The Gay Fray

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Notes on the Heart of the Matter

Ayuh.

• • •​

This is a part of the story I can't even deal with properly, yet. To the one, it may be that her parents have learned the answer to that question. To the other, young Ms. Kahle would still prefer to be at TCS with her friends.

I am uncertain how this sits doctrinally. Oh, wait, wait. Did I say uncertain? Let me rephrase that: This is the sort of thing that makes me wish there was a God just so I could have the last pleasure of seeing the looks on these people's faces when they found out they Got It Wrong.

I can almost imagine the doctrinal dispute. Almost. Because, after all, the living people we talk to never behave quite like their virtual projections in our heads. It would come down to what part of casting out constitutes compassionate ministry, and in truth if the genuine discourse of the corpus Christi ever actually got that far, we would find a whole new bounty of glittering surprises in the rubego'berg of the Christian psyche. Our American, post-Calvinist theocreativity is a testament unto the vast imaginative power of the human species, and its capacity to effect communal behavioral outcomes that we might, but for their reiteration throughout the human endeavor, consider unhealthy.

• • •​

Related but General Note

I pitched my fit in the blogosphere, of course, but I should note that even had the discussion somehow not included the contrast of the traditional and the sapphic, there are still myriad troubling issues about this behavior. The bottom line is that TCS is engaging in a very powerful, albeit oblique compared to what we normally consider of the term, form of sexual grooming:

So maybe it is time for an intervention. You know, in the American family. Maybe it is time to sit our Christian neighbors down and try to explain to them the functional problems with their seemingly pathological need to own children's sex lives. Come on, can we just say we owe it to Sunnie, or something? This is as blatant a sign of neurotic rupture as we can hope never to see again. These people who abide by so perverse an ownership culture need help. Let there be no question: Sexual grooming of children is not simply creepy, it is also very, very harmful.

And it needs to stop.​

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Are all dudes named "Lex" villains?

It would seem to me no wonder that so many of similar outlooks would rely for decades on the useless "pedophilia" scare about homosexuals, if we accept that this sort of sexual ownership culture is pathological within the dialectic of this neurosis, the psychoanalytic meaning of this odd facet in history. These are, after all, people who carry a mighty pretense of righteous virtue.

Never trust that Lex Parsimoniae; he's a liar, I tell you—a liar!

 

First Gay Marriages in England Tomorrow

From March 29 same-sex marriages will be legal in England and Wales. Whoopy!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

PS: Lots of wedding prezzies too. Way to go.

 

Why do homosexuals needs so much audience of approval to prop them up? In other words, why does the ego come into this, to such a huge degree, if homosexual is natural? Natural is its own self reliance. Those who doubt need the most propping up. The entire gay marriage need, is a huge social hug to help compensate for something.

You do not need a group hug to eat food, since this is natural. Do you need everyone to clap and tell you how good you are, each time you breath or for culture to tell you how natural this. That would be needed by those learning a new skill but who not yet fully acclimated. The approval is like training wheels until you can ride alone with habits that appear almost natural.

Back in the 1960's, many young people were shying away from formal marriage. The feeling was they believed you don't need a piece of paper or social ritual to prove one was in love. Marriage was of the heart and not of paper and ritual. Often the piece of paper is there to make it hard to back out so the fit will be forced to stick in ways beyond the openness of dating.

If we left small boys and girls to their own devices, the vast majority will assume natural sexually divided roles. If we give the boys dolls and did not intercede further, the boys would have the dolls fighting and flying through the air or down the stairs. To make this boy appear like a girl, who will dress and care for the doll, mother will have to further teach him to be a girl. If she is biased to believe equal she will make sure. When adulthood appears, the same degree of extra approval and reinforcement will be needed to reflect the constant program-reward-approval method than altered the natural. Historically boys needed to become men who will have to lead a family and therefore would need to develop self reliance so he can be more than only himself. The stage of approval means the opposite and appears to reflect conditioning.

Women's liberation resulted in the dual standards of culture. A women's prerogative allows a women to change the rules like her mind. If she wanted to rise above while not changing anything about herself, she only has to change the rules for the boys so they drop down. More influence of the female and less by the male will have an impact on the children. This is all predictable.

