Letters to the Editor
Election results mixed for nation’s gay people
Posted on Nov 08, 2009 by Jeff Tecklenburg.
Tuesday’s election was a mixed bag for gay people nationwide. Chapel Hill, N.C., elected its first openly gay mayor. Voters in Kalamazoo, Mich., overwhelmingly adopted an ordinance extending anti-discrimination laws to gay people (becoming the 16th Michigan city to do so).
But the big story was that Maine residents voted down same-sex marriage by a narrow margin, 53 percent to 47 percent. National anti-gay groups will now turn their focus to Iowa, air offensive TV commercials, and some Iowa politicians will attempt to turn scare tactics into votes.
I agree with former Minnesota Gov. Jesse Ventura, who said on CNN, “You can’t put a civil rights issue on the ballot and let the people decide. You have to have elected officials who have the courage to make the right decision. If you left it up to the people, we’d have slavery, depending on how you worded it.”
When you think about it, though, it is good that people are actually having conversations about whether or not same-sex couples should have the right to marry. This topic would have never been discussed 35 years ago. Progress is being made. A lot of minds have definitely changed. The cause will continue to advance because it is just.
Dorothy Sandbrook
Marion
Gary_E
08. Nov, 2009
Dorothy you have a right to your opinion but that doesn't make your opinion right or just. Jesse Ventura can impugn the American people all he wants but I celebrate living in the greatest country in the history of the world. It is our right as a people to decide what are the expected and accepted moral standards. I don't need some leftwing judge telling me what to do or what is right. I reject Jesse's claim that slavery would be legal, if you believe that let's put it to a vote, besides seems like the current occupant doesn't fit Jesse's irrational thoughts!
OwenHarper
10. Nov, 2009
No, it is not your right to decide what is the expected and moral standards when it comes to who people chose as their life partners. There is nothing more irrational than deciding what is right and moral for everyone else based on the misunderstanding of bronze age thinking.
SilaceMcKormic
08. Nov, 2009
Question remains — Will the right to legal marriage also allow them to be able to propagate, which is the main reason for marriage, as intended.??? If not , why would anyone want to get hung up with all of the harassment of being married????
38lasalle
08. Nov, 2009
Maybe they're just old fashioned. I know that I'd be still "living in sin" if I had any choice in the matter!
ctiger
08. Nov, 2009
Silace, get your nose out of others' bedrooms. Don't you have one of your own to keep you busy?.
SilaceMcKormic
08. Nov, 2009
It just has always been a question as to how folks of the same gender can have kidies of their own. What other reason is their to be married , you can whoop it up with friends without all of the marriage fal- de – rol. Just seems a bit irrational to most of us , I see.
You need to do a better job of explaining perhaps?
ctiger
08. Nov, 2009
This was discussed with you in previous posts. The fact that you still dwell on it smacks more of prurient interest, than a quest for knowledge.
SilaceMcKormic
09. Nov, 2009
We all know the untidy stuff ctiger , looking for any plausible reason for marriage.. friendships are available without all of this hassel.. for goodness sakes.
SilaceMcKormic
09. Nov, 2009
You have never covered the untidy elements.
Grandma of 6
08. Nov, 2009
For crying out loud Silace, why did you get married? Do you consider your marriage fal-de-rol?
SilaceMcKormic
09. Nov, 2009
Seemed like a good idea if we wanted to conduct a normal family life and have children.
38lasalle
08. Nov, 2009
Ever heard of adoption?
SilaceMcKormic
09. Nov, 2009
Yup what the hell does that have to do with anything.
SilaceMcKormic
09. Nov, 2009
What does that have to do with this subject?
j49
08. Nov, 2009
Propagation is the main reason to marry, as intended by who? God? If so, maybe you could pass on his phone number so I can verify with him. Plenty of straight people get married with no intention of "breeding." Would you outlaw that as well?
SilaceMcKormic
09. Nov, 2009
Humans are thought to be of a higher order of intellect, the whole animal kingdom knows the difference between male and female. You do not see them demanding the legal right to fool around >> For pete's sake give it a rest.
23streets
09. Nov, 2009
Check out the facts about the whole animal kingdom and you will find some interesting sex changing and homosexual activity. Silace, you must be filled with shame and guilt to post the ignotant opinions you have! I have a feeling you think sex is dirty…… why are you so interested in the Gay community? Perhaps your peaking out of the closet……then checking out what others will think if you finnally come out… after all you are pro claiming Pete's sake not Mary's sake. Could you be…………….
SilaceMcKormic
09. Nov, 2009
Where can we find these facts about animals , must be some underground observations that have never seen the light of day or have never been observed by any one in a animal producing state, Come on now!!
Grandma of 6
08. Nov, 2009
Well said Dorothy!!
Ann_Onamouse
08. Nov, 2009
"If you left it up to the people, we’d have slavery, depending on how you worded it.”
Let us hope that TPTB continue to stay true to the intent of the law, and keep gay marraige legal in Iowa.
ctiger
08. Nov, 2009
This vote is a blot on our Constitution.
Grandma of 6
08. Nov, 2009
Agreed
MattHill
08. Nov, 2009
if we start getting the "defend marriage against same sex marriage" commercials here in iowa, who want's to help me to "defend marriage against divorce"
same sex marriage doesn't destroy marriage at all, but divorce sure does!
ctiger
08. Nov, 2009
I'm with you. The fact that something like that can be done to people, troubles me.
j49
10. Nov, 2009
Or……..we could try to put…… oh, let's say, "Catholic marriage" on the ballot. Shouldn't Iowans have the right to decide if marriage among Catholics should be allowed? After all, Catholics choose to be the way they are, and if they want to get married they can just become Protestants, right? I have never observed Catholicism in the animal world, so it is obviously unnatural. They are all successful and rich (have you seen the Vatican, or the Pope's Prada shoes?), so why do they have all these special rights, like the right to marry and the right not to be discriminated against?
ctiger
10. Nov, 2009
Sounds like a plan to me.
OwenHarper
10. Nov, 2009
I think Mormon marriages are the most questionable, but there are many sects that deserve scrutiny.
ctiger
10. Nov, 2009
They all deserve scrutiny, you never know which ones go hand in hand with Sodomy.
Who is she anyway?.
JohnNone
10. Nov, 2009
Silace'll LOVE that idea!
Buick
09. Nov, 2009
You're arguing under a false premise! Sodomy and lesbianism are not a civil right, they only masquerade as a civil right. They claim to have a genetic basis that's unchangable like gender and race, but offer no proof. They just want you to trust them (or shut up). After all, they wouldn't lie to further their cause or would they?
ctiger
09. Nov, 2009
Keep your religion out of the Constitution.
Buick
09. Nov, 2009
C, do you realize the Declaration of Independence with all its references to God is still part of our organic law? In other words, it's never been repealed or stricken from federal code. Do you want to know the relationship between the two?
JohnNone
09. Nov, 2009
B, do YOU realize that there's a difference between references to God and your personal religion? Most of the folks who wrote the Declaration were Deists, not, e.g., practicing Christians.
Buick
09. Nov, 2009
"there's a difference between references to God and your personal religion" Don't keep us all in suspense John. What do you think the differences are?
If the "people" as you put it who wrote the Declaration were deists what are their names and what is your source.
ctiger
09. Nov, 2009
And don't even try to argue psychology with me, I've got the degrees.
Buick
09. Nov, 2009
arguing is a such a waste of time, let us reason together.
SilaceMcKormic
09. Nov, 2009
They should have included common sense in your degree requirements. An hour or two in civility might have been in order also.
Buick
09. Nov, 2009
So did the shooter at Fort Hood. By the way, I agree with your profile statement, "Safety is not worth the price we pay in lost civil rights and erosion of our Constitution". The only difference we have is when you attempt to redefine our rights and the Constitution.
ctiger
09. Nov, 2009
The difference is, that you overlook the many ways in which the Constitution has been compromised, in order to cater to the voters who fight against their own best interests to benefit the select few.
OwenHarper
10. Nov, 2009
It is the anti-gay crowd that is attempting to redefine rights and our Constitution. The gay rights crowd only want existing rights recognized, as the Iowa Supreme Court has done.
ctiger
10. Nov, 2009
I guess you can put it better than I could.
JohnNone
09. Nov, 2009
Hey, Buick! Read much?
Buick
09. Nov, 2009
Your failure to respond to my comment is duly noted for all to see. Thank you.
JohnNone
09. Nov, 2009
II guess this means you can't read, and are thus unable to look things up on your own.
Start here:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/06/0806...
And DON'T come back with some pseudo-babble from a "values" web site.
Buick
09. Nov, 2009
John, everybody knows if someone discovered a genetic basis for sodomy that could be verified I wouldn't have to go to some web site, it would be all over every media outlet 24/7. .
Grandma of 6
09. Nov, 2009
Wow, ugly is as ugly does I guess…..
Buick
09. Nov, 2009
If you'll reexamine my comment, I said sodomy AND LESBIANISM. There's nothing special about being "gay" because Jesus Christ has a remedy…a sinners faith in His blood.
Grandma of 6
09. Nov, 2009
Please again, why did you group sodomy with lesbianism? And why do you think it's not a civil right? Being gay is not illegal. If you are denied rights because of none of your business, why shouldn't it be challenged?
ctiger
10. Nov, 2009
It's amazing that all the lesbians and sodomizers haven't yet turned to pillars of salt.
Of course, that would affect most of us, even you, unless you are totally celibate.
38lasalle
10. Nov, 2009
Ow! Humor cramp!! There is a killer punchline just screaming to be written here, but it eludes me; it's just beyond the reach of my fingertips…. help……
23streets
09. Nov, 2009
What do you think (their cause) is? Why are you so fearful? What kind of brain washing have you been influenced by. Jesus was a good man, and he was 33 years old and a single male, with a message of love, forgivness. Why do you dwell on Sodomy? When you see a gay couple kissing does that make you want to change your sexuallity that you were born with? Being Gay has been around as long as being Straight, Bi sexual or any other form of human life. The Chimps do it and they are 98% match to Humans genes. Yes it is in the DNA. Many apes have same sex colonies. Whats up with that? I suppose you believe in Adam and Eve story.
Buick
10. Nov, 2009
#1 Normalizing perversion
#2 I'm not, are you?
#3 I haven't, have you?
#4 Why do you dwell on it. I thought it was supposed to be a privacy issue.
#5 No it doesn't, do you have a secret desire to be right with God?
#6 So has murder, so what.
#7 98% match? You need to read more recent publications. Did you know that bananas match our dna 50%? If it's in the dna, let's see the scientific paper.
#8 Apes? You're created above the ape – with a soul.
#9 Yes I do, I'll take God's word, Ps 119:160, "Thy word is true…". over yours, Darwins, or any body I know If it differs from His.
#8
23streets
10. Nov, 2009
The banana comment proves all living thing on earth are interrelated . Did you get your research information from the Woody Allen move "Bananas"? Remember the Apple is forbiden fruit it is in the Bible about that story of Adam and Eve. How did we get the Irish, American Indians, Indians from India, African , Asian, European, Races? Adam and Eve must have been Jewish? It sounds like evolution at work if you believe in the Story?
JohnNone
10. Nov, 2009
AHA! We see your true agenda now, Buick!
I still wonder why you are so fixated on issues of homosexuality. Methinks you protest a but TOO much. Problems in that area, maybe?
Some people simply refuse to accept facts. There is, for example, a whole international society dedicated to the proposition that the world is flat. There are people who think the world is coming to an end in 2012. There are people who believe Hawaii is not part of the United States.
And there's Buick, who's afraid there might be a homosexual in the closet with him.
WWJD1
09. Nov, 2009
What fellowship has light with darkness. Some of the commentators don't even know what they are talking about. Look up the research of David Barton and/or Peter Marshall Jr about our Founding Fathers; a very large percentage of them were Christians. There was about 200 of them and they wrote more then 100,000 volumes … have you read any of them?
ctiger
09. Nov, 2009
Let me shed some light into your superstitious darkness.
Writing in the scientific journal Archives of Sexual Behavior, researchers from Queen Mary's School of Biological and Chemical Sciences, and Karolinska Institutet in Stockholm report that genetics and environmental factors (which are specific to an individual, and may include biological processes such as different hormone exposure in the womb), are important determinants of homosexual behaviour.
JohnNone
09. Nov, 2009
WWJD1, Messrs. Barton and Marshall are front and center among historical revisionists seeking to prove–without merit–that the United States of America comprise a Christian nation.
They are, as are you, entitled to that fantasy. It is NOT reflected in reality.
