DOMA Arigato

UPDATE: Planet Earth; Wednesday 26, 2013 — Yay! We all win! The SCOTUS actually did something right for once.
“Supreme Court strikes down Defense of Marriage Act, paves way for gay marriage to resume in California”

Follow along with me on this for a moment. It won’t take too long, really it won’t.

This Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) *cough*BullShit!*cough* with DOMA is ridiculous, absurd, and (self-) embarrassing.

(the latter for us all; as individuals, as a country, a nation, as Americans, the World, the Human Race, the Human Species, various sub-groups, etc…)

That supreme ASShole pResident George Bush absolutely ruined the SCOTUS.

Just like the Idiots in Congress these daze, where it’s so much worse now than it’s ever been — in too many ways, which basically started back with (against) Clinton, and got worse with each succeeding quadrennial period — the SCOTUS is a pale version of what it once was, and especially what it’s supposed to be. (it was never perfect, but COME ON!)

As for DOMA (Defense Of Marriage Act, for those who haven’t been paying attention), et al., ….

The Supreme Court should not DEFINE or RE-define the definition of “Marriage”.

But they should UNDEFINE the definition of “Marriage”.

(as in, Set it FREE!)

The “definition of marriage” has changed almost from century to century for millenia. (sometimes in small ways, and sometimes in large ways, and sometimes in huge ways, but rarely has it been stagnant for very long)

WAY back when (“In the beginning…”), it was literally, almost world-wide, an actual monetary contract for ownership of the woman (“wife”) by the man, sold to him by her family, which mostly meant her father. (they were big on that patriarchal stuff back then) Women were basically sold, traded, and treated like cattle, or worse. And this was back in BIBLICAL times. You know, the Greatest Hits of the Great and Wonderful “Holy” Bible. (et al.) That is how it all started. (more or less)

And eventually “they” (usually whomever is “in charge” +/-) redefined marriage (again) so that we got to the point where it wasn’t (so much) a contract to own the woman, as a semi-true union of a man and woman into an actual mutual alliance. Although still not too far off of the old definitions, and that only took a few (several) thousand years or so to get to that point. (I skipped ahead a little there — but mostly because it did pretty much take that long to reach a semi-decent level of non-slavery and non-ownership)

But “marriage” was still largely associated with, and tied to, and controlled by, various religions and religious institutions. (as was almost everything, prior to the 20th Century, +/-, but finally increasingly less so as time marched on… —— unfortunately, we still have a long way to go in that respect….)

And then, at some point in the early-mid 20th Century, or so, “they” (whomever was “in charge”) redefined marriage (again) to be separated from “the church” so that we could have non-religious, secular “legal unions”, and the like. (in the U.S. — other areas’ mileage varied; some rather drastically)

Mostly where a judge, or someone like that, could marry a couple. That couple being a man and a woman. And that ‘requirement’ mostly due to the fact that “the church” had (and has) a stranglehold over (general) society and social norms and such. So they got to pick who could and couldn’t get married. (based on various completely arbitrary criteria, many of them written down in one or more very old book(s), the writings and ideas and beliefs and concepts and such, of which, (only) some people believed in)

Of course, back then, until fairly recently, really, the laws of the United States, and our individual states, made so-called “sodomy” illegal, again based on a religious belief system (that only a segment of the population believed in) that carried over from days gone by, and which has always influenced our legal system and its laws. (too much of the time in a negative and/or detrimental manner) So why even consider the concept of two men or two women getting married, because they couldn’t even “be together” legally.

It wasn’t all that long ago when a black man or woman could not legally marry a white woman or man. (because, you know, interracial interactions and kissing and sex and children and such is just “icky” — and so very wrong on so many levels — and, you know, stuff like that)

It’s so embarrassing that interracial marriage in the United States has only been fully legal in all U.S. states since the 1967 Supreme Court decision that deemed anti-miscegenation laws unconstitutional, with many states choosing to legalize interracial marriage at much earlier dates.

If you aren’t embarrassed by that very late date, there is definitely something wrong with you. You are, at best, “broken” inside. (maybe “just a little”, but still, WAY too much) You should seek help in the form of counseling, or therapy, or a good hard slap upside the head.

Anyway, so “they” redefined marriage (yet again) in 1967. (and that was years too late — and it was still about 20 years or so before interracial relationships were more or less societally accepted)

And now here we are in the so-called 21st Century (I still think someone made a calculation error on that), and we are actually having (to have) a “discussion” as to whether two mutually consenting legal adults of any gender (or race, or religion, or creed, or color, or whatever) can “marry each other” in the best sense of the word — legally, religiously, secularly, “in holy matrimony”, because they’re in love with each other, or whatever.

Won’t the (self-) embarrassment ever end?

Can’t we do anything right??? (the Royal We)

Why do so many people fight something so basic and fundamental, that is obviously such a fundamental right that it should be self-evident.

(I think we all know why — that was one of those rhetorical questions you’ve been hearing so much about lately)

And let’s all try to remember that you do not get to pick and choose what “rights” a person gets. You don’t get to vote on it. You, ideally, do not even get to discuss it or argue about it, one way or the other. That is why they are called “rights”. (“rights” being absolute and all; unless you do something so socially heinous that you revoke those rights into abridgment — like murdering someone and losing your right to freedom, etc.)

And lucky for many of you that that is a basic and fundamental Truth.

