Friday, May 16, 2008

The Business and Politics of Marriage

The Babylonian Marriage Market.

I see marriage as a function of society and the state. It certainly has been that way throughout history. The obvious breakdown of marriage is divorce and the relative short history of divorce on a mass scale has had unintended and severe consequences to society. Divorce was constructed to allow for another marriage, and not meant to fragment a vital institution. Divorce as currently practiced is another distortion of our time. Marriage itself should not be added to the ongoing parodies of our time.

It is not up to either individuals or judges to decide what is or is not marriage. It is of interest to society as a whole and that includes the complicated interests of all groups. The basic balance of society is based on a traditional marriage. It is something that probably needs no change other than to strengthen it. Marriage is not a civil rights issue. It is how society maintains the transition of generations and basis for civil stability and governance. it is of more interest to society as a whole than as an interest of individual expression.

Sex and marriage are two different issues. Sex is a human thing. It is universal. It is life. You do not need marriage for sex. Marriage on the other hand is a business deal. It is the framework for societal architecture.

Marriage was not always a voluntary union, but always necessary for the very survival of human beings. Look at the painting. Those brides are being auctioned to the highest bidder. The institution was deemed more important than the individual rights of the bride.

Words have meaning. They are specific. They identify. Calling a Ford a Chevrolet does not make it so. It misidentifies a similar thing. Marriage is between a man and woman because that it a time honed reality and the wishes of most people. Marriage is between a man and a woman because people say it is.

Just an aside: A fool is not elevated to a wise man because they have been fitted for a black robe. The Republicans and McCain should seize this opportunity.
_______________________



Marriage Ruling Vaults Issue Back to Campaign Stages

By ADAM NAGOURNEY NYT
Published: May 16, 2008
WASHINGTON — Gay marriage is an issue on which the three major presidential candidates — John McCain, Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton — are pretty much in agreement. All oppose it, while saying at the same time that same-sex couples should generally be entitled to the legal protections afforded married couples. All think the decision should be left to the states.

And not one has shown any eagerness to make the issue a priority. Senator McCain, for example, did not mention it in a speech he gave Thursday outlining what he wanted to do as president.

But the decision by the California Supreme Court on Thursday overturning the state’s ban on same-sex marriage seems likely to put the issue back onto the national political stage for the time being. In the process, it should offer a test of whether the issue is resonant in American politics or whether it has fallen to the side of the road, as many Democrats and some Republicans say.

“The court has interjected itself into national politics and made same-sex marriage a major issue in the upcoming national election,” said Brian S. Brown, the executive director of the National Organization for Marriage in California, which opposes same-sex marriage.

Mr. Brown predicted that Senator Obama, who is leading in the race for the Democratic presidential nomination, and Mr. McCain, the all-but-certain Republican nominee, would be forced to deal with this issue repeatedly between now and November. Republicans did use the issue in 2004 in an effort to get conservative voters to help President Bush win Ohio.

This year, the decision in California could at the very least have resonance with socially conservative voters in places like Ohio and Pennsylvania. Even if Mr. McCain does not wield it as part of his fall campaign — and his political associates said he almost certainly would not — history suggests that independent conservative advocacy groups would seize on the ruling to try to define Mr. Obama and his party as culturally out-of-step. Presumably, it is just a matter of time until voters across the country see advertisements including same-sex couples taking their vows on the steps of San Francisco City Hall.

There is considerable debate whether the marriage issue helped Republican candidates in 2004. And it seems questionable if voters are going to find it compelling this year, at a time when the country is facing a prolonged war, an ailing economy and skyrocketing gasoline prices, the issues that Mr. McCain and the two Democratic candidates are confronting on the campaign trail every day.

“At best, it doesn’t move voters, and at worst for Republicans, it moves them against them,” said Matthew Dowd, who was chief strategist for Mr. Bush’s campaign in 2004. “Not so much on the issue, but it becomes, ‘Why are we having a discussion on this issue when we should talking about things that matter, like the economy, or health care, or the war?’ ”

Joe Solmonese, the president of the Human Rights Campaign, a gay rights organization, said: “Regardless of where the American people have moved on marriage, what you have to look at is where it places in their priorities. I don’t see it being the same kind of issue that it was in 2004.”

If there is to be a national debate over the merits of same-sex marriage, the presidential candidates may not be the best proxies to carry out these arguments.

Mr. McCain supports marriage “between a man and a woman” and opposes any legal recognition of a same-sex relationship. But he is against an amendment to the Constitution, backed by many conservatives, that would ban same-sex marriage. More pressingly, he is at a point in his campaign now where he is seeking to appeal to moderates and Democrats uncomfortable with Mr. Obama; Mr. Dowd argued that emphasizing social issues would repel those groups.

Mr. Obama and Senator Clinton are more explicit in their support of civil unions, but both campaigns were quick to restate their views that the candidates believe the act of marriage should be between a man and a woman, a formulation that seems to have succeeded in taking the sting out of the issue.

Yet there are differences of nuance in how the Democratic and Republican candidates talk about the issue that could have resonance with socially conservative voters. For example, Mr. Obama’s campaign explicitly said that he “has always believed that same-sex couples should enjoy equal rights under the law, and he will continue to fight for civil unions.”

In California, Mr. Brown is leading an effort to force a voter initiative that would overturn the court decision. If Mr. McCain decides to back such an initiative, it could provide a point of contrast that conservatives could use to hurt Mr. Obama. And an initiative could bring out more conservative voters at a time when Mr. McCain’s advisers see a small hope of putting California in play.

But if Mr. McCain were to actively support such an initiative, it would put him in the uncomfortable position of working against Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, the Republican whose success at appealing to moderates is part of the model of Mr. McCain’s national campaign. Mr. Schwarzenegger said he would uphold the court ruling and oppose any such initiative.

A survey taken by the Pew Research Center last October found that 55 percent of respondents said same-sex marriage would be not at all important or not too important to their decision of whom to support for president; 43 percent said it would be somewhat important or very important.

And that was at a time when gasoline prices seemed low and the economy seemed stable. So the California Supreme Court may have created a laboratory to test once and for all just how powerful this issue really is.

84 comments:

  1. Legs raised in the air are not worth the price of admission.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Seizing opportunity is not part of the "Respectful" Campaign strategy of nominee Cane.
    8 years of new tone has decimated the party, just imagine what 4 more years of "respectful" can do to finish off it off.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Hawaiiana authority Lake dies

    Lake is survived by his sisters Joan Kealohalani Lake-Farrren and Miriam Keawepoepoe Lake; his wife, Barbara Ellen Pualani Kahaka Lake; his son John Maximin Kekoaaliiokahekili Lake; his son Joshua Matthew Iwikauikauakukuiaikaawakea Lake and his spouse Stephanie (Canda) Lake; his daughter Kumu Hula Naomi Katherine Kahakuhaupiokamakani Sissy Lake-Farm, her spouse Kyle Keoki Elama Farm, and their children Puameiti Maliakekiheiokaheihei Malie Farm and Kekaulaiwi Elama Kaelemakule Farm;

    hanai son John Kaponoaikaulikeikeao Molitau and his wife Jennifer Perkins, and their children Naleikaehukaikaneikapoanuenue and Kamahiwalaniokaleomakua; and thousands of students throughout Hawaii and the world.

    Yours truly,

    Naleikaehukaikaneikapoanuenue Doug Farm

    ReplyDelete
  4. A Century of Happiness
    Lahaina resident Florence Hasegawa celebrates her 100th birthday.
    Mom and Daughter

    ReplyDelete
  5. In 2004, Mrs. Hasegawa was in a life-threatening accident. A neighbor’s truck backed into her while she was on a walk and dragged her along the pavement. The skin on her arms and legs was scraped off almost to the bone, but miraculously, she had no broken bones. When she was brought to the emergency room, doctors had little hope that a 96-year-old woman could survive such severe injuries. However, after several months of surgeries and physical therapy, Mrs. Hasegawa recovered completely.

    ReplyDelete
  6. As the oldest and longest-hired employee of the State Health Department, Mrs. Hasegawa has been issuing marriage licenses for nearly 70 years. Her late husband, Judge George Hasegawa, would marry the couples she issued marriage licenses to, and their daughter, Pat Masumoto, would play Here Comes the Bride at wedding ceremonies. Thousands of couples have started their married lives at Mrs. Hasegawa’s home office.
    ---
    Wonder if she's done any transgender marriages?

    ReplyDelete
  7. Kumu hula John Keolamaka'ainana Lake as a boy ate too much poi.

