Thursday, June 29, 2006

Not like this isn't the norm, but I've read some ignorant shit over the past couple of days. First there was this. Not like I have high hopes going in when it comes to a piece written by the founder of Focus on the Family (Action? Family Action? Yeah, sounds like some great -- and very, very dirty -- family values there). Now, we can sit down and have an argument on whether or not the media is biased when it comes to gay marriage. Just like we can argue that they're biased against racism or murder or something. But that's not what really pissed me off about this little opinion piece.

Again this year, the amendment failed to pass by a wide margin, falling 18 votes shy of a required two-thirds majority. The final tally was 49 in favor, 48 opposed.

Well, that should tell you something right there. The constitution isn't supposed to be amended on a whim, and especially not for something like this.

Rarely has there been a greater disconnect between members of the Senate and the American people who put them in power.

First off, the notion of "the people" putting them in power is bullshit. Second, they have no contractual obligation to go along with what people want -- or what some people think that the people want. And even still, if they really are going against the will of the people (well, some of them -- half of the Senate voting for this shit is still very sick and significant), that again tells you something important.

Not one state has chosen by popular vote to permit marriages between homosexuals. Support for the family has been affirmed in every instance.

Now we're getting to the crux of what really pisses me off about this. I am sick and tired of living in this age of the false argument. "Marriage between homosexuals" and "support for the family" are not two mutually exclusive concepts. Just because you have one does not mean you can't have the other. I know, I know -- that's how it is in these peoples' minds. But that is a simplistic way of viewing things at best, and retarded at worst. It's like when Bush tells us that we're "fighting them over there, so that we don't have to fight them over here." There's nothing to stop them from bringing the fight over here to us while we're still mired down over there. Simplistic.

Indeed, on the day before 48 senators bailed on marriage, a 20th state voted on its own constitutional amendment. It was Alabama, which supported traditional marriage by 81 percent to 19 percent! A search of the database Nexis revealed that not one reference to this dramatic vote in Alabama was published in the print versions of The New York Times or Washington Post. There was virtually no mention of the story in other national newspapers. Yet, each of them devoted considerable coverage to the Senate's defeat of the Marriage Protection Amendment.

Alabama voted for traditional marriage and against gay marriage. How exactly is this news? Does anyone expect a state in the ignorant South to go any other way?

As for the senators who voted against the amendment... They claimed that the issue should be handled at the state level. What hypocrisy!

Uh, yeah, exactly -- what hypocrisy? I mean, where is the hypocrisy in saying it's a state issue?

Arrogant activist judges, most of them appointed by President Bill Clinton or President Jimmy Carter, will simply overturn the will of the electorate.

When I first saw this article, I was just waiting until the phrase "activist judges" would get busted out. Christ, you people have no imagination. And what about the judges appointed by Reagan, or either of the Bushes? Apparently there are none.

Oh, and what's wrong with activism? Yes, I know, shouldn't legislate from the bench, blah blah blah. But give me a fucking break. Enforcing equality isn't so much "arrogant activism" as it is "upholding the principles upon which we pretend this country was founded."

For example, a federal judge in Washington state is considering a challenge to the federal Defense of Marriage Act.

The Defense of Marriage Act, which was signed into law by Clinton. Don't see him getting any credit for that from these conservative fucks, though (not that Clinton deserves credit on this one).

The senators who voted against marriage this month...

Again, false argument. Stop with this either/or bullshit! I don't think a single one of those Senators seeks to end the institution of marriage. Again, I know, people think that allowing gays to marry -- or even not explicitly stopping them -- threatens hetero unions. But it doesn't, and no one has shown any solid evidence that it will. They don't like something, so they make something else up that's total bullshit in support of it. Simplistic.

It took William Wilberforce more than 30 years to bring about an end to Britain's slave trade in the 1800s.

Wow. To compare the fight against the slave trade to the fight against gay marriage. Hmmmm, let's see, ending slavery increases the freedom of a group of people, making sure gay marriage doesn't happen limits the freedom of a group of people. Seems a bit conflicting, doesn't it, Jimmy? Maybe even a tad... Hypocritical?

If the battle to protect marriage takes even five more years, liberal judges and activists will have destroyed this 5,000-year-old institution...


... which was designed by the Creator, Himself.

... probably not...

Even now, they are close to achieving that coveted objective.

... and no. With this bullshit going on, how exactly are we close? Again, it's embarrassing that we're going through this. Gay marriage does not equal the death of marriage and the family. Prove that it does, assface. And "just because we said so" isn't good enough. What fighting gay marriage equals, though, is homophobia, AKA gay-bashing. It's trying to restrict a group of people for no other reason besides what they are. Plain and simple, and just like has been done with women and blacks, if you need some shining examples from our stellar history. Try and dress it up in whatever nonsense argument you can come up with, but the bottom line is that you don't like gays and for that reason alone you don't want them to marry. It's not about marriage, or tradition, or those god damned children, it's about your hatred of gays, you ignorant piece of shit.

No comments: