So, Dumbass is not only a fucking moron, he’s a homophobic bigot. Big shock there. Although accorting to some reports, he really “doesn’t give a shit” about gay marriage, he’s going to go ahead and put his name on it over the objections of his own wife and his lord and master, Darth Cheney. Strange place to find your balls there, Dumbass.

Anyway. For people who support writing bigotry into the US Constitution, I offer the following questions that require good answers–no doubt, such answers will not be forthcoming. Bigotry wasn’t reasoned in, and it can’t be reasoned out.

  1. On May 17, 2004, Massachusetts began marrying same-sex couples. Exactly how many “traditional” marriages have “been destroyed” since then in a way that can be specifically and explicitly tied to the simple existence of gay marriage in Massachusetts?
  2. How is banning gay marriage not an unconstitutional endorsement of one religion’s beliefs over another’s? Why should a religious interpretation of marriage be applied to atheists and agnostics?
  3. Assume two people of majority with full control of their faculties, of the same gender. What is the compelling state interest in denying them the same rights afforded two people of majority in full control of their faculites, of opposite gender? In short, what is the compelling state interest in determining who may and may not get married, when two competent adults are at issue?
  4. The same arguments–that it was “against tradition” and “would destroy the fabric of society”–were used against interracial marriage not that long ago. Since neither the institution of marriage nor society has ceased to exist since laws against interracial marriage were eliminated, why should we believe the same arguments when they were wrong before?

Use ’em if you need ’em.


26 comments so far

  1. avon_deer on

    It does seem like a bit of a petty provision, doesn’t it?

    “We hold these truths to be self evident that all men are created equal, and from this equal creation they derive rights inherent and inalienable…”

    It then goes on to list a load of those rights such as:

    Freedom from serfdom
    Freedom from slavery
    Freedom from excessive taxation


    Then Bush wants to scrawl in biro at the bottom of the page

    “Oh yes, and you can only get married to someone of the opposite sex”

    Am I correct in thinking that?

    Is it likely that this amendment would pass congress anyway? It just seems too much like the ego-trip of a very small and sad man. I think congress will put this amendment where it belongs.

    On the other hand, if it does pass, same sex couples can still get civilly-joined. As long as the rights that go along with marriage are still there, what does it matter?

    I suppose the biggest cause for objection is the precedent it sets. If this is allowed to pass, would it be open season on other non-convential lifestyles? Maybe this is just the thin end of the wedge.

    I just feel that its a shame it has come to this. When we in the EU have been able to find a compromise which is acceptable to both the religious set and the equal rights lobby. Bush at the same time feels the need to strong arm his views into the US’s most sacred document. Thats the really sad thing.

    • See, the pisser is that it has no chance of passing Congress. It’s just being put forward because Dumbass needs to get the bigot vote out, or he’s going to lose both the House and the Senate. Same as what he did in ’04, with anti-gay state constitution amendments in several states–tragically including my own home state, and I don’t doubt that its presence (and a few voting machine shenanigans) are what led Ohio to have voted for him.

      Only two states have full civil unions (Vermont and Connecticut), and only one has full marriage (Massachusetts). Everywhere else in the country, we’re hosed. I’m ready to go to Canada any time now.

      • avon_deer on

        I suppose the idea is to get people talking about this issue. That way it prevents them thinking about the situation in Iraq/pooor healthcare provision/unemployment etc etc.

        Blair uses the same tactics here. As soon as anyone brings up an issue like Iraq/transport/the NHS/child benefit payment mistakes, John Prescott will go and do something silly to grab the front pages.

    • nsingman on

      You’re not quite correct. You’re confusing and/or conflating documents. “We hold these truths to be self-evident” is from the Declaration of Independence, which is lovely poetry and a fine statement of grievances and cause, but which also has no legal standing for the USA’s federal government. The Constitution is the document which defines and limits the powers granted to the federal government. That document does outlaw slavery and involuntary servitude (though both are permitted for convicts; see the XIIIth Amendment to the Constitution), but certainly has nothing to say about excessive taxation (the Declaration mentions taxation, but the article on slavery was removed so it could be approved). More’s the pity!