 

Wow... what an incredibly narrow mindset wellwisher. You are attempting to, in many words, state that homosexuality is a product of nurture, not nature. This is foolish - homosexuality persists in the face of attempts to resist it. In fact, I would say the opposite is true; todays culture of "man the fuck up" has put a stereotype and cultural norm in place that young boys simply CANNOT live up to. Expressing any kind of emotion is taken as weakness; crying is seen as "being a pussy"; when something happens that has you upset or hurt, you are expected to "man up" and deal with it...

As a result, young boys don't know HOW to act.

Young women have it even worse, what with all the impossible standards set by photoshopped models and all these beauty products claiming you "need this" to be your best.

Tell me, Wellwisher, when did YOU make the choice to "be straight"? How did your parents react when you told them you were straight? OH, right... you probably had no need to do that, because it's a commonly acceptable thing.

For someone who is gay, "coming out" is not a matter of audience or attention... it's a risk. A risk of "will I still be accepted if they know what I feel inside?" I have several friends who are gay and/or Bi... and with all but one of them, I confronted them on it. I sat down with them and told them flat out that I knew... and they were TERRIFIED. I also told them it didn't matter worth a damn to me if they were straight or gay or bi or anything else. They were my friend, period, full stop. Their preference in partners made no bearing on our friendship (with the caveat, as I told them, that they respected that I was straight and did not hit on me). You cannot imagine the relief that brought them... and to be honest? It hurt. It fucking HURT to know they were THAT SCARED of who they were RUINING their friendship.

THAT is the society we live in... one of fear and stereotypes and unrealistic expectations...

Homosexuality is natural... we see it in nature all over... the reason why, in humans, they need "propping up" is because we, as a society, have beaten them down to the point where, without a helping hand up, how can we ever expect them to live on the same standard the rest of us expect? It is a problem of social prejudice, plain and simple.

 

Maybe it just seems this way, but this, perversely, seems to increasingly be the staple of interaction among children these days: the bully, in my experience, has increasing run of the schoolyard, the classroom, the lunchroom. An assaulted child is placed under as much scrutiny as the attacker. It's worse still if the attacker is a member of the right clique. In that case, it's just "boys will be boys" - right up until your kid fights back and wins. Screwed either way.

Example: in my naivety, I'd never really believed the tales of atheists and agnostics about persecution by religious types in the United States. In Canada, why, that would be nearly unthinkable: persecuting the non-religious? Silly. Right?

Not silly. There's a massive exclusionary network where we are that centres around the two main Catholic churches here: don't belong to either of those, and you're instantly down a step or two in the eyes of your neighbourhood peers. (SO many Catholics.) The hockey organisation is rife with them. It's nearly a Catholic institution in its own right: out of a hundred families, maybe three are Protestants, and no atheists/agnostics that I know of. The cliquism is unbelievable; kids who diverge are run out of the organisation, about one a year or so, through violent harassment, threats, insults, baiting: you name it.

In our area, inevitably coaches and teachers come down on the side of the people they know, who go to church with them, who they see on the weekends, and it is the jock families who call the shots. It's astounding. They don't physically threaten me since they know better by now, but they don't mind going after my kids until my kids have to put them down. And then it's us that get in trouble! My eldest got a week suspension for swearing back at another kid in a game (I ended up making a coach cry over that one); meanwhile the coaches swear themselves blue every practice, every game. My second one got yelled at for taking out some little shitstain stick-artist (that is, someone who checks with his stick) that had been cross-checking him from behind all practice.

Is this the society you want? I think there was something about fairness and common sense at the founding, but that all seems moot now. Again, this might just be my impression, but it seems to be fucking everywhere, so that the fair play rules get used to further harass the victims. Wash hands, rope-a-dope your ethics, and FIDO.

 

This is not true, since few heterosexuals beyond teenage boys, define themselves by putting their sexual orientation at the top of their self image pyramid. This is too common and anyone can do it, so why place that first unless that is the best I got. If I was a champion at the pie eating contest I might want to flaunt my eating prowess and put that at the top. But instincts are too common and don't make me who I am.

Picture if a heterosexual leader of large company defined himself with heterosexuality at the top of his self worth list. Most would call him someone with delayed development, since sexuality at the top is more for teenage boys not for a cooperate leader. Gay men are often very talented, so I don't understand why one would feature a common trait, anyone can do, except for some subjective reason needing approval.