You can disagree with it for any number of reasons, as (too many) people, unfortunately, too often do.

But that does not mean you get to deny, or abridge, or diminish, or twist, or skew, or ignore (in the best sense of the word-root ‘ignorance’) these rights that people inherently possess.

(yeah, that’s right, “Rights” are not “endowed by their Creator” — even He, or She, doesn’t get a say in the matter — if you have a problem with that concept, then deal with it, and move forward, preferably into the future)

Are we done yet???

Because this is all getting so awfully tiresome.

p.s. A short note to those who “disagree” with the above — respectfully, or vociferously, on “religious grounds”, or otherwise, or whatever —

PLEASE STOP making the Human Species ‘look bad’. That’s seriously REALLY getting OLD.




An Openish Letter To Michael Moore

This is in ‘reply’ to MM’s ridiculous (seemingly increasingly undistinguished) content and message via his e-mail / blog post (?) saying that if ‘they’ released (or leaked) the photos of the children who were killed at Sandy Hook, that that would cause ‘something to be done’, because of how horrific they would be.


If you can’t win your argument by intelligence, rationality, and logic, then do the next best thing: pander to people’s emotions, knee-jerk reactions, and mental weaknesses?

WADR, you are becoming increasingly irrational about your gun issues.

It’s unfortunate. There are much more, and many more, important things to think about and work on than this.

Of course, this issue is an “easy issue”. (for some; most of whom are irrational, illogical, etc., thinkers, believers, and behavers)

That’s not what we expect from you.

Sandy Hook was an ABERRATION!!

Plain and simple. That is the absolute truth of the matter.

Just like the other 20-odd “mass shootings” that have occurred in the last 50+ years.

We should feel lucky that we’ve been as lucky as we’ve been, that there have been so few. (instead of whining and cry-babying about it all)

The NRA is not the problem. Guns are not the problem. Even gun violence is not the problem.

I wouldn’t think I would have to point out and explain to you what the real problems are.

I think you know what they are, and have even (too) mildly and (too) occasionally mentioned them, although usually in an off-hand, casual, let’s-all-agree-to-not-go-there manner, because therein lies too much work that we know will most-probably not result in much result.

That’s the hard truth that too many people don’t want to think about, much less deal with it. And they definitely don’t want to hear about it from you. (even though you are the person who is supposed to be speaking out and up about it — one of them — if not you, who? that’s what we have relied on for years)

I wish you would quit knee-jerk reacting so highly irrationally and illogically like so many others.

I know you’re not stupid, so the above can be the only explanation for why you are acting, acting out, and reacting, the way you are. (since I’m guessing you aren’t a ‘paid shill’ for this issue)

Same with Bill Maher. Sometimes I wonder how people who are so intelligent, and so well-meaning, and who do so well with so many other issues, can act so oddly, and out of character, in some situations.

The answer is because you are human, imperfect, and just as likely to wrap yourself in irrationality, illogical thinking, and non-objective attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors, when there is no other good, or easy, answer to a problem like this, and others.

I wish you would read this. (and then actually stop, step back, and think about it and consider it for a time) But I doubt if it would do any good anyway.

Note that you do need to be careful about self-marginalizing yourself, if you care about that. Because you are teetering on the edge of that. And that would be bad and sad.

I don’t want you to be killed, or assassinated, or “have a sudden heart attack”, or get hit by a car while crossing the street, or have a ‘freak’ fatal automobile accident, but there are some issues that need addressing that would (potentially) put your life in jeopardy, if you chose to do them. I guess I can’t blame you at this point.

You’ve put in more than your fair share of hard work over the years. It’s not terrible that you are more or less resting on your laurels. It’s been way too long (how many years now) since you’ve done a documentary about an important issue. Maybe you’ll do another or two. Maybe write some more books. Probably somewhat half-assed as they seem to have increasingly become. But they are better than nothing. So at least there’s that.

We can’t expect you to be the MM you were 20+ years ago. You have way too much to lose now, as well. That reality and truth can have a way of making people back off. I would be surprised if you were acting differently. You had a good run. Better than many or most others. And that’s probably good enough.

But I do severely miss the MM of old. I’ll watch one of your older documentaries to visit sometime.

And so it begins….

Diamantine Clarity is the b’jou of Popeye Theophilus Barrnumb, Esq. — You may call me Popeye.

The sub-title, A Lucid Dream b’jou for The Unwashed Masses, is quite apropos. (this may transmogrify over time)

Within these hallowed halls and fortified walls of wisdom and pristine clarity you shall find verbiage unlike any found elsewhere on the Internets [sic], the so-called World Wide Web, throughout CyberSpace, or in other mass-media and tomes of higher learning and baser self-indulgence. Among these pearlesque meanderings shall be found mountains of Truth, boulders of Justice, flavorings of The American Way, and a soupçon of humoristic wit. Count on it.

Now . . . . Let the fun begin!


(pronounced bee-zhoo (like Bijou, as in theater or cinema, or bijou) = web journal :: a linguistic picture in motion worth well-more than 1,000 words)

[ di•a•man•tine — diamond-like; diamantine clarity — purest, sharpest, pristine clarity ]

Nota Bene: This is not a ‘blog’. If you refer to it as a blog, you will be keel hauled, drawn and quartered, spat upon, and fed to the crows. Then we will have a discussion about your mother. And then and only then and thereafter will you begin to feel real pain, whereupon your agony-laced begging shall begin in earnest.