Supreme Court To Decide Gay Marriage

[WinePusher]

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments regarding the constitutionality of California's Proposition 8 which banned gay marriage in the state of California.

Question: What are the implications if the court rules in favor of gay marriage? What are the implications if the court rules against gay marriage? Will the issue finally be settled after the ruling, or will the battle continue on after?

[otseng]

It can't be that you're just an evil ... can it?

Moderator Comment

Please avoid making any comments of a personal nature.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[Fuzzy Dunlop]

Interracial marriage =/= gay marriage. There has always been interracial marriage. Some places made them illegal, but they were possible. There has been no argument, with anybody, about that. The folks against it didn't say it couldn't be, but rather, that it SHOULDN'T be. Not the same argument at all.

Religious folk who are against gay marriage aren't saying 'look, these guys are inferior beings who shouldn't get married." They are saying...look, it's not POSSIBLE for them to be married, because same sex joinings simply are not marriage. Period.

The arguments are different. Whether you agree with either one, they are very different.

Except for all the arguments that are exactly the same, like this one. Opponents of interracial marriage, like opponents of gay marriage, irrationally believed for religious reasons that such marriages were not "possible." It's not POSSIBLE for interracial couples to get married, because interracial joinings simply are not marriage. Period.

For one thing, proponents of 'interracial marriage' (and there IS no such thing), could always point to many historical examples where such marriages were condoned...even celebrated. Shoot, the bible is full of 'em; some approved and some not....but even if they weren't approved, exactly, they were recognized AS marriages.

But nobody can point to an historical nation or group (with the possibility of some small tribes somewhere) in which same sex marriage was OK. Not even in ancient Greece, where 'marriage' was for children only and women were fifth and sixth class humans--when they were acknowledged to be humans--and homosexual relationships were considered to be preferable in a warrior society. Even then and there, those relationships were not marriage.

But go ahead; you give me one civilization (that is, one which has left a written record) in which same sex relationships were viewed as marriage.

The last fifty years or so doesn't count, just in case you are wondering; that's begging the question.

What you're indicating here is that this argument (which is plainly a fallacious appeal to tradition) applies only to gay marriage. I agree that opponents of gay marriage do have some unique false arguments.

[dianaiad]

No one is forcing you to recognise them religiously.

No one is forcing the church to publicly approve of anything that violates it’s doctrine.

That is utterly false to fact. Or rather...it is not 'forcing the church to publicly approve of anything that violates its doctrine" the way prayer in schools doesn't force atheists to approve of, and participate in, a religious ritual.

All that is being asked for is that someone be allowed to marry the person they love.

Baloney. If THAT'S all it was about, y'all would take my idea (or an idea just like it) and run with it. It's not.

Just like you did, just like I did. It is really that simple. It does not affect anyone else’s marriage, it doesn’t affect any church, in fact,

What part of being forced to allow gay weddings and receptions to take place on church property, and forcing a deeply religious person to participate in an event that violates his/her religious beliefs, does NOT 'affect any church," alchemy? I'd really like to see how you figure that forcing an atheist child to be in the same room while someone else prays is somehow anathema, but forcing a church to publicly host a wedding/reception that it absolutely does not believe IS a wedding isn't?

What is the difference between forcing an atheist parent to sit through a valedictory address, or a cub scout meeting, that mentions God, and forcing a fundamentalist Christian to cater a gay wedding? Can you tell me that?

Never mind that, since you are an atheist, you think that it's a GOOD thing to force other people to behave as if what you believe to be true is true--or untrue, whatever. What's the difference?

What's the difference between fining and putting in stocks the atheist who refuses to attend church services, threatening to take someone's livelihood away from them with confiscatory fines if they don't sacrifice a goat at the altar of Zeus, ...and doing the same thing to a photographer if she doesn't 'shoot' a gay wedding?

Because for the life of me, I don't see one. Beliefs about deity HAVE to be sacrosanct; and there's a reason for my use of the word. If the practice of one's belief does not involve the sacrifice of unwilling victims, the coercion of the unwilling, or harm to those who do not agree, then one's beliefs about...and what one DOES about those beliefs, MUST be held of primary importance. We have too much history showing us what happens when freedom of religion is violated.