    Doug, do you know what the native Hawaiian outlook was on alternative life styles?
    -----

    HUMAN SACRIFICE was routinely practiced here, taking the mana (spiritual
    strength) from the victim to insure victory in war. The captives, usually chiefs captured
    in battle, would be hung upside down on wooden racks, where the their sweat would be
    collected to anoint the Kahuna (priests). Next the victims would have their bones and
    flesh pounded to soften the meat. The victims would then be disembowled and either
    cooked or eaten raw by the Kahuna and the Ali'i (Chiefs) seeking the mana from the
    captives.
    According to legend, at Mo'okini, the last human sacrifices were made in the
    late 1870's.
    __________________________________________________________________
    Pu'ukohola Heiau at Kawaihae, Kohala District on the Big Island of Hawai'i overlooking
    the sea, built by THE GREAT MOI Kamehameha I in 1791, is an example of the
    platform type. Upon the completion of the Heiau, Kamehameha invited his
    rival, Chief Keoua, from the south end of the island at Ka'u, to "celebrate"
    the new temple to their mutual guardian God of War, Ku.
    Keoua traveled by canoe from Ka'u to Kona where he bade farewell to his Ohana (family)
    there. He had a sense of pending doom. Keoua then paddled with some of his men to
    Kawaihae. As he stepped ashore, he was run through with a spear. Keoua's body was sacrificed and eaten by Kamehameha and his chiefs.
    from an article on Hawaiian religious practice

    ReplyDelete
  8. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Deuce: I see marriage as a function of society and the state. It certainly has been that way throughout history.

    Liberals consider economic prosperity to be a function of the state, but assert personal liberty in matters related to procreation. Conservatives consider procreation to be a function of the state but assert personal liberty in matters related to economic prosperity.
    Libertarians assert personal liberty in both matters. Totalitarians assert a state role in both matters.

    Divorce was constructed to allow for another marriage, and not meant to fragment a vital institution. Divorce as currently practiced is another distortion of our time.

    There is nothing new under the sun. King Henry VIII had a total of six wives, one right after the other. When the Pope refused to grant the divorce, he took England right out of the Catholic Church and we ended up with the current Archbishop of Canterbury, who thinks Sharia Law is a pretty neat idea.

    It is not up to either individuals or judges to decide what is or is not marriage. It is of interest to society as a whole and that includes the complicated interests of all groups.

    Until 1967 the State used to define marriage as between two people of different sexes and the same race. Appeals to scripture and tradition were made to keep it this way. The laws were vacated by the Supreme Court under 14th amendment grounds (not to deprive citizens of their rights without due process of law) but remained on the books in some southern states until 2000. Twenty years from now all this talk about marriage being traditionally between a man and a woman will be moot as well, because Obama will appoint at least three SCOTUS justices and you will get a similar decision.

    Sex and marriage are two different issues. Sex is a human thing. It is universal. It is life. You do not need marriage for sex.

    In our society we assign certain rights based on the marriage relationship. One can file joint taxes and hold property in common. There are rights of hospital visitation which are granted to spouses. There is an immigration visa granted to the spouse of a citizen. All of these things and much more are currently currently denied to same-sex couples. The total effect is to assign a second-class status to such couples.

    Marriage on the other hand is a business deal. It is the framework for societal architecture.

    That is the attitude of Rome in the days of Caesar, when marriages were entered into and dissolved to facilitate politics, and there was little in the way of love involved.

    Look at the painting. Those brides are being auctioned to the highest bidder. The institution was deemed more important than the individual rights of the bride.

    Look at this painting. These men are being auctioned to the highest bidder. The institution of slavery was deemed more important than the individual rights of the workers. It is a fallacy to claim the old ways are right because people have always done things that way.

    Marriage is between a man and woman because that it a time honed reality and the wishes of most people. Marriage is between a man and a woman because people say it is.

    People say it is in some states, and say it is between any two persons in other states, mostly through various civil union statutes. It is not given to the Federal government to enforce uniformity in marriage laws across the entire union. But if McCain wants to run on a campaign of taking rights away from Americans, he is welcome to do so. In the 1960 Presidential debate radio listeners said Nixon won, but television viewers said JFK won, because of the visible age difference. Nothing would highlight the generation gap between Obama and McCain for radio listeners more than having John argue to take rights away from Americans because they don't love the right people.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Deuce, as you note in your post the institution of marriage has evolved (auctioning off Brides). Society also evolves. There is no reason why it both can't evolve to accept same sex marriage. As Jon Stewart once noted - the anti same sex marriage folk often act as if they were being forced to marry someone of the same sex.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Idaho: Where pumpkin is a verb.

