Who woulda thunk it? A wise Texan — and one with a law degree, no less. Commenting on “I’m not certain I agree with your characterization of ‘The Passion of the Christ.’ I must “I don’t believe we should dignify a crass, commercial offering by making some sort of “Likewise, I don’t think ‘Passion’ signifies some sort of apocalypse. It’s just a movie, and “Enough on that.<\/P> “On the issue of ‘gay marriage’ — and I hate to even use the qualified term — I hardly know “There is either marriage or there is not. The marriage relationship carries with it benefits and “Preaching from the Religious Right regarding the sanctity of marriage makes me want to “I have heard people complain that we simply cannot recognize marriage between same sex “The fact is that marriage is a creature of statute with enormous economic and social “The larger, more interesting question is simply: ‘Why?’ Why would Bush disparage the “Opinion poll after opinion poll shows that the majority of the American people do not favor “The answer is that the man is simply a whore. He is pushing an amendment he knows won’t Who woulda thunk it? A wise Texan — and one with a law degree, no less. Commenting on yesterday’s item, Blood Money, a former federal assistant prosecutor from Houston writes: “I’m not certain I agree with your characterization of ‘The Passion of the Christ.’ I must confess that I have not seen the film, nor do […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":4,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_genesis_hide_title":false,"_genesis_hide_breadcrumbs":false,"_genesis_hide_singular_image":false,"_genesis_hide_footer_widgets":false,"_genesis_custom_body_class":"","_genesis_custom_post_class":"","_genesis_layout":"","jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_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":[4],"tags":[],"class_list":{"0":"post-573","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","6":"category-main","7":"entry"},"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/pbvgEs-9f","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.artsjournal.com\/herman\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/573","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.artsjournal.com\/herman\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.artsjournal.com\/herman\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.artsjournal.com\/herman\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/4"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.artsjournal.com\/herman\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=573"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.artsjournal.com\/herman\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/573\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.artsjournal.com\/herman\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=573"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.artsjournal.com\/herman\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=573"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.artsjournal.com\/herman\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=573"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
\nyesterday’s item,
\nfrom Houston writes:<\/P>
\n
\nconfess that I have not seen the film, nor do I intend to. But based upon the legitimate reviews, I
\nthink it sounds like nothing more or less than another gratuitously violent Mel Gibson film. (As I
\nrecall, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John tell the story in a more balanced manner and without the
\nhysteria.)<\/P>
\n
\ncultural event out of it. As with most films, people will read into this film whatever they want.
\nRemember your Marshall McLuhan.<\/P>
\n
\napparently a one-dimensional movie that deals exclusively with the torture and murder of Jesus
\nChrist. No context, no explanation, no motivation. As others have said Gibson seems to be
\nfascinated with torture and suffering (remember ‘Braveheart’?). Wouldn’t a balanced examination
\nof the life of Jesus Christ deal even in passing with issues like peace and love?<\/P>
\n
\n
\nwhere to begin. All of what I’m about to say is obvious and should be beyond debate. But bear
\nwith me.<\/P>
\n
\nadvantages to those so united. It is quite simply unconstitutional to deny those advantages and
\nbenefits to people because of their sexual orientation. The notion that we can address this
\nfundamental inequality by creating something called a ‘civil union’ is disingenuous at best. The
\nminute we create two separate classes of people, we invite discrimination. Did we learn nothing
\nfrom the ‘separate but equal’ laws regarding racial discrimination? Remember ‘Brown v. Board of
\nEducation?’ Separate is never equal.<\/P>
\n
\npuke. It is simply a straw-man argument. Sanctification, whatever that means, can only exist in a
\nrelationship between two committed individuals. When an 18-year-old stripper marries a wealthy
\nman in his 90s so she can inherit upon his death, is that ‘sanctified’? When Larry King or Liz
\nTaylor marry over and over and over again, is that ‘sanctified’? Why then is a union between two
\ncommitted people, who have lived together as help mates for many years, and who happen to be
\nof the same sex, not ‘sanctified’?<\/P>
\n
\nindividuals because their sexual practices are ‘disgusting.’ I would observe that, unless the parties
\nare movie stars in a very carefully staged environment, sex acts, in general, are pretty disgusting.
\nWith all due respect, would you want to watch the president and the first lady engaging in
\nintimate relations? For that matter, who would want to watch Mr. and Mrs. Herman, or me and
\nmy wife? Is that any reason to refuse to recognize our marriages?<\/P>
\n
\nramifications. The government has no business defining marriage as ‘sanctified’ only when it exists
\nbetween members of one class as opposed to another. We as individuals are free to read into
\nmarriage whatever religious or ‘sanctification’ implications we wish. The union itself, however,
\nmust be made available to all, regardless of race, religion or sexual preference.<\/P>
\n
\nactions of a judge in striking down a clearly unconstitutional law by referring to the judge as an
\n‘activist judge,’ whatever that means? If he would have someone read the Constitution to him, Mr.
\nBush would find that Article III of the Constitution created a separate judicial branch to act as a
\ncheck on the power of the Executive and Legislative Branches. Marbury v. Madison and virtually
\nevery Supreme Court case since has affirmed the right and obligation of the judicial branch to
\nprotect the Constitution by striking down laws inconsistent with its requirements.<\/P>
\n
\na Constitutional Amendment to prohibit same sex marriages. Why then does Bush force the
\nissue?<\/P>
\n
\npass, at what expense we can only guess, in order to mobilize the right wing loonies who
\nconstitute his political base. This is simply one more action of a desperate man who cannot run on
\nhis record. In this regard at least, I’m personally encouraged.”<\/P><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"