Yes, I believe that gay couples who do not share my beliefs should have every access to government granted civil rights that I do. I also believe that they should be able to marry according to THEIR beliefs. They. do. not. have. the. right. to. be. married. according. to MINE. Especially when they not only do not share, but outright disdain, mine.

There is a way to do that. There is a way to solve the whole problem. Nobody here is willing to look at it. Nobody here is willing to see that I am, in fact, more pro-civil rights than anybody here who is so vehemently arguing against me and calling me a bigot--or 'an evil...". I want to see them have the right to marry, if they want to do so; to have the rights assigned to marriage that the government can give them, if they wish. I WANT that. The problem here is that I ALSO want to keep my rights and not blissfully hand them over in service to politically correct idiocy.

the only people who are affected are the two people who love each other very much and would like the same rights as other people. No religion has to recognise it or have anything to do with it.

I have seen shallower pools of bovine effluvium washed out of my uncle's dairy barn. OF COURSE THEY WILL. What do you think 'recognition' consists of?

Do you think that the courts will allow the church that has to provide the property and the catering services to post a sign at the event saying "We don't think these people are getting married; they are about to enter a life of sin...we have been forced to provide this venue and services at the point of a lawsuit" signs at all the place settings?

Good grief...the mere posting of the ten commandments in law courts is a cause celebre' for atheists as a sign that the government is supporting/recognizing a religion, even when they are posted along with OTHER perfectly historical and valid codes of law, like the code of Hammurabi or the Napoleonic code. A HINT of anything theistic gets you guys all up in arms, and you don't think that forcing a church to provide space and services to a gay wedding is NOT forcing them to 'recognize' the marriage?

You don't think that threatening to ruin a deeply religious business owner unless she provides services....services that she didn't advertise in the first place...to an event that deeply violates her religious beliefs isn't AFFECTING her? Tell me (I'm pulling out what's left of my hair even as we speak) How Orwellian can you GET????

Does two blokes getting married in Canada change anything for you? What’s the difference if two blokes in the USA get married? How does that change anything for you?

Having them get married affects me....not a bit. I wish them well. I don't give a good hoot....if they want ME to design two wedding dresses, fine. No problem. They want me to do a wedding and a bride's cake, or two groom's cakes? OK. I can do that. They want me (or my daughter) to SHOOT it? Fine. My daughter has done a couple already. She's up for more. Y'all don't want me. You don't want me to cater it, either.

As long as you realize that even though I am happy for you, in your beliefs and in your life together, wish you the very best and will do my very best in your behalf, trade recipe's, babysit your kids, be friends and neighbors to the utmost of my ability, I do not think that you are married as I define marriage.

But then, few people are.

You don't have to be. You don't believe as I do, and as long as you are married according to your beliefs, to me, that's 'married enough.'

But that's not what Gays, or gay rights activists, WANT.

They don't want what I can give them. They want to force those whose beliefs do NOT encompass theirs to hand over the time, the services, and the approval...even when it can do them no good. They don't want to win. They want everybody else to lose. It's not a quest for civil rights. It's a crusade for revenge and for domination.

They do not want the rights, and then to be married, not really.
They want to force everybody else to be forced to approve of them. The two concepts are not the same thing.

[dianaiad]

What you're indicating here is that this argument (which is plainly a fallacious appeal to tradition) applies only to gay marriage. I agree that opponents of gay marriage do have some unique false arguments.

Fuzzy, an appeal to tradition is a fallacy only when the subject is about immutable fact, not tradition.

Marriage is a changeable, cultural and religious phenomenon. There have been a great number of variations on the theme, historically, from monogamy to polygamy to polygyny to group...and governments either do, or do not, get involved in the property rights that get tangled up in it in equally varied ways.

However, since we ARE talking about a traditionally defined topic, then an appeal to tradition is a perfectly valid argument to make.

What amuses me most, believe it or not, are the anti-gay rights activists who claim that if you allow gays to marry (because of 'equal protection' or whatever) then you will ALSO have to allow polygamy, polygyny and legalized bestiality.

The ironic thing is that we have plenty of examples of marriage involving multiple spouses. We even have a history of political leaders so in love with their horses/bulls/whatever that they are made gods and co-rulers. We do not, however, have any tradition of gay marriage.

And in an arena that is defined BY tradition, then an argument from tradition is perfectly valid, it seems to me.


..............................................of course, my own position is that marriage should be whatever the putative spouses think it is. Civil rights should be assigned regardless of religious opinion, and everybody should just--stick to their lasts and not worry about whether anybody else approves of them. They should CERTAINLY not worry about forcing the other guy to approve of them.

[JoeyKnothead]

I find it impossible to present an argument against those who get to declare entire segments of the population as trying to do their plotting against religious zealots, but I can't ask if it ain't one of 'em who ain't suffering from the evil, what with that whole evil deal being pretty much a religious deal.


Alas, asking questions is far more the crime than accusing folks of all manner of nefarity.



Based on this information, we must now consider that it is perfectly rational to conclude that every dang one of them homosexuals wanna bust in every door, of every church in the land, and that they'd then forcibly require every Christian to hop up and sing them a big gay happy song.


I 'pologize for not having sooner realized it.


And for not knowing the words to it.

[dianaiad]

I find it impossible to present an argument against those who get to declare entire segments of the population as trying to do their plotting against religious zealots, but I can't ask if it ain't one of 'em who ain't suffering from the evil, what with that whole evil deal being pretty much a religious deal.

Alas, asking questions is far more the crime than accusing folks of all manner of nefarity.[/quote]

heh.....the last time I heard that sort of thing, my seven year old was hiding his brother's broken Tonka truck behind his back and going 'who, ME?" complete with puppy dog eyes and just one tear tracing a path down a very dirty cheek. He might have pulled it off, too, if he hadn't forgotten that I was a lot taller than he was, and could see the toy hanging from the belt and banging him on the butt every time he moved.

Based on this information, we must now consider that it is perfectly rational to conclude that every dang one of them homosexuals wanna bust in every door, of every church in the land, and that they'd then forcibly require every Christian to hop up and sing them a big gay happy song.


I 'pologize for not having sooner realized it.

The proper term for the above hyperbole is called 'slippery slope.' It is, in fact, a fallacy. You are a master at it.

And for not knowing the words to it.

Oh, my friend, your problem has never been one of not knowing the words.

You have accused me of being all sorts of things; hateful, bigoted...and your position seems to be that because I do not want to be forced to change my religious...RELIGIOUS...practices and beliefs to conform with the opinions and wants of those who neither share, nor have any respect for, those beliefs, that somehow I am persecuting THEM.

....and you are doing precisely what I have accused the gay rights activists of doing; if you can't get those civil rights exactly the way you want to get them, that is, by forcing everybody else to abandon their beliefs to conform to yours, that you'd rather not have them. You aren't willing to see that there IS another way that gays can have the rights....including the right to marry...without forcing every religion to suddenly change their doctrines and policies to approve and celebrate those marriages. Any idea short of absolute capitulation is called gay bashing, discrimination, hate...

Sorry, sir. There IS a way. It would even work. Wouldn't cost much, if anything. Would settle everything....and it is the religions who would 'lose' the most. I've never seen anybody object to this other idea on account of that, though.

I wonder why none of you can see the problem as it actually is?

Now, ARE there folks out there who think they have the right to dictate to homosexuals whether or not they can have civil rights and marry even when those gay couples do not share their beliefs? Sure.

But there are a lot fewer of them than you seem to think. MOST of the arguments against gay marriage that I have seen involve freedom of religion issues; it's not that they are against gays having legal rights. It's that they don't want to be forced to abrogate their deepest religious convictions and be forced to recognize the RELIGIOUS nature of those marriages.

Why you can't see that is something I honestly don't get.

Either that, or you can see it, and don't care, because you are doing exactly what you accuse the religious folks of; attempting to force your opinions and beliefs upon everybody else.

[Alchemy]

I hope you don’t mind my cutting and pasting replies from different replies on the same topic.

Religious folk who are against gay marriage aren't saying 'look, these guys are inferior beings who shouldn't get married." They are saying...look, it's not POSSIBLE for them to be married, because same sex joinings simply are not marriage. Period.

They would be wrong. Of course it is possible. There are thousands of same sex couples who are married right now as you read this so obviously IT IS POSSIBLE. You may not recognise them as married because of what you believe but legally they are married. The only thing stopping two people of the same sex becoming married in the USA or Australia is a change in the law, as has happened in Canada and the UK. When the law changes, the views and beliefs of the religious folks who are against gay marriage are irrelevant. Their particular religion may not recognise the marriage and they are free to not recognise it just as some religions do not recognise someone marrying outside their religion i.e. Orthodox Jews.

The arguments are different. Whether you agree with either one, they are very different.

For one thing, proponents of 'interracial marriage' (and there IS no such thing), could always point to many historical examples where such marriages were condoned...even celebrated. Shoot, the bible is full of 'em; some approved and some not....but even if they weren't approved, exactly, they were recognized AS marriages.

But nobody can point to an historical nation or group (with the possibility of some small tribes somewhere) in which same sex marriage was OK. Not even in ancient Greece, where 'marriage' was for children only and women were fifth and sixth class humans--when they were acknowledged to be humans--and homosexual relationships were considered to be preferable in a warrior society. Even then and there, those relationships were not marriage.

But go ahead; you give me one civilization (that is, one which has left a written record) in which same sex relationships were viewed as marriage.

The last fifty years or so doesn't count, just in case you are wondering; that's begging the question.

Your argument here seems to be, ‘no one in history has ever legalised gay marriage so why should we start now?’ No one in history has ever found a cure for cancer, should we stop that one as well? There is a rich history of slavery throughout recorded history, she we bring that back because that’s what we used to do? Clearly an argument based on we haven’t done it before so we should not do it now, is ridiculous.

No one is forcing you to recognise them religiously.

No one is forcing the church to publicly approve of anything that violates it’s doctrine.

That is utterly false to fact. Or rather...it is not 'forcing the church to publicly approve of anything that violates its doctrine" the way prayer in schools doesn't force atheists to approve of, and participate in, a religious ritual.

I’m afraid I don’t understand your analogy here. Prayer in schools is wrong (or at least in government schools) because religion has no place in government and visa versa. This is also something you believe is it not?

All that is being asked for is that someone be allowed to marry the person they love.

Baloney. If THAT'S all it was about, y'all would take my idea (or an idea just like it) and run with it. It's not.

You often claim there is some ulterior motive or some sinister gay agenda but you have yet to show what it is. They just want to marry the person they love like you and I did. They just want the same rights you and I have. I invite you to show just what it is all about if not equal rights.

Just like you did, just like I did. It is really that simple. It does not affect anyone else’s marriage, it doesn’t affect any church, in fact,

What part of being forced to allow gay weddings and receptions to take place on church property, and forcing a deeply religious person to participate in an event that violates his/her religious beliefs, does NOT 'affect any church," alchemy? I'd really like to see how you figure that forcing an atheist child to be in the same room while someone else prays is somehow anathema, but forcing a church to publicly host a wedding/reception that it absolutely does not believe IS a wedding isn't?

Again with the cases of anti discrimination law being violated. The church “forced to host a gay wedding� is actually a case where a church owned a large residential complex which had a pavilion in it. This pavilion was available to hire by the general public. When two women wanted to have their wedding there, the owners refused on the grounds that they don’t do gay wedding in their pavilion. They were sued under New Jersey anti discrimination law and the wedding went ahead. The photographer is a case where a wedding photographer refused to shoot a gay wedding. They were sued under anti discrimination law. It’s quite simple. If you operate a business, you can not discriminate against who you provide goods and services based on gender, race, religion, sexual orientation etc… I know you would like anyone to be able to discriminate on these grounds but the law says you can not.

In neither case was the pavilion owner or the photographer forced to recognise the union as a wedding under their beliefs, they were simply compelled (or fined in the photographers case) to abide by anti discrimination law. The church did not officiate the wedding or take any part in it what so ever except to provide a hall which they would ordinarily provide to other people.

Never mind that, since you are an atheist, you think that it's a GOOD thing to force other people to behave as if what you believe to be true is true--or untrue, whatever. What's the difference?

I do not want to force anyone to behave in any way in particular. That’s where religion comes in. I’m fine for anyone to believe what ever they want to believe. Just don’t force other people to believe it and don’t stop them from marrying the person they love because of what you believe.

What's the difference between fining and putting in stocks the atheist who refuses to attend church services, threatening to take someone's livelihood away from them with confiscatory fines if they don't sacrifice a goat at the altar of Zeus, ...and doing the same thing to a photographer if she doesn't 'shoot' a gay wedding?

Because for the life of me, I don't see one. Beliefs about deity HAVE to be sacrosanct; and there's a reason for my use of the word. If the practice of one's belief does not involve the sacrifice of unwilling victims, the coercion of the unwilling, or harm to those who do not agree, then one's beliefs about...and what one DOES about those beliefs, MUST be held of primary importance. We have too much history showing us what happens when freedom of religion is violated.

I agree. I would just go one step further and actually put it into practice by allowing gay people to be married.

Yes, I believe that gay couples who do not share my beliefs should have every access to government granted civil rights that I do. I also believe that they should be able to marry according to THEIR beliefs. They. do. not. have. the. right. to. be. married. according. to MINE. Especially when they not only do not share, but outright disdain, mine.

No one is asking the Latter Day Saints to recognise gay marriage. You constantly claim that pro gay marriage people are asking you to accept their marriage according to your religion but no one is asking you to. You continue to claim this but have not show it to be true.

There is a way to do that. There is a way to solve the whole problem. Nobody here is willing to look at it. Nobody here is willing to see that I am, in fact, more pro-civil rights than anybody here who is so vehemently arguing against me and calling me a bigot--or 'an evil...". I want to see them have the right to marry, if they want to do so; to have the rights assigned to marriage that the government can give them, if they wish. I WANT that. The problem here is that I ALSO want to keep my rights and not blissfully hand them over in service to politically correct idiocy.

All that has to occur for the above to happen is for the governments to legalise gay marriage. Your church can continue on, gay people in love can be married and all is well. This has happened in Canada and society as we know it has not broken down. People are not renouncing their religion and the Mormon church has not crumbled. Nothing has changed except some people who love each other are allowed to be married. You offer a solution to a problem that does not exist. You may as well design a lawn mower that works on Mars.

the only people who are affected are the two people who love each other very much and would like the same rights as other people. No religion has to recognise it or have anything to do with it.

I have seen shallower pools of bovine effluvium washed out of my uncle's dairy barn. OF COURSE THEY WILL. What do you think 'recognition' consists of?

Do you think that the courts will allow the church that has to provide the property and the catering services to post a sign at the event saying "We don't think these people are getting married; they are about to enter a life of sin...we have been forced to provide this venue and services at the point of a lawsuit" signs at all the place settings?

I’m not a lawyer but I would have though the US Constitution would have allowed those signs yes.

Good grief...the mere posting of the ten commandments in law courts is a cause celebre' for atheists as a sign that the government is supporting/recognizing a religion, even when they are posted along with OTHER perfectly historical and valid codes of law, like the code of Hammurabi or the Napoleonic code. A HINT of anything theistic gets you guys all up in arms, and you don't think that forcing a church to provide space and services to a gay wedding is NOT forcing them to 'recognize' the marriage?

No, it is forcing them to not discriminate who they offer their publicly available services to. If they did not hire out that pavilion to anyone, the couple would have had no right to use it

You don't think that threatening to ruin a deeply religious business owner unless she provides services....services that she didn't advertise in the first place...to an event that deeply violates her religious beliefs isn't AFFECTING her? Tell me (I'm pulling out what's left of my hair even as we speak) How Orwellian can you GET????

As stated before above and in THE LAW, if you provide a publicly available service you can not discriminate who that is provided to.

Does two blokes getting married in Canada change anything for you? What’s the difference if two blokes in the USA get married? How does that change anything for you?

Having them get married affects me....not a bit. I wish them well. I don't give a good hoot....if they want ME to design two wedding dresses, fine. No problem. They want me to do a wedding and a bride's cake, or two groom's cakes? OK. I can do that. They want me (or my daughter) to SHOOT it? Fine. My daughter has done a couple already. She's up for more. Y'all don't want me. You don't want me to cater it, either.

As long as you realize that even though I am happy for you, in your beliefs and in your life together, wish you the very best and will do my very best in your behalf, trade recipe's, babysit your kids, be friends and neighbors to the utmost of my ability, I do not think that you are married as I define marriage.

But then, few people are.

You don't have to be. You don't believe as I do, and as long as you are married according to your beliefs, to me, that's 'married enough.'

But that's not what Gays, or gay rights activists, WANT.

That’s perfect because those two blokes are not asking you to recognise it. They just want to be married because they are in love. They don’t care what you think or believe. They just want the same rights that everyone else has.

That is what gay rights activists want. You continue to claim that it is not. Can you please provide just exactly what it is that gay activists want then?

They don't want what I can give them. They want to force those whose beliefs do NOT encompass theirs to hand over the time, the services, and the approval...even when it can do them no good. They don't want to win. They want everybody else to lose. It's not a quest for civil rights. It's a crusade for revenge and for domination.

They do not want the rights, and then to be married, not really.
They want to force everybody else to be forced to approve of them. The two concepts are not the same thing.

Gay people do not want to force their beliefs on anyone. You don’t even know what their beliefs are. You make it sound as if there is one generic, all encompassing gay belief. They are after equal rights. Just like women strove for, just like black people stove for. You say you are more pro civil rights than anyone here and yet the only examples you can give of gay people “forcing their beliefs� any anyone are clear violations of those civil rights you claim to champion.

[Alchemy]

MOST of the arguments against gay marriage that I have seen involve freedom of religion issues; it's not that they are against gays having legal rights. It's that they don't want to be forced to abrogate their deepest religious convictions and be forced to recognize the RELIGIOUS nature of those marriages.

Why you can't see that is something I honestly don't get.

I imagine it is because you have not shown that two people of the same sex being married in City Hall by a Registrar forces you or anyone else to abrogate deeply held religions convictions. You would not even know they are married, how could it possibly affact you?

Those two people are not going to take that marriage certificate and march to the nearst Church of the Latter Day Saints and demand that everyone inside decalre their marriage a wonderful thing in the eyes of J.Smith and Jesus.

How does an event you do not even know has happened affect you and what you believe in any way? How could it?

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 75:

heh.....the last time I heard that sort of thing, my seven year old was hiding his brother's broken Tonka truck behind his back and going 'who, ME?"

At great risk of askin' a Chrisian a danged thing, might we ask if he didn't hide that Tonka Trunk 'cause some Christian zealot declared him the one that was "broken" and how about that whole Tonka Truck hiding incident might upset a god or two?

complete with puppy dog eyes and just one tear tracing a path down a very dirty cheek. He might have pulled it off, too, if he hadn't forgotten that I was a lot taller than he was, and could see the toy hanging from the belt and banging him on the butt every time he moved.

'Cause don't it beat all, if'n you ain't tall enough for the a-doing it, or if'n you ain't a-heterosexual right there when you try it, well it oughta be obvious'ner all get out that you ain't either you ain't tall enough for it, or you ain't not near gay enough that you'd try to kick in the church doors...

'Cause I get to declare that every homosexual, well ain't they nothing more'n they's a church door a-kicking in scoundrel!"

Get it? I get to declare that every danged one of 'em is what I declare 'em to be...

BUT DON'T YOU DARE QUESTION ME ABOUT IT!

'Cause that' just too danged upsettin'!

But anyway, all these gay homos, all every dang one of 'em wanna do is kick in the doors of my church, ya know, my church, where we get to declare they's all kinda pitiful, but ya don't get to question me about it, cause that's just too danged upsetting, in light of my getting to declare that every danged one of 'em is out to get me, and you can see the logic behind all that, right, 'cause as long as one declares they got 'em a god behind 'em, well any insult, or any slander is just god being all god and all, but right the very instant the dissenter asks him a question, well we'll just get the mods to jump on him, 'cause here we are, we're slandering an entire segment of society, But to all holy hell with that, we won't allow no dissent, 'cause ya know what, they're all gay and all, but don't it beat all, they's a-questionin' us! Those dirty bastards!

All them homosexuals wanna do is kick in my door!"

And if you dare question me about it, you're one of them gay-kicking-in-the-door homosexuals!

And to Hell with you if you dare raise a hand in question!


Step 1: I get to declare a grand homosexual conspiracy, 'cause I'm all religious and all!

Step 2: If you dare present the temerity to ask me about it, you're in on it!

Step 3: To heck with you, we won't fret no context about it, we'll just get upset if you present any argument within context, only we're too danged out of touch to know it is.

'Cause God trumps context any gol-danged time I need it a trumpin'!

But yeah, I'm the bad guy ... for asking a ... question!

[WinePusher]

Delete.