    ReplyDelete
  12. pumpkinbumpkin

    Where potato is the food that keeps on feeding.

    ReplyDelete
  13. There is no reason why it both can't evolve to accept same sex marriage.

    Unca Harley wants to marry his daughter. What is really wrong with this, as long as she is, say, 16? And says, yes? Can't we all just evolve together?

    And seriously, how do you bar polygamy? Should you? It might even gather a majority vote in some areas. Society evolves, devolves, things change. Lighten up a little, will ya?

    ReplyDelete
  14. I, personally, don't have a problem with polygamy as long as all folks consent (children can't consent).

    ReplyDelete
  15. "Society evolves, devolves, things change."

    Marriage has become a game of Chicken. A gold diggers' game of how fast the bitch will drive you into the hole. The old institution, taking a slave girl for a wife, is by far the more rational approach.

    ReplyDelete
  16. One wants a sensible, obedient wife, that's for sure.

    ReplyDelete
  17. I, personally, don't have a problem with unca Harley marrying his daughter, if she consents....

    ReplyDelete
  18. If you wanna be happy for the rest of your life..
    Just make sure to take a slave girl for your wife...

    ReplyDelete
  19. We're living in the modern age, Bob. If you want some milk, there's no need to personally own the cow.

    ReplyDelete
  20. The idea of one man, grown up, and one woman, grown up, in full possession of their senses, voluntarily joining up in a lifetime of marriage, and raising the young, is pretty much a western idea, and took a long time to establish itself here, and even so often doesn't work out so well in practice, and thank the gods, and the legislature for no fault divorce. In the east, a wife was a Wife, and is so to this day in much of India. A Wife wasn't really a person, but a role to be played, even to the point of when the husband dies, the Wife's role is over, and there is nothing else left to do but the suttee business. Every once in a while you'll see something in the papers about some woman in India killing herself on the husband's grave, as she has been taught to do. Gay marriage, between two consenting adults, can be seen as a subset of the western idea. A slave girl, though us men might fantasize over such an arrangement, is out of bounds from this western ideal, as she hasn't given her consent. The trouble with mucking around with our laws by the courts is it opens up possibilities that are not really voluntary, or are so out of bounds as to seem repugnant. I have a hard time believing those women in Texas were really voluntarily in such relationships.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Bobal: Society evolves, devolves, things change. Lighten up a little, will ya?

    Hey, you're getting all Daoist on us and stuff.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Hey, thanks T., I'm putting that site on my Favorites List for future use!

    Mat, we'll have to share insights we get from this site.:)

    ReplyDelete
  23. Bobal: The trouble with mucking around with our laws by the courts is it opens up possibilities that are not really voluntary, or are so out of bounds as to seem repugnant. I have a hard time believing those women in Texas were really voluntarily in such relationships.

    There is free will, but it comes in different strengths. It is not a powerful choice for many women to get married, because the alternative is utter poverty. How much more powerful is her choice when she has the ability to stay or go as she wills, yet she chooses to remain with her partner out of love. This should be the basis of marriage: the judgement of two truly free and informed individuals to enter into a lifetime bond. Yet our traditionalists will elevate even the kind of marriage that amounts to mutual dependency because the little bits of flesh fit together right.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Since homosexual acts lead to eternal hell fire, a hermaphrodite would be limited to falling in love with another hermaphrodite. If they fell in love with a non-intersexed person, there is a 50-50 chance they would pair-bonding with a person who has the same gender as their inner True Gender and this would lead to eternal hell fire falling upn them. Not to mention the full weight of the law.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Well, it's a risky business, marriage. The terms of the contract have been pretty much evened up in the USA these days, with no fault divorce, education available to all, etc. The fact is women control more of the assets of the country than men do nowadays. Having the financial fire power to walk does mean a lot, though, I agree. For men, too.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Katchoo, it's quandaries like that keep me awake at night:)

    ReplyDelete
  27. Thankfully, God is merciful.

