles_title":"","_seopress_titles_desc":"","_seopress_robots_index":"","_seopress_robots_follow":"","_seopress_robots_imageindex":"","_seopress_robots_snippet":"","_seopress_robots_primary_cat":"","_seopress_robots_breadcrumbs":"","_seopress_robots_freeze_modified_date":"","_seopress_robots_custom_modified_date":"","_seopress_robots_canonical":"","_seopress_social_fb_title":"","_seopress_social_fb_desc":"","_seopress_social_fb_img":"","_seopress_social_fb_img_attachment_id":0,"_seopress_social_fb_img_width":0,"_seopress_social_fb_img_height":0,"_seopress_social_twitter_title":"","_seopress_social_twitter_desc":"","_seopress_social_twitter_img":"","_seopress_social_twitter_img_attachment_id":0,"_seopress_social_twitter_img_width":0,"_seopress_social_twitter_img_height":0,"_seopress_redirections_value":"","_seopress_redirections_enabled":"","_seopress_redirections_enabled_regex":"","_seopress_redirections_logged_status":"","_seopress_redirections_param":"","_seopress_redirections_type":0,"_seopress_analysis_target_kw":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":false,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2}},"categories":[100,25,718,9,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-26237","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-dolts","category-gay-stuff","category-marriage-equality","category-politics-law","category-zt-pc"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/wp\/wp-content\/uploads\/2012\/02\/brian-s-brown.jpg","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":32273,"url":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/2013\/01\/22\/brian-brown-is-a-dolt-separate-but-equal-edition.html","url_meta":{"origin":26237,"position":0},"title":"Brian Brown is a Dolt (Separate but Equal Edition)","author":"***Dave","date":"Tue 22-Jan-13 3:31pm","format":false,"excerpt":"Hey, Brian! Caught your official National Organization for Marriage (NOM) press release yesterday, which \"Criticizes President's Decision to Divide Nation Over Marriage on Inauguration Day.\" \u00a0So ... can we talk? Washington, D.C.\u00a0\u2014 Brian Brown, President of the National Organization for Marriage (NOM), criticized President Obama\u2019s decision to use his Inauguration\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Dolts"","block_context":{"text":"Dolts","link":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/category\/dolts"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/wp\/wp-content\/uploads\/2013\/01\/did-we-vote-on-your-marriage.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200},"classes":[]},{"id":26161,"url":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/2012\/02\/07\/the-role-of-the-judiciary-and-why-mitt-romneys-a-dolt.html","url_meta":{"origin":26237,"position":1},"title":"The role of the judiciary, and why Mitt Romney's a dolt","author":"***Dave","date":"Tue 7-Feb-12 2:27pm","format":false,"excerpt":"Dear Mitt: Believe it or not, the Constitution says nothing about the courts being instituted to protect \"traditions\" or popular \"values.\" The courts are there to rule on the law and, in cases like this, to determine whether a law is in keeping the Constitution itself.If you disagree with the\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "~PlusPosts"","block_context":{"text":"~PlusPosts","link":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/category\/blogging\/plusposts"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":51981,"url":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/2015\/07\/28\/bryan-fischer-is-a-dolt-founders-constitution-edition.html","url_meta":{"origin":26237,"position":2},"title":"Bryan Fischer is a Dolt (Founder's Constitution Edition)","author":"***Dave","date":"Tue 28-Jul-15 5:25pm","format":false,"excerpt":"TL;DR: Bryan Fischer has never read the 14th Amendment, which extends the First Amendment to state and local governments as well.Of course, the 14th Amendment wasn't part of what Bryan specifically calls out, multiple times, as \"the Founder's Constitution,\" back before it got all cluttered up with nonsense like slavery\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "~PlusPosts"","block_context":{"text":"~PlusPosts","link":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/category\/blogging\/plusposts"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":21987,"url":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/2011\/08\/05\/peter-labarbera-is-a-dolt-if-youre-not-oppressing-em-youre-promoting-em-edition.html","url_meta":{"origin":26237,"position":3},"title":"Peter LaBarbera is a Dolt (If You’re Not Oppressing ‘Em You’re Promoting ‘Em Edition)","author":"***Dave","date":"Fri 5-Aug-11 9:16am","format":false,"excerpt":"Charlie Butts (no kidding) at OneNewsNow gives us the skinny on the outrage, the outrage, the outrage that Peter LaBarbera (as head of the Americans For Truth About Homosexuality) has over the latest bit of news about The Promotion of \u00a0Teh Gayz. Pro-'gay' promotion 'everywhere you go' Man, I just\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Dolts"","block_context":{"text":"Dolts","link":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/category\/dolts"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/wp\/wp-content\/uploads\/2011\/08\/christians-and-lions.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/wp\/wp-content\/uploads\/2011\/08\/christians-and-lions.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/wp\/wp-content\/uploads\/2011\/08\/christians-and-lions.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/wp\/wp-content\/uploads\/2011\/08\/christians-and-lions.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/wp\/wp-content\/uploads\/2011\/08\/christians-and-lions.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/wp\/wp-content\/uploads\/2011\/08\/christians-and-lions.jpg?resize=1400%2C800&ssl=1 4x"},"classes":[]},{"id":25224,"url":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/2012\/01\/09\/bryan-fischer-is-a-dolt-girl-leader-cooties-edition.html","url_meta":{"origin":26237,"position":4},"title":"Bryan Fischer is a Dolt (Girl Leader Cooties! Edition)","author":"***Dave","date":"Mon 9-Jan-12 5:58pm","format":false,"excerpt":"Yes, Brian -- the trouble with the world today is that we've \"feminized\" public policy, moving away from the manly-man attributes of \"stability, ... rule consciousness ... and vigilance\" (i.e., conservatism, authority, and suspicion) into the cootie-filled girly-girl attributes of \"sensitivity, warmth and fear\".That's probably why we're moving away from\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "~PlusPosts"","block_context":{"text":"~PlusPosts","link":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/category\/blogging\/plusposts"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":21367,"url":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/2011\/06\/29\/dear-senator-santorum-you-are-a-dolt.html","url_meta":{"origin":26237,"position":5},"title":"Dear Senator Santorum: You are a dolt","author":"***Dave","date":"Wed 29-Jun-11 12:31pm","format":false,"excerpt":"Dear Senator Santorum: In Iowa, the other day, you made the following statement to a GOP dinner crowd: The reason the left has gone after same-sex marriage is because it\u2019s a two-fer. When you redefine marriage, you cheapen marriage. You make it into something less valuable, less special \u2026 [and]\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Dolts"","block_context":{"text":"Dolts","link":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/category\/dolts"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/wp\/wp-content\/uploads\/2011\/06\/wedding-rings2.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200},"classes":[]}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/26237","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=26237"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/26237\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":46573,"href":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/26237\/revisions\/46573"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/26255"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=26237"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=26237"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=26237"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}