Land sakes alive, President Obama's endorsed same-sex marriage. Now there's a surprise. Who'd have thunk, back in the day when I was just a wee faggot, that the day would come when my people would destroy the church, bring God's wrath on the nation --- and inspire a sitting president to love us.
When the "Romney for President" signs start sprouting on the lawns of Baptist churches across the land, you'll know we've also brought that Mormon cult fully into the Christian fold. And there already are signs that Bible-believing protestants, because of us, are embracing the Pope --- perhaps in greater numbers than Catholics --- and shopping for a new Antichrist. So much power in the hands of so few.
May be that the Amish, trotting along in horse-drawn buggies, minding their own business (and not voting), are the only sane ones left in the land. They've always known the "English" were not only nuts --- but dangerous; although they're too wary of violating Biblical prohibitions against judging to say much about that.
Anyhow, it was an interesting day. On the one hand, it's kind of nice to have a candidate who isn't riding the fence on a divisive issue. On the other hand, Obama's move is seen as risky and perhaps it is. But short of pulling out the "n" word and using it more regularly, I can't think of many more vile things that could be said about him. So let the games begin.
There was a good deal of anger here and there yesterday against North Carolina and North Carolinians after a 61 percent majority there voted in favor of a constitutional amendment banning all legal recognition of same-sex relationships.
Which is a little odd because the outcome wasn't a surprise.
It never hurts to remember that 39 percent of North Carolians opposed the amendment. That, I believe, is the most opposition ever garnered against similar constitutional amendments in the old South, now blanketed by similar prohibatory measures.
Voting patterns, although more distinctive, weren't that much different than those in Iowa when hot-button issues are involved. In a few counties, where major cities are located, the amendment was defeated.
There, as here, liberality arises where the younger people are and where the population is more diverse and in large part because of that, more economically successful. Opposition to the amendment was strongest in predominately rural (and poor) regions.
Who remembers, Stephen Bloom, the University of Iowa professor of journalism and mass communications, who took a good deal of heat last year for his "Atlantic" artcle poking fun at his adopted home state.
One of his more anger-inducing quotes: "Those who stay in rural Iowa are often the elderly waiting to die, those too timid (or lacking in educated) to peer around the bend for better opportunities, an assortment of waste-toids and meth addicts with pale skin and rotted teeth, or those who quixotically believe, like Little Orphan Annie, that 'The sun'll come out tomorrow,' "
Although exaggerated, there's a good deal of truth here in both North Carolina --- and Iowa.
The route to viability, like it or not, involves providing economic opportunities to engage younger people of all persuasions and the sort of atmosphere needed to make them feel welcome. Anti-gay constitutional amendments are not especially good welcome signs to hang out.
I got to wondering, considering Chariton's current interest in revitalization, if we're up to hanging out a sign that says "Welcome," but doesn't make that conditional by adding "unless you're black, gay, hispanic or excessively liberal"