Skylar is now walking. 
She is 9 months old and getting around just fine. 
And of course she likes her Grampa!

JUST CLICK IMAGE TO WATCH SKYLAR!

Even as I am preparing this post, my wife is telling me that Skylar has "potties". 
She's hinting to me and it is obvious. 
I'm ignoring her, pretending I do not hear.  Let's see if I win this little battle of wills....

Well, gotta go change a diaper.

I'm from Alabama, born in a small rural town about 90 miles from Birmingham.  I was 7 years old when Dr. King was jailed.  "Nigger" was part of my vocabulary as a little boy. I witnessed the integration of my schools. Blacks rode in the back of the buses, sat in the back of the classes, and generally were the poorest of students. They owned no businesses in town, although a few were privileged to sweep the storefronts. Their shantytown at the edge of the city was filled with ramshackle homes and potholed streets. They never lived in our white neighborhoods or came to our white churches. We tolerated them, felt sorry for them, but deep inside we did not like them.

I changed. It was a process. My school teachers dared to avoid overt racism, giving me time to consider a tiny bit what life could be like without it. My brother went off to College, and came back insisting that I not use racist words. And I committed to knowing and following Jesus Christ while a teenager, and His teaching about love became a constant insistance that my heart change toward blacks, who were now my brothers and sisters whether I liked it or not.

I've been to Birmingham. There are parts of the city that look like a third-world country; they are black neighborhoods. And I've been to lily white churches that have no place for people who happen to have a different skin color. They make me sick.

This amazing man could have found plenty of justification for resolute hatred toward white people. It is an amazing testimony to his character, and even more to the power of God, that he found another avenue for changing his world.

I'd like for my daughters and I to take his little girl to Six Flags. I'd like to take Dr. King out to eat at the finest restaurant in town. I'd like for him to be my guest speaker for Sunday morning services. Of course, it's too late to do those things. But I can insist upon justice for all, as did he. It's simple. Not easy, but simple.

Just another day at the office….the Dentist’s Office, that is.

First the terror:  I was there for a lovely Build-Up And Crown.  It had been weighing upon my mind for the weekend, and the cause of a couple of nights of fitful sleep.  Now, Dr. Rucker informed me with a cheerful smile there would be two of these procedures.  And I have noticed that my dentist indeed has a beautiful smile.  I wonder where she goes for her dental work; perhaps she uses a mirror and takes care of herself?  Humming and preparing needles, she also casually mentioned the possibility of a root canal.  She was informed, with panting breaths, that I have gone my entire life without one and do intend to go to my grave with the record intact.  The doctor rolled her eyes and continued to prepare her hypodermics.  And that is when Michelle, the assistant, piped in with her opinions.  Hispanic and with a thick accent, her words were hard to follow:  “...something – something – something…..men are big babies…something – something…women can bear children…something something…dentist no big deal…”  She was a nice lady, but I did not ask for her insights.

The doc gave me three impressive shots.  As the second was inserted into the roof of my mouth, she said with a cheery voice, “Ooh, this one is going to hurt!”  She was right.  Then began the drilling.  Scraping.  Suctioning.  More drilling.  I’m sure you are acquainted with the routine, although I’m equally sure my pain was worse than yours.  On it went for 2 ½ hours.  The good news- no root canal.  The bad news- I could have bought a really nice laptop with that money.

Don’t you hate it when the dentist asks you a question, and waits for your reply?  Your mouth is numb, drool dripping, and you certainly sound retarded.  I think they do it just for the laughs.

I stared at the office ceiling for a long, long time.  I counted tiles, light fixtures, and then pores in the tiles.  I made note of flaws, and compared the luminosity of the various lights.  And I thought of a great idea- these guys should make practical use of ceiling space for their customers, similar to how they now utilize the wall space in front of urinals in theatre bathrooms.  You guys know what I mean.  Perhaps the dentist could mount a television above the chair.  Or, inspirational thoughts could be displayed on the ceiling, like “No Pain, No Gain” or “Prepare To Meet Thy God”.

I’m now back in the comfort of my own office.  Mouth is still numb, and I know I sound strange on the phone.  The secretary just tried to console me by telling about her ordeals with the dentist.  And she said to me, “Unlike you, my procedures are even more difficult because I have a small mouth.” 

