San Juan Mountains

San Juan Mountains
San Juan Mountains: Grenadier Range

Friday, July 17, 2015

Tax The Rich

I was driving home from Wal-Mart yesterday when I was passed by a car sporting a bumper sticker exhorting the government of the Socialist Democracy of Amerika to "Tax The Rich."  I write about the utter nonsense associated with that envy-filled idea all the time.  It occurred to me that it has been a year or so since I last checked with the IRS to see who was paying the taxes for this imperialistic country.  So I downloaded the federal income tax data for 2012, the most recent year made available by the highly efficient IRS, and crunched some numbers.  Here is what I found:
  • Median household income is $34,000 of adjusted gross income.  In other words, half of the people in this country report an AGI of less than 34k and the other half report an AGI that is greater than 34k.
  • Households reporting more than $10 million in income made up 0.12% of the population of the SDA.  Those households paid 9.0% of all federal income taxes.  That means the ultra-rich paid taxes at a rate 75 times higher than their representation in the population.
  • Households reporting more than $1 million in income made up 2.7% of the population of the SDA.  Those households paid 25.6% of all federal income taxes.  That means the rich paid taxes at a rate 9 times higher than their representation in the population.
  • The top half of the income population of the SDA (those reporting an AGI greater than 34k) paid 97.8% of all federal income taxes. 
  • The lower half of the income population of the SDA (those reporting an AGI less than 34k) paid 2.2% of all federal income taxes.  
Depending upon how you define the "rich," it sure seems to me as if the rich are not only paying their fair share of all federal income taxes, but it actually seems as if they are being grossly overtaxed.  Half of the citizens of the SDA are getting what is essentially a free-ride off the taxes being paid by the other half.  That, of course, is precisely what we should expect in a democracy where each citizen votes to use the coercive power of government to steal his neighbor's income. The politically unprotected upper 49%, because they do not have enough votes to defend themselves from the depredations of the lower 51%, end up paying all of the bill.  As one famous thinker once said, democracy is like two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner.
Given the rather obvious fact that the rich are being excessively taxed in this sad country I realized that I need to get into the bumper sticker business, make millions of dollars and experience excessive taxation first hand.  Since putting bumper stickers on cars that say things that are patently obvious to anyone who has eyes to see, I think I can make millions of dollars manufacturing bumper stickers of a similar nature.  Here are some that I have come up with:
  • The Sky Is Blue
  • Sick People Don't Feel Well
  • It Is Good To Be Good
  • The Earth Is Round
  • Career Politicians Pander To Sinful Envy
  • All Human Beings Are Sinful By Nature
  • Sinful Human Beings Like To Steal Things
  • Career Politicians Stay In Office By Promising To Steal Things And Give Those Things To Those Who Vote For Them
  • The Socialist Democracy Of Amerika Is Morally Bankrupt
  • God Will Not Be Mocked

