And don't forget the concubines!

And don't forget the concubines!

  2:50 PM    Unknown

---

I read an interesting perspective on same-sex marriage today. One of my friends on Facebook said that he did not think the states should be involved in licensing marriages. If that was the case, there would have been no need for a Supreme Court decision.
This made me think about same-sex marriage from a different angle: An economic one. It made me wonder if legalizing same-sex marriage was not a commerce issue.
For instance, according to the Contract Clause of the U.S. Constitution, states do not have the power to nullify or impair contracts. That just makes sense, doesn't it? You shouldn't be able to sign a contract in Maine and then tear it up in Nevada, should you?
Marriage is a legal contract.
So think about it, what if individual states were given the power to not acknowledge the marriages of other states, or even other countries? Someone could marry someone of their own gender in Vermont, and then go to Texas and marry someone of the opposite gender.
It could get worse. What if, in retaliation for Texas not recognizing legal Vermont weddings, Vermont decided not to recognize weddings from Texas? What if that started a chain reaction which resulted in all the states deciding not to recognize the marriages of others? What if other countries followed suit?
A really determined person could take advantage of those laws and have hundreds of spouses spread throughout the globe!
Then again, maybe that's what the opponents to same-sex marriage wanted? They keep saying they believe in the "Biblical view of marriage." Marrying multiple people is clearly within the Biblical view of marriage.
Abraham had multiple wives. David had multiple wives. Solomon had multiple wives.
And don't forget the concubines!
Seriously, this is a pretty snappy addition to the "Biblical view of marriage" argument, from Deuteronomy 21:15-17, NIV:
"If a man has two wives, and he loves one but not the other, and both bear him sons but the firstborn is the son of the wife he does not love, when he wills his property to his sons, he must not give the rights of the firstborn to the son of the wife he loves in preference to his actual firstborn, the son of the wife he does not love. He must acknowledge the son of his unloved wife as the firstborn by giving him a double share of all he has. That son is the first sign of his father’s strength. The right of the firstborn belongs to him."
So yeah, it's pretty clear that the Bible didn't define marriage as "one" man and "one" woman, as people seem to like to say. Of course, that was the Old Testament, and some other, contradictory things were said in the New Testament, so maybe God changed his mind? Of course, that may have been because Jewish polygamy clashed with Roman monogamy at the time.
God's opinions about marriage seem to sway with the prevailing human opinions.
So maybe God has changed his mind about same-sex marriage. I mean, he's supposed to be all powerful, right? And if God is all powerful, isn't he allowing same-sex marriage to happen?
So maybe, if you believe in the Bible, you should stick to the nice things about it, and stop using your book to be hateful. Somehow, I think Jesus would approve.

Read More

What's in a unique name?

What's in a unique name?

  8:19 AM    Unknown

---

Originally published in The Ocilla Star on June 9, 2010
In today's day and age, the social aspect of the internet increases the importance of having a unique name. Whether it's social networking on Facebook or Twitter or doing a search for someone on Google, folks who have a unique, rare name will have an advantage.
Search John Smith or Anne Williams and you're likely to get millions of hits. Search through about a thousand of them and you'll finally find one you think is the right one, but you'll probably be wrong.
And it's not just personal names. Business names have the same problem.
I was trying to look up a couple of businesses that were doing business with the local county commission and got dozens of hits for dozens of businesses with similar names.
Because the internet is so keyed to keywords, being able to find the right person or business on a word search is significantly valuable. Also, a unique name can avoid confusion.
Who wants to be named Michael Jackson or Jesse James these days? And you never know which celebrity is going to get in trouble and ruin your good name in the future.
At least no one's likely to be confused with Tiger Woods on the internet. Why? Because he has a unique name.
A unique name should leave you safe of potential mistaken identity and misplaced embarrassment. If you're a prospective parent, one day your kids will thank you for not naming them Michael or Elizabeth, even though those are fine names from a purely pleasing-to-the-ear point of view.
If you have a rare family name like me, it's relatively easy. Apparently, "Vassey" was a misspelling of "Vassar" when my ancestors arrived on our personal Mayflower, so there aren't a whole lot of us. I may be the only "Dusty Vassey" in the world.
With that in mind, you can get away with an uncommon first name if your last name is rare. Names like Abraham, Esther, Millhouse, Annabelle, Clinton, etc.... they're all acceptable if your last name is Kipling or Kissinger.
But if you're a Smith, a Williams, a Jones, or, especially around here, a Tucker, a Harper or a Paulk, you've got to get really creative to avoid being misidentified on the net.
Maybe you can follow Tiger's parents' lead and use an animal name -- Aardvark Smith, Bumblebee Williams, Vixen Jones, Koala Tucker, Sidewinder Harper or Panda Paulk. Maybe you could use an adjective -- Incognito Smith, Overzealous Williams, Jampacked Jones, Totemic Tucker, Halfbaked Harper or Penultimate Paulk. Or perhaps you prefer an underused noun -- Calisthenics Smith, Appropriations Williams, Journey Jones, Tremble Tucker, Hovercraft Harper or Piledriver Paulk.
All good names certainly, with little chance of being confused with anyone on the web.
But here's the real problem...
If you Google our state's name, you're likely to come up with a whole bunch of references to a former Soviet republic that has about as much to do with our Georgia as cornbread has to do with vodka. This is horrible!
So I suggest we change our state's name to "American Georgia."
Gone would be the confusion when hearing about "war-torn Georgia," and as an added bonus, our state would be the only one with "America" in the name. As patriotic as most of our state-mates are, I can't imagine that the new name wouldn't be extremely popular.
I can see the slogan: "American Georgia -- We're American; it's right there in the name, y'all."
Also, our abbreviation in postal codes would change from GA to AG, which would be very appropriate given the importance of agriculture to our state.
Then again, maybe we should just become the 51st state and have a new state line drawn about 10 miles north of Macon and let South Georgia be American Georgia. I mean, most South Georgians have about as much to do with those folks around Atlanta as cornbread has to do with bottle water.
Regardless, with or without our northerly cousins, we should be "American Georgia." Let those folks in Atlanta pick their own name.
Dusty Vassey is a staff writer for The Ocilla Star. If he ever has a child, he will name it Pepper Nonchalant Vassey, regardless of the child's gender.

Read More