Fiddley Gomme

Blogger Love On Wednesday

Topics

Swag Ad

  • <a href="/swag/this_old_mans_old_ladys_shirt">This Old Man&#039;s Old Lady&#039;s Shirt</a>

    What classy lady doesn't beer on her chest and a dirty old man on her back?

    Tell him you love homemade beer and win that wet t-shirt contest at the same time.

    17.99

In The News: Double Entendres and Double Standards

Monday, January 21, 2008

When asked about newly-inaugurated Salt Lake City mayor Ralph Becker's proposed registry for domestic partners, State Senator Chris Buttars (R - West Jordan) replied, "I have great empathy for that kind of thing. I have no problem with people sharing insurance or their wills, estates, real estate or lives. I just have to be certain we're not coming in the back door of the Amendment 3 [ban on gay marriage and civil unions]."

I'm sorry... did he just say, coming in the back door of Amendment 3? I thought so. Poor choice of words, Senator Butthole. Personally, I hope the registry gives Amendment 3 a reach-around and a Dirty Sanchez.

In other news, the LDS Church is busy talking out both sides of its political mouth. With one side it is assuring the voting public that it would never dare influence a potential President Romney. With the other, it is issuing statements telling the Utah State Legislature how to vote when it comes to matters of legalized-adulthood. It seems to me that if the church and Attorney General Mark Shurtleff are truly concerned with protecting teens in Utah that grocery stores ought to be farther down the list than forced polygamous marriages, a matter both are quick to divorce themselves from at every opportunity.


Permanent Link: In The News: Double Entendres and Double Standards
Filed under: |


Great Post

Senator Butthole was my bishop for a couple years. Giving this man any authority is about as intelligent as giving a broken glass and razor collection to a toddler.

The Alcohol Control Board

Note: if you can't handle back-door wisecracks salted throughout a post, quit reading. Or, better yet, get off the Intarweb-thing entirely, the tubes are getting full and your traffic is interfering with law enforcement.

The Utah Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control was shoved in through the "back door" (without lube, I'll wager) as punishment for Utah's rejection of Prohibition. From their own web site:

The Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control has been in existence since 1935. In that year, the Utah State Legislature created the department by statute and charged it with the responsibility of conducting, licensing and regulating the sale of alcoholic beverages in a manner and at prices which reasonably satisfy the public demand and protect the public interest, including the rights of citizens who do not wish to be involved with alcoholic beverages. The legislature also mandated that the department be operated as a public business using sound management principles and practices.

Check that year. 1935 was the year this asshat-riddled organization was created. Until less than a decade ago, this organization never appointed a drinker to the Board of Directors. Yeah, that makes a lot of sense: have the anti-drinking lobby control the distribution of alcohol in the state. Maybe we should appoint anti-abortion activists to the state medical boards, and anti-gun people to the Wildlife Commission.

Anyway, in 1932, newly-elected President Franklin D. Roosevelt held true to his campaign promise to reform the smelly mess of national mental diarrhea called "Prohibition". Contrary to the stated wishes of the LDS church president, in 1933 Utah cast the first deciding vote and thus sealed the Prohibition amendment into the dustbin of history*.

However, the state government was composed mostly of faithful LDS men who, when the LDS church presents a unified message, toe the line closely**. The state is no longer a "theocracy", but when the LDS church speaks, majority senators and representatives are sock-puppets in their voting habits.

From 1933 through 1941, LDS General Conference talks resounded with disappointment in the LDS membership in Utah for ratifying the repeal of Prohibition. The Utah Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control was created expressly as a replacement for Prohibition, and exists today as a throwback, schizophrenic organization.

On a separate topic, the only reason churches don't endorse candidates is because they are prohibited from doing so. They are allowed to lobby based on issues, but stand to lose their tax-exempt status if they endorse a particular candidate. However, this allows more "back-door" endorsement based on individual issues. For instance, assume only only one pro-gay candidate is running for office. A church can issue a statement like "Marriage is the union of a man and a woman; we expect our members to vote their consciences on these types of issues." Even the most proctologically-challenged will get that message.

*Contrary to popular belief, Utah did not cast the "deciding vote". Two other states cast additional votes within the 2/3 majority, so the repeal would have passed without Utah's help. However, it was the first of the three deciding votes. A subtle distinction, but perhaps important if you are a self-aggrandizing blowhard with too much time on his hands like me.

**Apologist readers with their heads up their collective asses may point out that I am both saying that Utah voters feel free to vote against their church's position, while their elected representatives vote as a bloc. This may appear, according to the above die-hard colorectal self-examiners, like I'm talking out both sides of my mouth. Read the research and decide for yourself if it's possible for a group to vote as a bloc when certain conditions are present, and vote their conscience at other times:
http://americandemocracy.nd.edu/working_papers/files/following_the_leade...

OK then...

At least I sparked a dialog. Or, in this case, a Shakespearean monologue.

Epilog, monologue...

Well, at least it's some kind of log...

Honestly

Pete, I've been going back and forth between trying to stay in Utah and leaving (I can do so soon without financial repercussions, of course if I find a job that is) and I honestly think this one puts me over the line. WHAT THE HELL DOES THE CHURCH THINK THEY ARE DOING WHEN THEY TELL PEOPLE WHERE THEY SHOULD BE BUYING THEIR BOOZE!

THEY DON'T DRINK!!!

Argh. Sorry for all the caps but this one just did me in on Utah, probably for good, unless I get rich and can move to SugarHouse.

P.S.

I don't think Heath Ledger would view that as an upside. But that's just me talkin'. God rest his soul.

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <blockquote> <img> <div> <span>
  • Web and e-mail addresses are automatically converted into links.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • Easily link to terms in various wikis. For help, see interwiki.
  • You may use [inline:xx] tags to display uploaded files or images inline.
More information about formatting options Captcha Image: you will need to recognize the text in it.
Please type in the letters/numbers that are shown in the image above.

Today's Photo

  • I've said it before. I'll say it again. I wish this was my dog.

    Or is it wish it were? I always get mixed up on the subjunctive case.

Hello Everyone





And Now A Word...