Thursday, July 16, 2015

Historical Revisionism And The Civil War

The history of mankind is essentially a long saga of war tales.  Think about it for a moment.  What did you learn in your "Western Civilization" class so many years ago?  You, like everyone else, learned that the story of western civilization consisted mostly of first British and then Amerikan military forces going around killing millions of bad people who deserved to die because they were evil.  I remember strutting around the government school grounds, my mind filled with a recent history lesson, thinking about how great Amerika was because it had never "lost a war."  I loved pledging allegiance to the flag and I would sing the national hymn with zeal.  Then I grew up and realized that everything I had been taught was a lie.  Why?  Because history is written by the winners and what the winners say about what happened never coincides with the truth.  The Amerikan Civil War is a perfect example.
The current hullabaloo about the Confederate flag has spurred a lot of letters to the editor of the Denver Post in recent weeks.  I have ignored most of them but one was so ignorant and so arrogant that I am forced to comment on it here today.  John Wilkens, of Boulder, wrote, "Those who support flying the Confederate battle flag on state buildings and property claim that removing it insults Southern heritage....Ignoring the obvious insult to the descendants of slaves, how is publicly flying a symbol of an armed insurrection not an insult to the memories of those troops who sacrificed their lives to preserve federalism, maintain the unity of the nation, and liberate an enslaved race?...Southern heritage is a spurious argument for the continued visual insult and official sanctioning of a vanquished and disgraced belief system finding sanctuary in racist hearts and minds."
Let me make one thing clear up front.  Slavery is sin.  In particular, slavery is the sin of kidnapping.  Since I am a theonomist (you should be one too), I know that God's opinion about slavery/kidnapping is that it is a capital offense.  In other words, any human being who enslaves another human being should be executed for his crime.  I think that makes me far more anti-slavery than bleeding hearts like John Wilkens, who no doubt would reject God's opinion on the matter and excuse slave holders because they must have been suffering from some sort of mental illness.  So everything that I write in this post is not being motivated by my well known penchant for hate-filled racist comments.  Anyone who believes I am condoning or endorsing slavery is incapable of following a rational argument.  Enough said.
The war of northern aggression was not about slavery.  The war of northern aggression was not about liberating an enslaved race, as John dutifully mimics his government school indoctrination.   Do you know what Abraham Lincoln thought about the black race in general and black people in particular?  Let me quote just a few of the things Lincoln had to say about blacks:
  • "There is a natural disgust in the minds of nearly all white people to the idea of indiscriminate amalgamation of the white and black races ... A separation of the races is the only perfect preventive of amalgamation, but as an immediate separation is impossible, the next best thing is to keep them apart where they are not already together. If white and black people never get together in Kansas, they will never mix blood in Kansas."  (when discussion the western expansion of slavery)
  • "In the language of Mr. Jefferson, uttered many years ago, "It is still in our power to direct the process of emancipation, and deportation, peaceably, and in such slow degrees, as that the evil will wear off insensibly; and in their places be, pari passu [on an equal basis], filled up by free white laborers." (when discussing his desire to ship all blacks back to Africa)
  • "I have no purpose directly or indirectly to interfere with the institution of slavery in the states where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so." (on his alleged desire to outlaw southern slavery)
  • "I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and black races. There is physical difference between the two which, in my judgment, will probably forever forbid their living together upon the footing of perfect equality, and inasmuch as it becomes a necessity that there must be a difference, I, as well as Judge Douglas, am in favor of the race to which I belong having the superior position." 
  • "Our republican system was meant for a homogeneous people. As long as blacks continue to live with the whites they constitute a threat to the national life. Family life may also collapse and the increase of mixed breed bastards may some day challenge the supremacy of the white man."
Please, Mr. Wilkens, don't try to tell me that Lincoln wanted to liberate southern blacks from slavery.  He had no such desire.  The war of northern aggression had absolutely nothing to do with slavery and everything to do with forcing the southern states to stay in the union.
John's comments about the south staging an "armed insurrection" and the necessity of the northern armies to "maintain the unity of the nation" show just how well indoctrinated he is in Civil War propaganda.  Maybe John has never read the Constitution of the United States of America.  It rather specifically states that the association of the original 13 states was voluntary in nature.  When the question was raised at the constitutional convention about states being able to enforce the voluntary association of the member states if one or more wanted to seceded from the agreement in the future, all resolutions allowing the use of coercion were soundly defeated.  Speeches were delivered in which the principle of free association between the states was declared supreme.  It was understood by every signatory to the Constitution that it was a voluntary agreement and any state could secede from the association at any time and for any reason.  The fact that all powers not specifically delegated to the federal government were retained by the states was added to the Bill of Rights to guarantee that coercion would never be used against any member of the union.  When the southern states seceded from the Union they were well within their right to do so.  When the Union declared war on the southern states for seceding from the Union the Constitution was destroyed and the War of Northern Aggression began.
620,000 people died in the War of Northern Aggression.  That represented 2% of the entire population at the time.  For every three men killed in battle five more died as a result of sickness or injuries sustained during their time of service.  That is the legacy of Lincoln.  As such he is a perfect representative of the hegemonic desires of all career politicians brought to fruition in military conflict.  Like King George Bush who would follow him later, Lincoln was "war president" and proud of it.   He set the stage for those who would follow in his footsteps and expanded federal power while simultaneously abolishing the Constitution.    Thanks to him the citizens of what used to be called the United States of America were trained to see the federal government as a god.  Thanks to him the Socialist Democracy of Amerika came into existence and, also thanks to him, practically every citizen in this idolatrous land worships the government as a god.  Lincoln is praised as a hero in all programs of government school indoctrination. Why?  Because the northern states won the war.  They succeeded in subjugating the southern states.  That has to be a good thing, doesn't it?  After all, those southerners were evil and got precisely what they deserved because they supported slavery.