Another piece of the puzzle:

I think I figured out a key piece of the liberal magic trick puzzle, that allows questionable things to be sold as fact. If you look at traditional male based competition, it is not much different from natural selection. Everyone plays by the same rules (shooting free throws) and a distribution of skill levels will appear, with the top dog getting the first prize. This is a useful way to sort data, in a logical fashion, around any given set of conditions. If we had a competition of who is tallest, all the children line up and the data is sorted until it organized in a logical way.

Feminism and liberalism sort the same data in a different way. Everyone is a winner and gets a prize. Competition is downplayed because this method of logical sorting, might have a negative impact on emotions. If everyone is a winner, then the data is sorted using a subjective standard. If you teach children this subjective method of data sorting, from early age, reality to them is not based on logical data, but maximizing feelings. I have used the argument of social prosthesis to prop up things, as a way to explain deviation from logical sorting of data. But this does not register with liberals or if it does register with the liberal males, they are required to move the discussion back to a feeling based sort; you are cold and cruel.

If we wanted to see who was tallest, but also didn't want to hurt the feelings of anyone about be short, you really can't sort everyone from high to low, since it makes the shorter students stand out, and that could hurt the feelings of the shortest person. If the goal is maximizing feelings and we have to know the tallest, we may need to randomize the order, with only the tallest kid in the proper place. Or we can put the line in a circle so there is no beginning to end and the tallest is next to the smallest. This satisfies the goal and the feelings; short and tall side-by-side. This data sorting is key to many illusions.

To be totally honest about my attitude toward homosexuals, I like 95% of each person, which is an A. The remaining 5% connected to sexuality, which is socially weighed way too much, appears to be an artifact of the everyone is a winner data sorting method. This is way over stressed and makes a solid A have an asterisk, because it makes me sense magic trick and/or an illusion and manipulation.

I may come up with ideas, to help expose the tricks, but don't think this means I can't see the whole person and weight each person logically as whole and not as one minor thing. Many assume I am using an emotional sorting method, based on negative emotions. I grew up before this conditioning and I was able to remain outside and retain the logical sort method of the men of old. I bark but I don't bite.

 

I can say from experience... in high school, even when I wouldn't fight back, I'd get in to just as much trouble as the bully for "instigating" him somehow... apparently you can instigate violence against you just by existing. Once I started fighting back, I still got into trouble... but at least I had the satisfaction of knowing A) I deserved to get into trouble and B) I gave the bully one for (gave more than a few black eyes and busted lips, never got a black eye once... though I think it's just because I'm hard to bruise heh) That and I learned that open-palm strikes are incredibly effective, especially if you bop someone square in the nose or across the chin with it... hurts like a bitch and makes em stop pretty quick.

 

HOLY HOCKEYSTICKS, BATMAN! We best conform!

 

This and That

Well, that's the thing. There are plenty who don't want homosexuals to be allowed to live on the same standard.

• • •​

Giving over to bullies is a proud American tradition. There are, of course, caveats. The whiter, richer, more masculine, and more superficially "Christian" the bully, the better. Anti-Semites in the American tradition have long bemoaned conspiracy theories about Jews that would better describe old WASP money in America; do we really think Muslims could get away with pushing their religion as an American electoral agenda?

Think of what we're down to in terms of scraping the barrel:

"I believe tolerance is a two-way street. People with religious beliefs have to be respected. Right now there's a terrible intolerance afoot in the United States and it's against people who hold sincere religious beliefs."

(qtd. in Black)​

Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN6), oft-regarded as downright crazy, makes the argument that tolerance, being a two-way street, must therefore empower intolerance. This is right up there with the more traditional assertion that rejecting bigotry is bigoted hate. There is an aspect of Horatio Alger in there, much like the "Tea and Crumpets Party", a sense of "maybe someday". I'm pretty sure my elementary school principal wasn't overtly racist, but as I've said before, when Asian-Americans in the Pacific Northwest started rounding their eyes, sculpting their cheekbones, wearing colored contacts, and so forth, in order to "be more like everybody else", I was saddened but not surprised. I can't say that Jim Denton actually hated nonwhites, but he certainly acted to protect the privileges and sensitivities of supremacists. But a generation of young minorities were taught that the problem was their inability to be like everybody else. The damage this sort of two-way street for tolerance has done is incalculable.

The underlying idea is that maybe Jim Denton (ahem!) "wasn't a bully", but someday, just maybe, he might (ahem! cough!) "need" to be. Of course, what can one expect of a school principal who would physically assault one of his own students—and team members, as he was coach—in the middle of an argument during a Little League baseball game?

But, yeah, the Brony stories of late are terrifying.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

​

____________________


Broden, Scott. "Murfreesboro mosque cemetery to be challenged in court". The Tennessean. March 18, 2014. Tennesseean.com. March 28, 2014. http://www.tennessean.com/story/new...e-cemetery-to-be-challenged-in-court/6558715/

Ballotpedia. "Oklahoma 'Sharia Law Amendment', State Question 755 (2010)". March 21, 2014. Ballotpedia.org. March 28, 2014. http://ballotpedia.org/Oklahoma_"Sharia_Law_Amendment",_State_Question_755_(2010)

—————. "Oregon Government Must Discourage Homosexuality, Measure 9 (1992)". March 21, 2014. Ballotpedia.org. March 28, 2014. http://ballotpedia.org/Oregon_Government_Must_Discourage_Homosexuality,_Measure_9_(1992)

Black, Eric. "Michele Bachmann endorses tolerance". Eric Black Ink. March 5, 2014. MinnPost.com. March 28, 2014. http://www.minnpost.com/eric-black-ink/2014/03/michele-bachmann-endorses-tolerance

Tomorrow, Tom. "The Tea and Crumpets Party". This Modern World. 2010. PoliticalIrony.com. March 28, 2014. http://politicalirony.com/2010/09/25/the-tea-and-crumpets-party/

Wong, Curtis M. "'Art For Michael' Project Supports Bullied 'My Little Pony' Fan Who Attempted Suicide". The Huffington Post. February 10, 2014. HuffingtonPost.com. March 28, 2014. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/10/art-for-michael-morones-_n_4761263.html

Image credit: Paul Richmond/Art for Michael.

 

Indeed... as a huge fan of the show myself, it terrifies me how much kids and teens are being targeted just for liking the show... and interesting tidbit though:

Lauren Faust, creator of My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic has stated quite simply that she did not create the show "for little girls". She created it for "Young children and their parents" to both enjoy. It harkens back to an old classic cartoon mantra - smooth, fluid animation, wonderful voice acting by people who love their roles, musical composition that belongs on the radio (thank you Daniel Ingram!) and a moral or point to every episode, something kids could take away and learn from. All while being animated and engaging enough to hold the attention of young kids, yet having enough references and little tidbits here and there for adults (like having Weird Al Yankovich or John DeLancie on the show reprising their most well known roles)

Yes, the community has it's lows... people will sexualize jut about anything these days... but the true fans... they do some great things... for example:

The Micael Morones Recovery Fund has been talked about and rebroadcast dozens if not hundreds of times by the Brony community at large, including voice actresses like Tara Strong (Twilight Sparkle)... and as such, they have far surpassed their goal of 25,000 and raised nearly three times that to help pay for this families medical bills.

Then there is the Brony Humble Bundle - this group pulls together people who are looking to buy from the Humble Bundle games and helps put a large chunk (about 60%) of the total proceeds to charities, namely the American Red Cross and Childs Play.

The Brony Thank You Fund has collected and donated hundreds of thousands of dollars to various scholarship programs, charities, toys for tots, grants for schooling, and other such things.

These are people that will likely never meet... who have nothing more in common than the love of a show... there is no religious pretense here, no political undertone... it's just pure, from the heart love... Kindness, Generosity, Loyalty, Honesty, Laughter... as the show says, these things and more are what make up friendship, in spite of differences in race, religion, or creed. The good that these organizations and many, many more have done... the love they have shown to people they know only because they heard of them in passing and heard that they were in need... it shows that friendship is truly magic.

Yes, yes, I said it... feel free to point and laugh, but you know what? I believe that to be true.