    ReplyDelete
  28. One more Bernie Ward news item. Sex Fairy Tells All


    The Ward case is a good illustration as to why one should never take the unknown other at face value. He is a smart individual, very good at argument, very good at sounding righteous, while not sounding overly righteous, excellent at pointing out the hypocrisy of others, and, right under the surface, deep into child porn. Husband, father, radio talk show host, leader of charities in San Francisco,(he raised a lot of money for good causes) political aide to politicians....a man can be many things.

    ReplyDelete
  29. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  30. 1. My name is Teresita Rivera Mercado, but in real life everyone calls me Ruby.

    2. I started posting on the Elephant Bar on Sunday Sep 10, 2006, at 03:28:00 PM. It was a reply to Rufus mentioning that under new Iraqi management, they were doing, you know, actual torture at Abu Grahib:

    Woman Catholic said...

    rufus said:

    Wetchard's anti-torture crowd need to check up on this. They might be making them wear "panties on their head!


    I think under this new management, instead of letting dogs just bark at the prisoners they're letting the dogs tear off a piece of them. Fuck 'em. This is a premonition of what will happen to the Euroweenies when they get under Sharia management. "We want the Americans back!" Pshhh.

    3. My parents are immigrants from the Philippines. I was born in Vancouver, Washington.

    4. I have long straight black hair which reaches to my lower back, and skin the color of Rich Chocolatey Ovaltine. I cannot get my hair to lay down nice with bangs because I have an Eternal Cowlick.

    5. I am 5'1" and 115 lbs dripping wet. My (US) dress and shoe size is six.

    6. I was baptized six months to the day after I was born. When I was older I freely embraced the faith as a Roman Catholic Christian in the Sacrament of Confirmation. However, my faith is at a low ebb these days.

    7. My philosophy is my own, but it closely aligns with daojia, or philosophical Taoism. This means I like a hands-off approach to most things, economics, politics, etc. I like to let things be and reach their equilibrium naturally.

    8. My aesthetic is minimalism. Less is more. There is beauty in simplicity. This can be seen in my posting style, which tends toward brevity. My politics are currently center-left. But not far left. No Obama. I want McCain.

    8. I read a LOT, and I can instantly retrieve any fact through my massively parallel data processing ability commonly called women's intuition.

    10. I like long movies that unfold slowly, like Vertigo, 2001, The Sixth Sense, and Solaris. I like Tarantino movies. I like ambient music that runs for the length of the whole CD without breaks. I don't get to watch TV (the other person who lives here controls the remote), so I have to get all my grins and giggles on the internet.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Katchoo, it's quandaries like that keep me awake at night:)

    hehe. me too.

    ReplyDelete
  32. It's not about the details of your life.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Say what you mean. And mean what you say.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Hey, you're getting all Daoist on us and stuff.
    ---
    No, he just doesn't want big govt stepping in and taking away a man's right to take his daughter to the basement.
    ...as long as she's 18.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Couldn't have said it better, Ms Cryptic.

    ReplyDelete
  36. I'm sorry, are we so desperate here at the EB that we must praise the online dating bio of a contributor that has 3 minds on anything on any
    given day?

    T believes in nothing. But grooves on a conversation in which she must believe in something. She's a frenetic online exhibitionist.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Amen.
    Really COULDN'T have said it better.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Ingraham's got an hour w/Scalia, father of 9.
    Raising the country's IQ.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Trish, you and me are through. But I ain't going anywhere. It could be 10 years from now, I'll still be EB'in.

    ReplyDelete
  40. How about catchoo and lucky P?

    ReplyDelete
  41. T, you don't have enough belief of any kind in you to be through. With anyone.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Teresita, why do you keep changing? Your not my old nemesis Habu are you?

    ReplyDelete
  43. Speaking of marriage, let us all remember that other western hero, Odysseus, survivor, who wasn't hot to go to the war in the first place, and, on the way home, became entangled with various goddesses, but to no avail, as our hero sailed on, homeward bound, to his loving wife, Waiting Penelope, and certain death, his choice, over perpetual sex on an enchanted isle.

    ReplyDelete
  44. He knew he couldn't compete w/Naleikaehukaikaneikapoanuenue Doug Farm

    ReplyDelete
  45. Teresita gave me the straight stuff on that cherry juice for gout, I can tell you that. Best advice I've had on the net.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Can you keep even a goddess satisfied? Sate the divine desires?