Wednesday, July 15, 2015

Is The FBI Responsible For The South Carolina Massacre?

Everyone is aware that last month Dylann Roof entered an AME church in Charleston, South Carolina and shot nine people dead.  Immediately after the massacre King Obama delivered a speech about how the Socialist Democracy of Amerika needs more gun control laws.  Other career politicians exploited the massacre for their own self-aggrandizing agendas.  One of the most popular was the movement to have the Confederate flag removed from government buildings in South Carolina.  That movement was successful and the flags have been removed because they allegedly represented white oppression of blacks.  That comes as a surprise to me and many others who thought that the history of the southern states of the SDA had a lot more to do with things other than slavery, but who are we to contest the claims of the anointed ones?
What most people are not aware of is the fact that Dylann Roof, just like dozens of mass murderers before him, was taking government provided and prescribed medications that dramatically alter the state of the human brain.  Go here for that story.  Imagine, for a moment and if you can, what the media reaction would have been if it had been disclosed that Roof was high on marijuana at the time he killed those people.  I think we all know that movements to strengthen anti-marijuana laws would have sprung up all around the country.  In addition I think we all know that powerful attempts to re-criminalize marijuana in those states that have recently decriminalized it would have been sure to follow.  But when the drug of choice is one prescribed by government licensed doctors and approved by government health agencies there is no chance a scientific examination of the link between the drug and homicidal behavior will ever take place.  One does not criticize one's god.
The point of today's blog post is not to tell the story of mind altering drugs inducing people to murder others.  There is another fact about the case in South Carolina that I was unaware of until a couple of days ago.  I saw the story tucked away on page 6 of my newspaper and I didn't hear a single radio or television report about it.  Here is the way The Associated Press reported the story:
"The suspect charged in last month's South Carolina church massacre should not have been allowed to purchase the weapon used in the attack, FBI director James Comey said Friday as he outlined a series of 'heartbreaking' missed opportunities and flawed paperwork that allowed the transaction to take place....The cascading set of problems began with the drug-related arrest of Dylann Roof in South Carolina weeks before the June 17th shooting.  During that arrest, police say he admitted to possessing illegal drugs.  Under federal rules, that admission alone would have been enough to immediately disqualify him from his gun purchase even though he wasn't convicted of the charge.  But, Comey said, the FBI background check examiner who evaluated Roof's request to buy a gun never saw the arrest report because the wrong arresting agency was listed on the South Carolina criminal history records that she reviewed.  Had the West Virginia based examiner seen the police report, the April purchase would have been denied, Comey said."
Did you get all that?  Roof purchased a weapon illegally under federal law.  The reason he was able to purchase the weapon illegally under federal law was because the FBI agent responsible for processing his request screwed up.  In addition, another FBI agent screwed up by putting Roof's arrest record on the wrong batch of bureaucratic paperwork.  As a result Roof was able to buy the gun he used to gun down nine Christians.  To summarize, two FBI agents did not do their jobs and Roof obtained the gun which he later used to murder people.  These facts are indisputable.
Now let me ask you a question.  What do you think would happen if the profit seeking business owner who sold Roof the gun had messed up the required federal paperwork and thereby ended up selling Roof a gun illegally?  I think we all know the answer to that question.  Is there anyone who does not believe that that profit seeking business owner would not have been charged as an accessory to murder?  Of course he would.  The precedent is already well established in hundreds of legal cases in this immoral land.  When someone uses a gun to kill others, both the seller and the manufacturer of the gun is sued in civil court.  In some cases the state prosecutes them in criminal court as well. 
Take a moment and consider the contrast we have here.  When government agents make mistakes that result in illegal activities in which innocent people are murdered there are no repercussions whatsoever, although we are all assured that they are "heartbroken" about it.  On the other hand, when a profit seeking businessman, operating in the free market, makes a similar mistake he is arrested, tried and quite likely given a lengthy prison sentence or a multi-million dollar fine.  What is the difference between these two scenarios?  There is only one difference.  In one case the offending party works for the government and in the other case the offending party operates in the free market.  Because the FBI agents involved work for the most high and holy federal government of the SDA they are immune from prosecution for their "mistakes" that end up being directly responsible for the death of nine innocent Christians.  Do we need any more evidence than what we have here to conclude that, in the SDA, government is god?  If it looks like a god, and acts like a god, and is treated like a god, it must be a god. 
Do not confuse the argument I have made here with with an endorsement of the ridiculous psychological idea that anyone is responsible for the murder of those nine Christians other than Roof.  There is one, and only one, person responsible for murder.  In this case it is Dylann Roof.  The fact that he procured a weapon is irrelevant to the discussion.  Weapons should be available on the free market with no government rules or regulations attached to their purchase and sale whatsoever.  On the other hand, don't you think it would be worth looking into a possible connection between government distributed mind altering drugs and homicidal behavior?  Wait, wait.....what am I saying?  I should know better.....don't ever question the god of the land, especially when things go south.