 

Plinking

I don't worry about our neighbor's posts, anymore. There is nothing I could say to refute, excoriate, or otherwise appropriately address such ramblings that they don't already make clear on their own.

Quite clearly, the role our neighbor plays is a corollary of Poe's law; whether this performance is deliberate or accidental, genuine or merely hack comedy, there really isn't much we could throw at it that hasn't stuck already.

Then again ... the plinking is kind of fun.

• Why do homosexuals needs so much audience of approval to prop them up?: It's an interesting standard. Why does anyone need such propping up? Oh, and what is this scale by which one's civil rights constitute some sort of extraordinary propping up?

• In other words, why does the ego come into this, to such a huge degree, if homosexual is natural?: Because human rights are all about ego? Now that is what we might call an extraordinary proposition. After all, why does the ego come into this, to such a huge degree, if heterosexual is natural? It really would be easier to get rid of all this marriage stuff. Then again, the public costs of the lawsuits settling whose stuff is whose we'll just blame on heterosexuals. After all, marriage was apparently their game. And, you know, if they can't have it all to themselves, nobody can. Why does the ego come into this, to such a huge degree, that the fact of two people of the same sex marrying one another somehow denigrates the fact of heterosexuals getting married?

• The entire gay marriage need, is a huge social hug to help compensate for something.: Actually it's a tax status and legal standing; that's what heterosexuals made of it. At that point, it's just a legal argument. You know, civil rights?

• Back in the 1960's, many young people were shying away from formal marriage.: This is because "traditional" marriage sucked. I always point to the Simpsons joke where Marge has no (ahem!) "woman's work" to do at the Cypress Creek house, so she starts drinking. It's a simple gag, but particularly perspicacious. We're finding out about the Long Decade just after World War II; diaries and letters from that period describe women disenchanted with married life—modern conveniences such as automatic dishwashers and laundry dryers, electric ranges, and vacuum cleaners actually gave many women time to reflect on the sort of existential stuff men have long taken for granted.

• The feeling was they believed you don't need a piece of paper or social ritual to prove one was in love.: The idea of romantic marriage was relatively recent; mothers and grandmothers of the Flower Children were certainly capable of recalling the days when marriage, for a woman, was a cynical obligation. The longest, most consistent purpose of marriage is human networking, the collection of in-laws. For many of the Flower Generation, the piece of paper was something entirely different from romantic love. Here we are in the twenty-first century, and the most part of "traditional" American society agrees.

• Often the piece of paper is there to make it hard to back out so the fit will be forced to stick in ways beyond the openness of dating.: It has also been, essentially, a bill of sale documenting the transfer of ownership of an asset from one person to another:

There was a remarkable continuity in the legal subjugation of women from the Middle Ages until the end of the nineteenth century. In the thirteenth century the English jurist Henry de Bracton declared that a married couple is one person, and that person is the husband. When Lord William Blackstone codified English common law in 1765, he reaffirmed this principle. Upon marriage, he explained, "the very being or legal existence of the woman is suspended." Blackstone noted that "a man cannot grant anything to his wife, or enter into any covenant with her, for the grant would be to suppose her separate existence." This doctrine of coverture, in which the legal identity of a wife was subsumed ("covered") by that of her husband, was passed on to the colonies and became the basis of American law for the next 150 years.

(Coontz, 186)​

Quite simply, had heterosexuals not made marriage into something so horrible, perhaps the young people wouldn't have seen such a difference between love and a piece of paper.

• If we left small boys and girls to their own devices, the vast majority will assume natural sexually divided roles. If we give the boys dolls and did not intercede further, the boys would have the dolls fighting and flying through the air or down the stairs. To make this boy appear like a girl, who will dress and care for the doll, mother will have to further teach him to be a girl.: This so misses reality it would be funny if it wasn't tragic. Then again, history is kind of macabre on this point; to the one it is no wonder that Wollstonecroft so whooped Rousseau, but to the other it is something of a wonder that Rousseau should have been taken remotely seriously on anything he had to say about women—his idea of a proper wife was an illiterate housemaid so poorly educated she could not properly recite the months of the year. I know it stings, but the centuries haven't changed reality. Rousseau lost, and nothing will change that fact.