    ReplyDelete
  47. Bobal> Teresita gave me the straight stuff on that cherry juice for gout, I can tell you that. Best advice I've had on the net.

    Glad to help, Bobal. Like I said, I have a medication that likes to give me gout in one or the other knee or my big toe every year or two. I knock it down with cherry juice when I feel a twinge.

    ReplyDelete
  48. This is for the folks who aren't on my case right now: I ain't habu, never have been habu, I don't like habu.

    ReplyDelete
  49. When you were ripping off that rental car, did you drive to Kamehameha's boyhood home?
    Desolate Place, but lots of rock work.

    ReplyDelete
  50. "Kamehameha is the king who united the Hawaiian islands. In Hilo, he (14 years old) moved a boulder weighing a ton, and thus became king."

    ReplyDelete
  51. Probly practiced in his back yard as a child.

    ReplyDelete
  52. Doug, I may have, but it was so long ago, it's a little of a blur, I can't be sure. Spent a lot of time in Kona, and environs, after dad got a little house up the coast by that big ranch. There was a King Kam hotel there, I think I recall. Really beautiful around there, no kidding.

    ReplyDelete
  53. Parker Ranch Motel
    Wife and I think it's the nicest place of all.
    A lot like San Luis Obispo CA used to be.

    ReplyDelete
  54. I like saying bob too. It has a wonderful rich full sound to it. B O B

    ReplyDelete
  55. Then there's the business of mail order brides, which hasn't been touched upon. A real marriage business.

    ReplyDelete
  56. Please tell me you're echt bob.

    ReplyDelete
  57. echt? I would if I could, but don't know what you are talking about there.

    ReplyDelete
  58. I must be echt, as I pinched myself to make sure, and felt it.

    ReplyDelete
  59. Then you can damn well keep T away, bob.

    ReplyDelete
  60. A man that gets between two women that are arguing, is likened unto a man that picks up a dog by the ears.

    Proverbs, a little amended

    We know what happens when you pick up a dog by the ears.

    No thanks, I stay out of the fight.

    ReplyDelete
  61. And if you drag that blank dyke back, we're all going to regret it.

    ReplyDelete
  62. I will make it my personal mission, bob, to usher her out.

    ReplyDelete
  63. Proverbs 26:17--

    He that passeth by, and meddleth with strife belonging not to him, is like one that taketh a dog by the ears.

    King James Version

    I'm staying out of this dog or cat fight! I don't want to get bit.

    Grr'night all.

    ReplyDelete
  64. Not belonging to him. My ass.

    She believes nothing, bob. Nothing.

    ReplyDelete
  65. This is Cutler, ftr. My blogger accounts acting screwy at the moment, so I made this account as a backup.

    Seems like an ideal time to link this. Anyone with a long history of internet dueling should get a kick out of it. Dare I say there might be a few resemblances at the Bar, heh.

    ReplyDelete
  66. Of course, elements can also be useful for real life as well. Among other things, to warn you when you're about to beat your head against a wall.

    ReplyDelete
  67. Cutler, internet flaming is too agressive, my MO is to be passive-agressive.

    ReplyDelete
  68. When I think about the good love you gave me,
    I cry like a baby.
    Living without you is driving me crazy,
    I cry like a baby.
    Well, I know now that you're not a play thing,
    Not a toy, or a puppet on a string.

    As I look back on a love so sweet now,
    I cry like a baby.
    Every road is a lonely street,
    I cry like a baby.
    I know now that you're not a play thing,
    Not a toy, or a puppet on a string.

    Today we passed on a street,
    And you just walked on by.
    My heart just fell to my feet,
    And once again I began to cry.

    When I think about the good love you gave me,
    I cry like a baby.
    Living without you is driving me crazy,
    I cry like a baby.

    I know now that you're not a play thing,
    I cry like a baby.
    As I look back on a love so sweet now,
    I cry like a baby.
    Every road is a lonely street,
    I cry like a baby.
    My heart just fell to my feet, you know
    I cried like a baby.
    You left the water running now,
    I cried like a baby

    ReplyDelete
  69. hehe--that was funny all right Cutler, see those bloggers in others and right here too.

    ReplyDelete