Tuesday, July 14, 2015

Left Turn Lessons For Yuppies

I have mentioned this before but I live in a neighborhood populated by Yuppies.  I do not know if what I am going to write about today is endemic with Yuppies or if it has infected the general population as well.  I am most aware of these conditions because I drive around my neighborhood everyday and I see what happens when a Yuppie attempts to make a left turn.  It is a scary and dangerous adventure to be on the road with Yuppies attempting to make left turns.  They have no clue what they are doing.
There are several left turns that I have to execute practically everyday just to get in and out of my street.  Despite the fact that the speed limit is only 25 mph, which means the Yuppies will be going about 40 mph, there are an inordinate number of traffic accidents on the residential streets where I live.  Just last week I was treated to the sight of two Yuppies who had collided with each other while one was attempting to make a left turn.  Rare is the day when I am not forced to sit in my car and wait for Yuppies who have no idea how to make a left hand turn.  So in the spirit of not minding my own businesses and with the intention of making it clear that Yuppies are idiots when it comes to left hand turns,  allow me to introduce my "Left Hand Lessons for Yuppies."
  1. When you are going to make a left turn on a two way street, pull all the way to the left side as far as you can get, without going over the yellow line, to allow other cars behind you to pass you on the right.  This is a principle that is based upon nothing more than common courtesy.  It does, however, require a driver to think about someone other than himself.  That is the primary reason Yuppies don't do it.   Just last week I was driving behind a Lexus with a lady driver who wanted to make a left turn.  There was oncoming traffic so she slowed down, moved to the right to guarantee that nobody behind her could get around her, and made all of the rest of us wait for her to turn before we could proceed.  Thanks selfish jerk.
  2. When  you come to a four way intersection with a traffic light, do you know how to execute a left turn when there is no dedicated left turn arrow?  Almost nobody knows the answer to this question.  Yuppies, being the hard charging and aggressive folks they are, will pull into the intersection while the light is green, waiting for the oncoming traffic to clear before making the left turn.  A long line of BMWs, Audis and Lexi will form behind the lead car.  If the oncoming traffic does not clear prior to the light changing to yellow I am always treated to the Yuppie Yellow Light Parade.  I have fun watching how many Yuppie cars can get through the intersection, most of them under a light that is now red, before the driver of the car that just received a green light starts with the honking of the horn and the shaking of the fist machinations.  The rule is a simple one.  One car can go through on a yellow light and only one car should be in the intersection waiting for the oncoming traffic to clear.  The situation is much worse when I have the misfortune of being next in line with a Yuppie car ahead of me in the intersection and a line of Yuppie cars behind me.  Knowing the rule I refuse to pull into the intersection.  That behavior is immediately interpreted by the Yuppie as a passive/aggressive attack upon his dignity and right to go places fast and I am once again greeted with the honking of the horn and the wild gesticulation of the hands maneuvers. 
  3. Left turns at a four way stop are executed according to the order in which each vehicle arrives at the four way stop.  This is a simple and intuitive rule that almost everyone understands.  Despite that truth there is a four way stop near my home that has almost put me in the hospital several times as Yuppies drivers come screaming towards me in their Range Rovers while I am still executing my left hand turn.  This particular four way stop occupies a huge amount of space.  Those drivers who are making a left turn are in the intersection for a long time just to make the turn.  