Today I had this OS message from an Alert Reader (as Dave Barry would say): "Did someone named Roger Vaughn just copy your piece and put it down as his own?"

I visited the Vaughn blog (http://open.salon.com/content.php?cid=114208) and whadya know? He writes that he is a priest, and he claims to have had almost exactly the same conversation with a Catholic priest that I had with a Muslim cab driver. It could almost make one believe in miracles.

I commented on his blog that I'd caught him red handed. Alert Reader then sent me this message: "I just looked at it again. He changed it totally."

I visited Vaughn's blog again, and he has diminished but not entirely eliminated his dependence on my blog. In the version Alert Reader and  I first saw at his blog:

 He starts with. "This morning I read another blogger's reflection on the Northern California ACLU saying, 'In the spirit of Valentine’s Day, it’s time to show some love. ... Love for the right to love and the right to marry. ... '"

To give my name and blog would have been upright, but at least he acknowledged the ACLU words we both quote. From there, he turns to plagiarism.

I wrote: I hope a happy marriage is in my future. I'll go along with everyone's right to have that same hope and, even better, to have the actuality.

• He wrote: I do hope a happy marriage is in our future .... Everyone has the right to have that same hope and, even better, to have the actuality.

I wrote: I see that as only a start. The question of equal protection under the law is a larger umbrella. I tried to explain this to a Muslim taxi driver in San Francisco not long ago. I don't know why he felt moved to tell me he strongly approves of Proposition 8, but he did, going on to say it is fine for gay people to love each other and live together. But not to marry.

• He wrote: But this is only the beginning. The question of equal protection under the law is a larger umbrella. I tried to explain this to a catholic priest not long ago. I don't know why he felt moved to tell me he strongly disapproves of Marriage Equality, but he did, going on to say it is fine for gay people to love each other and live together. But not to marry.

I wrote: I just said cheerfully, "Under the law, straights shouldn't be allowed to marry either then, should we? That's what equal protection means."

• He wrote: I offer[ed], "Under the law, straights shouldn't be allowed to marry either then, should they? That's what equal protection means."

I wrote: He told me God commands that marriage is between a man and a woman, and we must obey God's commandments.

• He wrote: The catholic priest told me God demands that marriage is between a man and a woman, and we must obey God's laws.

I wrote: I replied that in the USA we have (theoretically) separation of church and state, and therefore, what She commands is irrelevant when it comes to who may and may not marry legally.

• He wrote: I replied that in America we have separation of church and state, and therefore, what God commands is irrelevant when it comes to who may and may not marry legally.  

I wrote: "If we outlaw marriage between gays," I said reasonably, "We should outlaw marriage between straights, too. The point isn't religious. It's legal: equal protection. The only legal way to deny gays the right to marry is to deny marriage to everyone."

He said we must obey God above all else.

• He wrote: "If we outlaw marriage between gays," I said reasonably, "We should outlaw marriage between straights, too. The point isn't religious. It's legal: equal protection. The only legal way to deny gays the right to marry is to deny marriage to everyone. He said we must obey God above all else.

I wrote: The Muslim and I – a confirmed Episcopalian who today is spiritual but finds all organized religions too sexist to support – went around the Maypole a few more times. With exemplary civility, the cab driver told me in various ways that God rules all, and I reframed my point about our Constitution ruling our laws.

• He wrote: The catholic priest and I, an ordained priest in a small independent jurisdiction - The Orthodix [sic]-Catholic Church of America - with sacramental rites for Gay Holy Unions and Marriages, am spiritual though I still find his male dominated autocratic denomination too sexist and homophobic to support – went a few more rounds without either gaining much ground.   

 I wrote: I tipped him twenty percent to demonstrate that we who take our Constitution seriously honor God's law about doing unto others as we would have them do unto us.

• He wrote: I reminded him of my point about our Constitution ruling our laws and that we who take our Constitution seriously honor God's law about doing unto others as we would have them do unto us. 

 His last paragraph was his own. And now he's rewritten the posting to make the, err, borrowing, less blatant.If immitation is the sincerest form of flattery, I could do with a tad less sincerity ....