• Historically boys needed to become men who will have to lead a family and therefore would need to develop self reliance so he can be more than only himself. The stage of approval means the opposite and appears to reflect conditioning.: And?

• Women's liberation resulted in the dual standards of culture. A women's prerogative allows a women to change the rules like her mind.: So cut up her credit cards and remind her of her proper place subsumed under a man's prerogative.

• If she wanted to rise above while not changing anything about herself, she only has to change the rules for the boys so they drop down.: I don't know what to say, then, about all the heterosexual men who are such pussies as to let those dastardly sirens get away with such a nefarious plot. Oh, hey, how about:

Phallocentrism resulted in dual standards of culture; a man's prerogative allows him to think with his dick, speak nothing of changing his mind. So you know what, guys? Quit whining! If you weren't so desperate to get laid, if you didn't need a woman in order to prove your manliness, maybe you would have paid a bit more attention to what was going on around you, and thus put up a stronger, smarter defense of the Sacred Privileges of the Penis. But you didn't put up a stronger, smarter defense of your supremacy over women, because you wanted to get laid and didn't want to go to jail for it, so deal with your own masculine frailty.​

• More influence of the female and less by the male will have an impact on the children. This is all predictable.: So, let us see, here ... changing conditions will have changing effects on people. If I told you that the different effects between sunny and rainy days mean that the rain might get you wet, would you be surprised? Would you want to put the right of the sky to rain on the ballot, so that the people could vote about what they think is right and natural?​

Yeah. It can be fun. But it's not worth getting too invested in. Whichever of Poe's resolutions our neighbor represents, it's a puerile performance that hasn't much to offer aside from a pathetic, possibly accidental parody of the manly man.
____________________

Notes:

Springfield Nuclear Power Plant. "[3F23] You Only Move Twice". June 14, 1997. SNPP.com. March 28, 2014. http://www.snpp.com/episodes/3F23.html

Coontz, Stephanie. Marriage, A History: From Obedience to Intimacy, or How Love Conquered Marriage. New York: Viking, 2005.

 

@ Tiassa,

Great post!

 

Article IV: In Effect

Ohio and Article IV
Judge to issue order April 14

Another large step forward for marriage equality is coming in Ohio, in T minus ten days and counting.

A federal judge said Friday he would issue a ruling requiring Ohio to recognize all same-sex marriages performed in other states.

U.S. District Court Judge Timothy Black's decision in the Henry v. Wymyslo case comes about nine months after he ruled that Ohio must recognize a gay couple's marriage in Maryland, where same-sex marriage is legal, on the death certificate of one of the partners.

Lawyers for a number of same-sex couples expanded their original request to cover all marriages performed in states that allow same-sex unions. On Friday, Black said from the bench that his forthcoming order would rule unconstitutional Ohio's ban on recognizing legal same-sex marriages from other states.

Black said he will issue his ruling on April 14, giving the state time to prepare an appeal; the order will not take effect until it is issued in written form. Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine told WVXU Radio he would appeal to the Sixth Circuit.

(Wilson)​

While the Henry case will not bring same-sex marriage to Ohio, per se, that is the juristic world's version of a bureaucratic detail on the to-do list. As homosexual couples from other states will be recognized as married, the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment will oblige the state to recognize same-sex marriages for its own citizens.

But the important device here is found in Article IV of the Constitution, the Full Faith and Credit Clause:

Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.​

This has been a lingering question about the Gay Fray, a quiet constitutional barrier that traditionalists hoped to avoid. Judges have granted that sentiment to some degree, as we saw in the Kentucky Bourke case, trying to settle the question solely on Equal Protection grounds.

But the Ohio question strikes clearly after Full Fatih and Credit; or, at least, it would seem to. We will see the detail when it comes in ten days, but this one is hardly an obscure question.
____________________

Notes:

Wilson, Reid. "Federal judge will require Ohio to recognize out-of-state same-sex marriages". GovBeat. April 4, 2014. WashingtonPost.com. April 4, 2014. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...to-recognize-out-of-state-same-sex-marriages/

The Constitution of the United States of America. 1992. Law.Cornell.edu. April 4, 2014. http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution

 

Why would they dodge the question? if equal protection demands it then its country wide anyway so why are they trying to avoid it? is there some unrelated issue that they don't want this to become precedence for?