It is inevitable that when I get to the four way stop and wait for my turn to go that the Yuppie driving the car coming towards me launches forward at a high rate of speed before I have even had the opportunity to clear the intersection.  Technically he did wait until it was his turn to go but he accelerates so quickly I am afraid for my life as I try to get out of his way as quickly and efficiently as possible.  So far I have avoided the head on collision those Yuppies apparently want to create.  Please, take your time at a four way stop.  An extra second is not going to make you late for Orange Theory. (In case you are not aware, "Orange Theory" is the latest Yuppie exercise fad.  Heart rate cohorts are classified and then given various colors.  To properly do an Orange Theory workout you must spend a certain percentage of time in the orange range for your hear rate.   I have it on good authority that if you are in decent physical condition it is impossible to get a decent workout in the orange heart rate zone.  Still, it allows Yuppies to feel good about themselves and it helps to convince themselves that they are extreme athletes.)
  4. Don't swerve to the right in order to make a left hand turn.  By the way, this rule applies for right hand turns as well.  Don't swerve to the left to make a right hand turn.  Stay in your lane and make your turn without going the other way first.  I have never understood this practice on the part of drivers.  I guess it indicates that very few people behind the wheel have ever studied physics or the nature of vectors.  A 90 degree turn can be executed in a modern automobile without first attempting to swing to the other direction to smooth the turn.  Inevitably there is someone in the lane you are swerving into who will be forced to slam on the brakes or swerve into another lane, thus creating a swervy chain reaction.  In addition, unless you are driving an 18 wheeler, swerving to the right to make a left hand turn is really less efficient.  Yuppies, who are nothing if not concerned about using their time efficiently (most of them have some sort of marathon or "tough mudder" event to get to), need to figure this principle out before they side-swipe my car and take my side-view mirror with them to their extreme event.
  5. A vehicle turning left onto a thoroughfare on which the cross traffic is not stopping and which has a continuation of the road on the other side of the thoroughfare must wait until all vehicles which intend to cross straight through the thoroughfare have completed their moves before executing a left hand turn.  This is the action that enrages me the most.  I don't think anyone in the universe understands this rule.  Look it up if you don't believe me.   I have to go straight through an intersection of this type every single day, sometimes multiple times per day.  It is a heavily trafficked intersection. Inevitably there will be a line of cars on the other side of the road, some of which are executing left hand turns and some of which are coming straight through.  It is my desire to go straight through.  If I arrive at the intersection with the intention of going straight through the problems begin. Inevitably there is a line of cars on the other wide of the road wanting to get through the intersection.  All Yuppies assume that an intersection of this sort is treated the same way a four way stop is treated, with each person taking his turn.  That would be incorrect.  In situations of this sort the left turning vehicle always yields to anyone going straight, even if there are 100 of them.  You can guess what happens.  A Yuppie on the other side wants to turn left.  Inevitably he is there before I am.  I have the right of way even though I got there after him but as I move to go through the intersection he comes barreling out in his left turn.  Once again I am greeted with the honking of the horn and the wild gesticulations of the hand maneuvers.   I have now learned that the best way to deal with this situation is to make an immediate right turn, proceed down the road a half mile or so until I can make a U-turn and then return to the intersection where I can now make a right turn without offending any ignorant Yuppies.  

Monday, July 13, 2015

Cake And Whiskey

I joke about how, when I need to lose weight, I like to utilize the cake and whiskey diet.  There is no better way to lose weight than embarking upon a concerted program of cake eating and whiskey drinking.  But that is not the point of today's blog post.  Today I would like to write about the relationship of cake and whiskey to the government of the Socialist Democracy of Amerika.  You might think that the government has little to nothing to say about cake and whiskey but you would be wrong.  Cake and whiskey are two of the most significant commodities in the country in the eyes of career politicians, career bureaucrats and the jack-booted thugs who enforce the laws of this immoral land.  Allow me to explain.
Do you ever remember seeing a sign in a storefront announcing that "We Reserve The Right To Refuse Service To Anyone"?  I think those signs came on the scene during the hippie era of the 1960s.  Hippies, as a group, were dirty, filthy and smelly.  They rarely cleaned their bodies and the things they ingested only added to their stench.  Since hippies also sauntered about without shirts and shoes it was not long before profit seeking businesses put signs up on their doors declaring that "No Shirt, No Shoes, No Service."  What was a hippie to do?  So he put on a shirt and some flip-flops and entered the store.  Not long after that the aforementioned signs appeared.  Proprietors had to do something to protect themselves from those walking stink bombs that would drive away legitimate business.  Interestingly enough, nobody ever complained about the content of the sign which clearly announced that a business owner could choose who to do business with.
Fast forward to today and things have changed dramatically.  The doctrine we have all been forced to adopt today asserts that any profit seeking business is required by law to serve anyone who approaches it.  The mere fact that a businessman has offered one of his goods to a public customer binds him in perpetuity, according to this interpretation of the law of the SDA, to serve anyone who enters his store.  Historically this is most likely the result of the civil rights movement.  The incorrectly named civil rights movement forced white business owners to serve black people.  I note that the civil rights movement is incorrectly named because the only people who were granted special rights by the government were black people.  I continue to experience racial discrimination at the hands of the Scots and the Irish.  One of what I am sure would become a favorite Celtic pub of mine has a sign on the door saying, "No Welshmen Allowed."  The civil rights movement did not force the drunken Irishman who owns that store to serve me.  So much for equality.
Forcing white people to sell things to black people or forcing shiftless Scots to sell things to the Welsh is a violation of the sacred right to refuse serve to anyone.  The entire notion that coercion can be used in a free market transaction is odious to freedom lovers.  Nobody should ever be forced to sell or do anything for anyone in the free market.  Everyone should be free to discriminate as he pleases.  Why is this so?  Because of the right of private property and the right of free association.  In theory the Constitution recognizes my right to my property and my right to association with whomever I wish.  That also means that I have a right to do whatever I want with my property and not associate with anyone that bugs me.  I should be free to sell my widgets to one person and not another simply because they are my widgets and I can do with them what I please.  But then the omniscient and beneficent federal government of the SDA arrives on the scene and makes the declaration from on high that any customer to whom it has granted most high and holy status must be served by all plebeians like me.  In doing so the god-like government has just proclaimed that my property really does not belong to me because this sanctified customer has a moral claim on what I own.  My right to private property is destroyed and so is my right to free association.
What does any of this have to do with cake and whiskey?  Everything!  If I am a proprietor of cakes the cakes that I bake belong to me until I sell them to a customer in the free market who is willing to pay the price I am asking.  When a lesbian couple enters my store and demands that I bake them a cake I no longer have the right of ownership of my cake nor do I any longer have the right to associate with whomever I wish.  That lesbian couple has been granted special coercive rights by the god-like government and my job is to fear them.  I must kiss their rings, bake their cake and sell it to them for a reduced price just to keep from being accused of jacking up the price to punish them because I am a homophobic.  Failure to comply with the demands of the lesbians will result in financial punishments and possibly prison.
On the other hand, if I am a proprietor of whiskey and a drunken Irishman walks into my bar and demands a drink, I can be fined and possibly imprisoned by the SDA government if I do serve him what he wants.  If I give the Irish slob a shot of fine Welsh whiskey and then he drives away and ends up killing somebody I can be arrested as an accomplice to murder according to the God-hating laws of this immoral country.  In the case of a cake I have no right of ownership of what I have produced but in the case of whiskey I am held responsible for not only my right of ownership of the whiskey but how my customers might use it after I sell it to them.  My right of ownership of the whiskey is imputed to the patron who drinks it. 
So what is the point of all this ranting?  It should be obvious to anyone with eyes to see that the issue is not about being required to serve anyone who enters a profit seeking business desiring to make a purchase.  The argument has been framed by the special interest groups who have obtained the privilege of government coercion for themselves in such a way as to hide what is really going on.  Lesbians demanding cakes and drunks demanding drinks is not about the moral necessity for profit seeking businesses to serve the public without discriminating.  Lesbians demanding cakes and drunks demanding drinks is all about special interest groups being granted special coercive powers by the federal government which allow them to force profit seeking businesses to do things they would not ordinarily do.  Anti-discrimination laws have nothing to do with preventing immoral discrimination and everything with using the power of government to create winners and losers in the free market.  The odds are pretty good that if you are a Christian businessman you are one of the losers.  You will be forced to pay for murderous birth control devices for your female employees and you will be forced to take photographs at a gay wedding and, if you are a Christian minister, you will soon be forced to perform the ceremony celebrating debauchery.
If you go to a gay wedding you will probably notice a large percentage of the cars in the parking lot sporting the bumper sticker that exhorts us to "CoExist."  That, of course, is a lie.  God's law and man's law cannot coexist.  They hate each other.  And, in the SDA, the law of man has won the war.  The law of God is right out.