I suspect you have read few, if any, of those alleged 100,000 volumes
Of course I have not read all supposed "100,000" of them, but I HAVE read enough of them–and of other contemporaneous writers in England and this country, as well as respected historians of the period–to know that your claim is fatuous. It is all the more suspect for relying on Barton and Marshall, neither of whom is qualified as a systematic historian, regardless of their own self-aggrandizement.
They are evangelists of the most raucous sort. Like other pernicious fundamentalist evangelists, they choose their sources to meet their pre-ordained conclusions, and quote from those sources very selectively.
I suggest you read Mr. Jefferson's Bible as an antidote.
WWJD1
10. Nov, 2009
JohnNone; What really matters is if you know Jesus Christ as your Personal Savior, been Born Again, have turned your life over to God for Guidance, have not resisted the power and guidance through the Holy Spirit tempered with Scripture and Prayer, are experiencing the unbelievable Joy and Peace that come with being Born Again because you are a New Creature in Christ, Old Things are Past Away and All Thing have become New!
JohnNone
10. Nov, 2009
Y'know what, WWJD1? MY religion is MY business. It's between me and God, and I will thank you to keep your twitching and intrusive proboscis WELL away from my religious convictions–which, I might add, are deeply held and carefully considered over years of serious interest and extensive reading in theology. You WILL not, and MAY not preach to me. Is that clear?
HiawathaBob
10. Nov, 2009
Marriage and law is about property (a contract) it has nothing to do with Religion. See Constitution for questions.
OwenHarper
10. Nov, 2009
What does that have to do with denying a minority their rights as citizens?
HiawathaBob
09. Nov, 2009
I look forward to the day when my children grow up and shake their head and wander why there was even a discussion about same-sex marriage. Much like I did when I heard stories of civil rights activists in the 50's and 60's.
Grandma of 6
09. Nov, 2009
Agreed!
38lasalle
10. Nov, 2009
Yes, all this will pass as the present generation dies off. In 1960, if you had asked a random Iowan (black or white) if he thought that the US would ever elect a black President, you would have been met with dumbfounded silence. It would have been like asking if he thought that Uncle Miltie had a shot at being elected Pope.
HiawathaBob
10. Nov, 2009
38 I think the appropriate term is cohort replacement.
38lasalle
10. Nov, 2009
Yes. "Present generation dies off" is a sloppy way to express it; but I think most readers get the general idea.
HiawathaBob
10. Nov, 2009
This issue does not have anything do to with religion, it is all about property. The reason marriage was even inserted into the law was to ensure the ability to pass property from father to male heir. Thomas Jeffersons personal religious preference provide no insight into the discussion.
JohnNone
10. Nov, 2009
Bingo, Bob! Let's see him quote Jefferson et al. to refute THAT!
JohnNone
10. Nov, 2009
There is a very specific reply to this impious comment bottled up by the admin team.
Buick
10. Nov, 2009
That's probably happened to everyone at some time. Do you know if there's a real person doing the blocking or is it automatically triggered by certain words.
JohnNone
10. Nov, 2009
I think it's probably some of both. For certain there are some words that trigger it. For example, take the asterisks out of w*r*o*n*g and you have one of them. It's weird and capricious. I presume you're experiencing the same frustration,
JohnNone
10. Nov, 2009
The reply arrived, and appears above, in response to the FIRST time WWJD1 posted this drivel.
I'll tell you one thing for sure Jesus WOULDN'T do, WWJD1. That's to make incorrect and inaccurate assumptions about somebody else's religion.
38lasalle
10. Nov, 2009
Where is Nelson Muntz when you need him?
JohnNone
10. Nov, 2009
Now THERE'S a serious question! My guess is that ol' Nelson is hanging out next door to Buick's house and giving him grief.
ctiger
10. Nov, 2009
Haw ! Haw.
ctiger
09. Nov, 2009
Unless you would welcome intrusions from a group of Gays into your private life, you should not concern yourself with theirs.
As I have said before, you're bringing up the same old tired nonsense, that has been explained to you several times in the past.
Are you saying that you are unable to process information?.
SilaceMcKormic
09. Nov, 2009
In the navy we dispatched the intrusions, you speak of, summarily. You folks do not have all of the knowledge, that is evident.
23streets
09. Nov, 2009
Try going to a zoo. Get with the human race. Try wikipedia as step 1
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_sexuality
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_animals#R...
38lasalle
09. Nov, 2009
Spend a day at a hog or sheep farm and get yourself ed-yoo-kayted. You must be a city boy.
38lasalle
10. Nov, 2009
Or talk to any beef or dairy farmer. You will find that many cows and bulls are bisexual. Hope that info doesn't sour your milk.
ctiger
09. Nov, 2009
He asks those very same questions, every time this topic comes up. And he gets the very same answers.
Silace is engaging in a circle dance.
ctiger
09. Nov, 2009
Thomas Jefferson was sceptical of religions, given the history of the Pilgrims in Europe.
The word you allude to, is actually Creator, not God. Everyone has a different idea as to who their creator is.
JohnNone
10. Nov, 2009
Well, let's see, Buick. In addition to Jefferson, who barely qualifies even as a Deist, Washington, Franklin, , Cornelius Harnett, Gouverneur Morris, Hugh Williamson, James Madison, John Adams, Alexander Hamilton, Ethan Allen, and Thomas Paine (among many others) had decidedly Deistic tendencies. While more than half of the signers of the Declaration were NOMINALLY Anglican (later Episcopalian), for many of them this was a social, rather than a religious commitment. Patrick Henry, a devout Episcopalian, is an exception. And there were three Roman Catholics, the two Carrolls, and FitzSimmons.
This information is in just about any book on 18th-century American religion, and is available even on-line.
OwenHarper
10. Nov, 2009
There is no suspense. Simply look at the words of Thomas Jefferson and the others who wrote the constitution. Here are some from Jefferson.
http://etext.virginia.edu/jefferson/quotations/je...
You'll do well to remember that freedom of religion hinges on the government remaining neutral in matters of faith.
ctiger
09. Nov, 2009
Writing in the scientific journal Archives of Sexual Behavior, researchers from Queen Mary's School of Biological and Chemical Sciences, and Karolinska Institutet in Stockholm report that genetics and environmental factors (which are specific to an individual, and may include biological processes such as different hormone exposure in the womb), are important determinants of homosexual behaviour.
ctiger
09. Nov, 2009
Why should it be. We always publish in professional journals, available to all.
JohnNone
10. Nov, 2009
Why do you keep confusing homosexuality and sodomy?
Actually the genetic link to homosexuality was discovered–and widely publicized–nearly to decades ago. The reason it doesn't get much press today is simple: it's established scientific fact.
OwenHarper
10. Nov, 2009
You ask for answers and when they are delivered, you close your eyes.
38lasalle
09. Nov, 2009
Same-sex married couples can propagate by means of adoption. Just like Shakers. I believe that answers the question that you asked at the start of the sub-thread.
38lasalle
09. Nov, 2009
Ibid
j49
10. Nov, 2009
Or a circle something.
OwenHarper
10. Nov, 2009
Thank you ctiger, from you I consider that a great compliment.
j49
10. Nov, 2009
If by that you mean having a narrow minded bigot for a parent, I guess your kids must have had a very normal family life.
ctiger
10. Nov, 2009
i was trying to be polite.
j49
10. Nov, 2009
OK, how about just putting plain ol' religious marriage up for a popular vote? Heck, why stop there? Let's put religion itself up. After all, rights should only be given to those who the majority thinks should have them, correct? Otherwise we are socialist. Or communist. Or something else really scary sounding.
j49
10. Nov, 2009
That's no fun!
ctiger
10. Nov, 2009
That is why I don't do it too often.
Buick
10. Nov, 2009
may? now there's some verifiable and domonstrable science! It reminds me of Charlie Darwin who used books of similiar suppositions to create "facts".
Buick
10. Nov, 2009
Isn't the best evidence a mans own words?
"I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrine of Jesus". "The Writings of Thomas Jefferson" by Albert Ellery Bergh, editor of the Thomas Memorial Association, Washington DC, Volume 14, p385; in a personal letter written Jan 9, 1816.
"You do well to learn our ways of life and above all the relilgion of Jesus Christ." "George Washington Writings", Vol 15, p55; from his speech to the Delaware Indian Chiefs, May 12, 1779.
I could go on, but have neither the time or space
John, there is a difference in learning history from the original sources and later revisions. I strongly suggest the original sources so you don't have to take somebody else's word for it. Good luck.
Buick
10. Nov, 2009
Good quotes there, but keep in mind that he purposely used the word "church" referring to a denomination instead of religion as has been later interpreted to be all faiths respectlng any god .
A wise man once said, a text without a context is a pretext.
Jefferson considered faith a very private matter and outside the jurisdiction of the federal government ie a national denomination like Englands.
He did, however, approve of government support of religion in general and Christianity in particular. As President in 1807, he said, "…religion is deemed in other countries incompatible with good government and yet proved by our experience to be its best support". Jefferson Writings, Vol 16, p291
Again as President, he approved federal funds to support Christian missionaries to the Kaskaskia Indians which included building them a church! "American State Papers", Washington DC, Vol 4, p687
SilaceMcKormic
10. Nov, 2009
They are just being friendly.
SilaceMcKormic
10. Nov, 2009
They also have to do "normal" stuff, like have offsprings before they produce milk.
23streets
10. Nov, 2009
Buick you are brain washed. You believe you are a church? There is only one Church that Jesus ordained and Peter is the head of the Churrch. The history of most other Christian religions were developed hundres and thousand of years after humans had disagreement and left to start there own religion. Some as you do. Claim you can be a church.
JohnNone
10. Nov, 2009
Watch your context, Buick!
OwenHarper
10. Nov, 2009
Ah yes, a text without context is a pretext. Yet you selected a partial quote to support your idea that Jefferson was in favor of government supported religion. Here is the complete quote, "The liberty to worship our Creator in the way we think most agreeable to His will is a liberty deemed in other countries incompatible with good government and yet proved by our experience to be its best support." – Letter to Captain John Thomas, November 18, 1801
As you can see, Jefferson is clearly praising freedom to practice religion as we, as individuals see fit. Not endorsing the government support of religion.
JohnNone
10. Nov, 2009
Yes, the best evidence is, in fact, one's own words–so long as those words are neither misquoted nor misinterpreted.
I will grant you that these brief quotations, even out of context, are within the general meaning of their writers.
You fail, however, in your interpretation of them if, by using the word "Christian," you refer to the established religion that bears that title.
For example, Jefferson's use of the word "real" is telling. Jefferson was one of the most articulate men ever to have used the English language, and "real" does not appear in this quotation by accident, or as a filler. It is used to differentiate Mr. Jefferson's GENUINE beliefs–beliefs in what he calls "the doctrine of Jesus"–and FALSE Christianity, which is what he believed the established Christian Church to be.
Mr. Washington's quotation is a bit different, and occurred in a completey different context.
Here we need to see Washington as a product of the eighteenth century, a prominent citizen. and a leader in consolidating a new nation as a whole. He was also nominally an Episcopalian, though other of his writings suggest a healthy dose of skepticism, as was common during his time among men of his standing.
What he is telling the Delawares here is that they are advised, by a representative of the emerging government under which these people will live in the future, that assimilation is necessary for their survival.
Washington was under no illusion that these chiefs would become leaders of the new government. At the same time, he did not wish for their extermination. He was advising them that, to survive, they should LEARN "the religion of Jesus Christ." He pointedly does NOT say "believe the religion… ," or "adopt the religion… ," or "practice the religion… ." No, to survive in the new order of things in this emerging governmental structure, the chiefs would "do well to…LEARN the religion of Jesus Christ."
As a side note, you should know that I am part professional historian, and that the American Colonial and Post-Colonial periods are among the areas that most interest me. So I am quite familiar with these sources, thank you very much. I do appreciate your concern, though.
ctiger
10. Nov, 2009
Yet you don't want others to be friendly.
KO65
10. Nov, 2009
here what it boils down to Oldsmobile, most people in this country believe in equal rights. Back off, pick a different fight you can win this one.
ctiger
10. Nov, 2009
But people are not live stock.
ctiger
10. Nov, 2009
You must pay more attention. Aside from genetics, there are environmental factors which may INCLUDE biological processes.
It's a good bet, given what is known about early gestation, that the flood of hormones during that time plays a role.
Until that occurs, a fetus is always female.
JohnNone
10. Nov, 2009
Well done, Owen! I was particularly amused that Buick chose, of ALL eighteenth-century Americans, Mr. Jefferson. Talk about selective reading!