Actually, Michelle and Dr. Rucker are very nice people.  I would love to know them in another setting, other than that of adversary and subject of my nightmares.

In 2003, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts mandated state recognition of gay marriage. About 8,000 same-sex couples have since wed in what is currently the only state to officially sanction same-sex matrimony.

In the past year, over 120,000 signatures were collected in support of a proposed Constitutional Amendment to define marriage as exclusively between one man and one woman. For such an amendment to be placed on the 2008 state ballot, it must be approved by two separate sessions of the state legislature. Actually, only 50 members must vote to approve its inclusion on the ballot, approximately a 25% approval. Supporters of gay marriage have been determined to prevent the vote, saying it discriminates against gays.

The House Speaker was able, through political maneuvering and parliamentary rules, to prevent such a vote last year. However, this year the state's highest court admonished the legislature for preventing consideration of a citizen petition, and outgoing Republican governor Mitt Romney lobbied for the vote. The matter was forced, and 56 legislators approved. If a similar vote occurs next year, then the issue will be placed on the ballot. However, opponents are highly determined to prevent a vote for next year. They will mount a pressure campaign, and are encouraged by the promised support of the incoming Democrat governor.

Why are these politicians so afraid of a vote?
*They know that 27 states have already gone through the same process to overwhelmingly pass similar Constitutional Amendments.
*They know such an amendment would preclude and overrule the mandating of same-sex marriage by the courts.
*They fear the will of the people- the everyday folks who work hard and raise their families and consider traditional marriage to be sacred.
*They fear a statewide vote on the issue to be something they cannot control, something a federal or state judge will be unable to change with a haughty stroke of a pen.

By trying so desperately to prevent a popular vote, what are they saying?
*The citizens of our state are stupid.
*The courts should rule, not the people.
*Democracy is sufficient only when we get our way.
*When we cannot accomplish something through the ballot box, we will do it through judicial fiat.

It is a sad day when American politicians use the heavy hand of the law to prevent our citizens from casting a ballot.  I say let the people vote.

Is marriage, recognized by the state with accompanying privileges, a right or a benefit? 

On a strictly private basis, you and I may see marriage as a "personal, private relationship". Romantically, we see love as being the bond. And on a religious basis, I strongly believe God to be the one providing the most important connecting factor.  However, a secular state recognizes neither as necessary to a binding contract of marriage. Love for one another may be quite strong, and a religious ritual may be performed, but the government sees neither as vital for a legal marriage. What is necessary is a written contract- a marriage certificate. 

I liken the bestowal, by the government, of a marriage contract for a couple to that of a driver's license for a potential driver. And as we learned in High School Driver's Ed, a driver's license is not a right, but a privilege. It is granted by the people (i.e. government) with particular definitions and expectations of behaviour. One cannot arbitrarily define proper driving as driving on the left side of the road, or with the speed of 120 miles per hour.  No- there is a specific definition of proper driving to which one agrees to adhere when he/she receives a license.

And if one does not like the agreed-upon standards for driving, then the burden is upon that person to change the understanding of the people, who then will change the laws of the state.

Dr. Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptist Religious Liberty and Ethics Commission, shares the following views in a recent article entitled Marriage: The Courts Vs. The People:

"Following a lecture I gave at Harvard in the spring of 2005, I was asked by a coed: 'Dr. Land, you seem like a nice guy. Why would you want to interfere in the personal, private relationship of two people?'

"I responded by asking how she ever got the idea that marriage is a "personal, private relationship." Marriage is a social and civic institution with profound public and societal responsibilities, obligations, and consequences. That is why every society in human history has regulated severely who can get married to whom and under what circumstances. Societies give "benefits" to marriage that they do not give to other relationships precisely because of its profound impact on society, particularly when it comes to the rearing of children. Such "benefits" are not rights, but benefits conferred upon marriage because of its importance to society.

"When the courts try to force same-sex "marriage" on Americans, their judicial overreach threatens the nation’s social fabric."

If marriage is a "benefit"  instead of a "right", then it is proper for the people of the state to give specific definition.  Then, cannot the people choose to define marriage as specifically being a union between a man and a woman?