      In any event, as the Rev notes, this has virtually no chance of passing. It’s political grandstanding for the purpose of rousing the Republicans’ conservative religious pillar, and diverting attention from the war in Iraq. It may work, too, because too few Democrats are brave enough to see gay marriage as a civil rights issue. Their usual bleat is “civil unions yes, marriage no.”

      As one who is able to see even a few atoms of silver lining in a big cloud, I suppose it could be worse. After all, the next distraction from the Iraq war may be an Iran war.

      • avon_deer on

        Ah. I’ve always used the two terms interchangeably. I love the declaration of independence. My mistake there. They are both fantastic documents though, and should not be messed with without deep thought and consultation.

        As someone who would like to fight for a written constitution, bill of rights, and true democracy for my country, I do find it quite distasteful that your current president seems to be arrogant enough to even propose altering such an important document over such a petty issue.

        • nsingman on

          It seems to be a hazard of the office, I’m afraid. Off the top of my head, I can name at least five or six US presidents who were even more arrogant, more contemptuous of the Constitution and shed more unnecessary blood and treasure. And at least two of them are greatly revered today by most Americans.

          Then again, history is written by the winners. :-)

          • If you want to point to individual actions, I’m sure you can find examples more extreme than The Idiot’s here and there throughout history–no doubt, you refer to Lincoln’s suspension of habeas corpus and his admission of Nevada to the Union even though they didn’t quite have the requisite population of 60,000.

            However, I don’t think you’ll find, in history, a whole package as odious as that bigoted little sack of shit that sits there now.

            Did LBJ lie to escalate Vietnam? Yes. However, he did not cut taxes and gut the social support system at the same time. FDR and Wilson may or may not have known about Pearl Harbor and the Lusitania in advance–that’s still up in the air, but it’s possible. McKinley used the Maine–now known to have been an accident, I don’t know if it was known and covered up then–to start a war with Spain. And to the best of my knowledge, none of them explicitly excluded themselves from having to obey the law by issuing “signing statements” some 750 times.

            And the worst of it is–he didn’t even win election the first time–and probably didn’t the second time either: I’m an Ohioan, I saw the shenanigans first hand. He had it handed to him by a court acting politically rather than legally. We wouldn’t be in Iraq today–and I’d argue that the events of 9/11 would have been stopped before they could happen–had the Court decided on the merits and not the politics.

            No, The Idiot stands alone, far outstripping the crimes against any other President. In any just outcome, he will be impeached, then shipped off to The Hague with Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz to stand trial for war crimes.

        • Hat’s off to for noticing what I didn’t (and I was a poli-sci major in college!), that you’d quoted the Declaration and not the Constitution. However, while the Constitution is the guiding law of the land, I think of the Declaration as the guiding spirit.

          If you want to know, however, what happens when you use the Constitution for social engineering, I have one word for you: Prohibition.

  2. thattallguy201 on

    I actually used #4 once in a “town-hall meeting” with my congresscritter, Jeb Bradley, a small man in mind and body both. Faced with a persistent questioner (me) asking, “How are today’s view of, and your supplied arguments against, gay marriage any different from those relating to interracial marriage fifty years ago?”

    His response, in toto: long pause. Then, “It’s different.” And on to the next question.

    • Which means, of course, “My only alternative is to admit that I’m a bigot so I’m going to pretend you don’t even exist and never asked that.” Sheesh…

      • thattallguy201 on

        In what little fairness I can muster for the man, I don’t know whether he’s a bigot or his position is one he doesn’t believe in but he took for political expediency or that his “minders” made him take. When you meet him in person it’s clear that he’s never had an original thought in his life; he’s got less initiative than a trained monkey… he’s nothing but a two-dimensional mouthpiece for the right-wing machine, parroting talking points and completely clueless on substance.

        I’m planning to knock on doors for just about any of his challengers this summer…

        • In my mind, if he’s in favor of the amendment, he’s a bigot. I need to hear a reason that’s based on something other than “religious” objections or homophobia (covert or overt).

          ‘Course, I have a horse in this race–I would like to get married if I ever meet Mister Right. But honestly, if he falls back on that, I feel perfectly justified in thinking him a homophobic bigot. I don’t have to be fair to people who want to write discrimination against me into the Constitution.

