Great Letters Of American History

Say What? "torn our country apart," "killings of millions," "devaluation of human life," "using the law so as to justify their lifestyle!" (0.00 / 0)

I thought for a minute she was talking about a looney Anne Coulter column or George Bush's policies.  Whew.

---

by: FlamingModerate @ Sun Feb 25, 2007 at 21:18:32 PM UTC

Cafetaria Christian (0.00 / 0)

The letter writer sounds like one of those Cafetaria Christians. Rant and rave about gay marriage, abortion, and so forth, but not an iota of concern for social justice, no outrage over "pre-emptive" war or capital punishment. Pick and choose morality.

---

by: westcoast @ Sun Feb 25, 2007 at 22:03:21 PM UTC

Word up: (0.00 / 0)

You don't try to change their minds, because you can't. People like this have existed since time immemorial and will continue to do so. The only thing you can do is:

1. Create the change that comes from understanding, that puts people like this back on the margins of polite society, where they belong.

2. Laugh and point at them, because yea verily, they deserve all the laughing and pointing they get.

3. Accept the fact that there are a lot of undiagnosed and untreated psychiatric conditions in our society. Because there are. Reading the above quoted, I see someone on the very, very thin edge of "word salad". Google that up and learn what that means.

If some of this seems entirely too harsh, it's because I am feeling harsh. The Express-Times had an article in it, interview, with a gay couple. Two fine and honorable people, one of whom is an Episcopal Priest. They were attacked in the letters section(The writer even had to play the "child molestation" card) and he was visited by some fool bringing him a message from Jesus Himself. Two of the finest people I have ever had the distinct and unqualified honor to call friends, in a 35 year relationship, and they have to put up with this shit.

I told them that if people keep bothering them, I got 6 feet of fine, tapered hickory(rokushakubo) and I know how to use it. I would be honored to put it between those fools and them.

Yeah, I am just about out of patience with the bigots and it's about time that larger society got that tired.


The nom de plume has a long and distinguished history.

---

by: Tandalayo Scheisskopf @ Sun Feb 25, 2007 at 22:04:57 PM UTC

Mary, Mary (0.00 / 0)

quite contrary.

Get it right - its Adam and Steve.

Get it right - there are "gay" members of the animal kingdom.

Get it right - did you know that your namesake had a virgin birth? Now, to some (but not all) of us, that's a lot more wierd than gay couples.

You got it - I will personally nominate you for the next round of the "Darwin Awards."

---

by: SmartyJones @ Sun Feb 25, 2007 at 22:12:33 PM UTC

Grand Canyon and Noah (0.00 / 0)

Sadly, it is millions of Americans like Ms. Scolavino who are the reasons why the US gov't is selling books at the Grand Canyon visitor's center which say that that the Grand Canyon is 6000 years old.  Faith is fine, but one ought to combine it with a minimal amount of scientific literacy.

---

by: John C @ Sun Feb 25, 2007 at 22:38:24 PM UTC

A Little Skeptical (0.00 / 0)

Do you think this lady really exists? I mean she embodies all these wild ideas. I just think that sometimes people like to stir it up.

I hope and pray if this lady does exists that my God is as understanding of her as she is of others.

---

by: safa @ Mon Feb 26, 2007 at 00:22:06 AM UTC

Don't bother trying to persuade her... (0.00 / 0)

She thinks God created Eve 2000 years ago?  Geez, what will the National Park Service say--one of the brochures they've got at the Grand Canyon says it was created 6000 years ago.  And according to the Jewish calendar, it's now year 5700+.  We're now in the year 2007, but that's in the Christian calendar and counts from the date Jesus was born (which may or may not be the case)--and this lady thinks that was when Eve was created?

I guess the Courier feels they have to satisfy the loony-tunes in their readership by printing a tosser like this one.  Better not tell her about those gay penguins--she might not recover from the shock!

"Do what you can, with what you have, where you are."  (Teddy Roosevelt)

---

by: DottieG @ Mon Feb 26, 2007 at 07:41:22 AM UTC

Religious Bigots? In Bridgewater? (0.00 / 0)

Leaving aside the obvious reverse prejudice inherent in the thought, "There are people like THAT in tony Bridgewater?," I should just like to point out, Yes, there are, and some of them live in the decidedly blue-collar Finderne section. There rest of the crazies live elsewhere in the township.

Insanely enough, newspapers make some effort to strive for balance and will, eventually, print something from almost every side. The Courier-News prints letters like these because they DO represent a significant proportion of the day's mail, and because they DO provoke response, engendering a mildly entertaining "Jack 'n' Shana" dialogue.

The antidote is to send the Courier-News some letters of your own. Remember to include you name, address, and a daytime telephone number where you can be reached.

---

by: denniscmcgrath @ Mon Feb 26, 2007 at 15:31:26 PM UTC

Bridgewater is "tony"? (0.00 / 0)

Could've fooled me during the 15 years I worked there and lived nearby.  Bernardsville Mtn. it's not.

Anyway, I wouldn't get too riled up about LTEs in the Courier-News.  As noted above, it's "good copy" to run wacky ones a few times a week.  Even the Ledger does it, though fortunately not as often as it once did.  And I would wager that old Mary is just that, old, as in we won't have her and her generation to kick around much longer.

---

by: lonemorriscodem @ Mon Feb 26, 2007 at 17:06:06 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Referencing Bridgewater (0.00 / 0)

The reference to Bridgewater as a fairly affluent and educated area was more in comparison to other areas of the country than areas of NJ.  The community of Finderne is still better educated and more affluent, on average, than many communities in rural Southern and midwestern states.

---

by: huntsu @ Mon Feb 26, 2007 at 18:02:27 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

It's a shame (1.00 / 1)

Comments like this are stupid. She can believe whatever she wants, but that is not an issue for the law. I may believe alcohol is a sin (I don't), but that does not mean it should be illegal.

Unfortunately, though, the people of NJ never got the chance to decide whether they agree or not. Once again, a judge has made law. It may be the right law, but I don't feel it was made the right way.

I also fear that it can be challenged as unconstitutional since there is a separation of powers issue. I mean, can a court demand that the legislature make a law?

---

by: learymortgage @ Mon Feb 26, 2007 at 17:05:52 PM UTC

The Constitution IS The Law.... (0.00 / 0)

That applies to the NJ and the US Constitution with the NJ one being within the constraints of the US one.

Leary, you just don't (won't?) get it.

If you want to change the Constitution/law there is a political process for that that let's us all vote on it.

You are free to engage that process....

...And the rest of us are free to oppose you.  That's called democracy.

---

by: Nick Lento @ Mon Feb 26, 2007 at 17:51:57 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Granted (0.00 / 0)

Yes, the Constitution is the law, and it says that the legislature makes the laws. What am I missing?

I didn't even talk about the amendment process or suggest it. Let me rephrase, because I may not have been clear.

The courts ordered the legislature to right a law creating civil unions. I was wondering if they have the authority to do that, and if not, could that be grounds for invalidating those civil unions. I am NOT advocating this. It was just a question, and I was hoping someone might have an answer, someone with maybe some legal experience.

I also find it frustrating when courts change the law, like the Kelo decision. It can sometimes be in our favor, and sometimes not. I'd rather the people, through the legislature, decide together what is best.

I think all sides would admit that judges make law, otherwise confirmation fights for judges would only be about qualifications, and not ideology.

---

by: learymortgage @ Mon Feb 26, 2007 at 18:25:52 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

It was, in a sense, a courtesy. (4.00 / 1)

The Court could have fashioned its own remedy, but instead gave the Legislature the opportunity to enact a law that would meet constitutional muster, whether it be civil unions or outright marriage.  The Legislature opted for the former.  Had, hypothetically, it failed to act, the Court would have issued an order implementing its prior decision.  In this way democracy was indeed served, and your point is ill-taken--the Legislature, the people's representatives, were given a chance to address a constitutional infirmity in the state's marriage laws.

Now let's just hope it works out better than the Court's school funding follies.

---

by: lonemorriscodem @ Tue Feb 27, 2007 at 01:31:32 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Thanks (0.00 / 0)

That was well put. I appreciate the clarification.

---

by: learymortgage @ Wed Feb 28, 2007 at 16:23:35 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I think she needs a science lesson (0.00 / 0)

"Even the animal kingdom has to be male and female."  Talk to any toxicologist like my sister-in-law, and they will tell you. There are 5 SEXES.  The whole dealbreaker in the argument that only men and women can marry is HOW DO YOU DEFINE a MAN or a WOMAN. 

GENETICALLY male or female?  There are persons with more than 2 sex chromosomes. 2 XXs may not necessarily make you a female. And when chromosomes twist, some genes can actually wind up on the wrong chromosome giving a genetic female male genatalia and vice versa. 

HORMONALLY male or female? There are persons born with testes that never developed - those individuals grow and appear and consider themselves female and so does the world BUT THEY HAVE MALE chromosomes. 

MENTALLY male or female?  The brain develops after the genetalia, it can wire itself MALE or FEMALE but may not match the genatalia. 

Male and Female able to reproduce together?  Do we make reproduction the key?  Then what about older brides and grooms who are impotent, or sterile, or too old to have a baby?  Do we deprive them of marriage for finding their soul mate too late for us?

What about persons who literally have the genatalia of BOTH sexes?  Do we allow them to marry whomever they want?  Or NOBODY? 

That is why this whole argument of denying anyone the right to love the person the loves them back is absolutely downright silly to anyone who actually understands the science here. 

And as a final nail in the coffin of that woman's argument, what about the animals that can change their sex and reproduce when there are not enough of the other sex around?  Or the ones just discovered that manage to reproduce without males at all simply by putting two chromosomes together?

I think she needs a science lesson, but quick.

Why is it so hard for some people to accept that gay is actually a normal natural product of the incredible diversity of life?

One Vote.  Yours.  It really does matter.

---

by: carolh @ Mon Feb 26, 2007 at 23:11:26 PM UTC