          • thattallguy201 on

            Ah, well, there’s where we differ then — the *action* is bigoted either way, but for a person to *be* a bigot in my book, they have to actually have thought about it before making their decision. If somebody else makes the decision and they merely parrot it without thought, they are a mouthpiece, and it’s the somebody else who’s the bigot. :)

            Subtle distinction, I know, and arguable either way, but I do make the distinction between “evil” and “stupid” — “stupid” is sometimes correctible.

            • If the mouthpiece or parrot hasn’t the moral strength to say, “This is wrong,” they’re just as complicit in the bigotry. I gotta stand firm on this one. Sometimes evil and stupid conspire.

              • thattallguy201 on

                Sure mouthpieces are complicit, but evil requires understanding. That’s what makes it evil rather than callousness or self-centeredness; evil is proactive: not just “good for me” but “bad for you” is a *goal*. To me that’s intrinsic in the definition.

                Sometimes evil and stupid conspire — sure they do. But sometimes good and stupid conspire too. Plenty of people pull the Dem straight ticket lever just because that’s what their parents did and they never bothered to think about it, just like on the R side. It’s like the lawful/chaotic spectrum being independent from the good/evil spectrum.

                Maybe we will have to agree to disagree — I can live with that. The bottom line is pretty much the same.

                • Yeah, I can live with that, too. I just don’t allow for the distinction between “I hate you because I’m just that kind of evil guy” and “I hate you because my pappy/my minister/my president told me to and I’m too stupid to even wonder why”. The latter to me is entirely the same as “We were just following orders!”

  3. chilayse on

    it’s funny….

    We were walking through DC..and wandered into the giant marble building dedicated to Jefferson. I read the writing on the walls of it…and decided congress needed to take a field trip to the monuments. They’ve lost touch with the ideals with which the country was started….now it’s all about imposing their morals and religion, and those of the people that pay them.

    • Re: it’s funny….

      It’s not even about imposing their so-called “morals” and “religion”. That always comes second to their corporate paymasters. You’d think moral concerns would lead them to question war profiteering by Halliburton et al. … but no. This has nothing to do with religion. This is all about power, and there’s a string labeled “religion” that they pull every now and then when they need it.

      All I can say is they better hope I’m right and there is no afterlife, or there will be a lot of very surprised souls.

      Love God with all thy heart and all thy mind and all thy soul, and love thy neighbor as thyself. That’s it. That’s all you need to be a good Christian: Jesus said so. But no, these nutters have to go off and search the obsoleted (to Christians, anyway) Old Testament for individual lines to support their own personal hatreds and bigotries. It almost makes me wish I was a believer again, just so I could see the looks on their faces.

      • chilayse on

        Re: it’s funny….

        I like to tell people who tell me gay people are going to hell that that’s a very un-christian thing to say cause it makes them angry when I say it. They usually start spouting verses. My father in particular was unhappy when I said “So…christ said…that all the good deeds in the world can’t get us into heaven right? I mean…because we’re flawed. and to get there…we just have to believe he came to save us…correct? Okay…now what I don’t get is how that doesn’t apply to gay people who believe in christ but it applies to everyone else including child rapists?”

        >.> He admitted defeat after he couldn’t answer the question…

        But yes, it’s mostly about money now.

        Can’t want to help people..gotta get PAID for it.

  4. jayteeone on

    As a strict constitutionalist, and a devout believer and server of my God of choice I have 2 problems with Le Idiot. First, constitutionally speaking this violates equality, and right to privacy. This also violates a much more important law, loving your neighbor as yourself, but we know he doesn’t like that one either. His attack on the Iraqi people without provocation proves it. I’m surprised we aren’t invading Canada because they have terrorists there. As for tradition, it’s a fancy way of saying, “but we’ve always done it that way”. Doesn’t make it right. Bush is desperate for a win in November, so he wants to divide the country. Intolerance pisses me off.

    • I could almost respect just a plain old-fashioned bigotry for its own sake, but using this issue and cloaking it in “religion” strictly to score political points is what ticks this over from the merely repugnant to the unspeakably odious.

  5. avon_deer on
    • Oh, that result was a given. The only question was whether they could even muster a simple majority, and they couldn’t even do that.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: