1
   

A constitutional amendment barring gay marriage!!

 
 
Reply Thu 22 Jan, 2004 01:21 pm
This was the Gay and Lesbian response posted to the State of the Union posted by dsc here...

Quote:
We gays and lesbians know something of bullies. Mr. President, you sir are a bully. You showed your true nature when you said this:

A strong America must also value the institution of marriage. I believe we should respect individuals as we take a principled stand for one of the most fundamental, enduring institutions of our civilization. Congress has already taken a stand on this issue by passing the Defense of Marriage Act, signed in 1996 by President Clinton. That statute protects marriage under Federal law as the union of a man and a woman, and declares that one state may not redefine marriage for other states. Activist judges, however, have begun redefining marriage by court order, without regard for the will of the people and their elected representatives. On an issue of such great consequence, the people's voice must be heard. If judges insist on forcing their arbitrary will upon the people, the only alternative left to the people would be the constitutional process. Our nation must defend the sanctity of marriage.

The outcome of this debate is important -- and so is the way we conduct it. The same moral tradition that defines marriage also teaches that each individual has dignity and value in God's sight.

Mr. President, some of us were scared of bullies in school. We felt so bad about ourselves we somehow felt we deserved the second class treatment we were getting. Well no more Mr. President. We will fight you and we will win.

We will fight you in the House. We will fight you in the Senate. We will fight you in the state legislatures. We will fight you in the churches. We will fight you in the streets. We will fight you in the gutters where you chose to take us. We will fight you and we will win. When you wonder why we kicked your ass, it will have been this "If judges insist on forcing their arbitrary will upon the people, the only alternative left to the people would be the constitutional process."

We know what "judges forcing their arbitrary will on us" is like. That is why you were in the rostrum delivering your hateful speech. The Constitution handed down by our founders is not the arbitrary will of judges. It is not some paper written after one of your all night binges. It is the floor plan of the house that is our democracy. And squatters don't get to put additions on the house. We will fight you, and we will win.

Who are we? We teach your kids and fix your cars. We cook your food, and invest your money. We grace your screen and landscape your yards. We cut your hair and quarterback your team. We have organized the Continental Army, painted the Sistine Chapel, cracked the Enigma, represented you in the Texas House, and even defended the country in your absence without leave in Alabama.

But that is not why we have a right to marriage. One doesn't earn rights. They are bestowed upon us by our creator. And similarly the fact you are an unelected fraud isn't why you don't get to take them away. For a right to be a right, we shouldn't have to beg a potentate for them on bended knee. You are not our creator and you don't get to take away what he has bestowed.

There are many reasons that you deserve a one way ticket back to Crawford but first among them is this speech. You have used a pulpit that Franklin Roosevelt used to defeat Hitler, Truman used to save Europe, Kennedy used to reach for the stars, Johnson used to fight a war on racism and poverty, and Clinton used to try to bring health care to all to sow division. You are the first President since Wilson to use that pulpit to advocate an amendment restricting people's rights. For that you should be sent back to Crawford to ride an SUV on your fake ranch. And sir, we will send you there.

Mr. President, history will judge you harshly. We will be happy to hasten that day. We don't hate you Mr. President we hate what you have done. Your craven presence in the citadel of Democracy is more than we can bear. But it will almost be worth the joy of seeing you sent back to Texas and knowing we helped do it. We will fight you and we will win.

We are not angry we are outraged. You have turned us into gays and lesbians first and Americans second. We deserve better. The country deserves better. You are neither compassionate nor conservative. True compassion wouldn't permit a two tiered system of rights and true conservatism would honor our Constitution. Our constitution is not some laundry list on which you can spill white out at will. True conservatives leave things alone. They protect our rights they don't trample them. Real conservatives know what history is, sir. You are no conservative. We will fight you, and we will win.

Mr. President, our rights are not milk money to be taken to feed your steroid habit. We know how to deal with bullies like you, we stand up to you and kick your ass. We won't scurry in fear. We will fight you, and we will win. Count on it and remember it when you take that long ride back to Crawford.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 12,231 • Replies: 254
No top replies

 
Letty
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Jan, 2004 01:35 pm
Centroles, I do wish politicians would leave our Constitution alone.

I didn't even know for the longest time, that there was a 27th amendment. Not publicized much.
0 Replies
 
Buzzcook
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Jan, 2004 02:04 pm
Never ever amend the Constitution in such a way as to limit individual rights.

I would suggest that only expansion of individual rights are suitable for amendments.

Buzzcook
0 Replies
 
Centroles
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Jan, 2004 03:24 pm
I share your sentiments.
0 Replies
 
SealPoet
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Jan, 2004 03:35 pm
In no way does another couple's marriage affect the sanctity of my own. The institution of marriage is made stronger by each strong marriage.

(Makes me proud to be from Massachusetts.)
0 Replies
 
Phoenix32890
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Jan, 2004 03:43 pm
The Constitution was not meant to deal with social mores. By enacting an amendment barring gay marriages, the Constitution is interfering with the rights of individuals. Besides, marriage is the purview of the States, not the Federal government.
0 Replies
 
Slappy Doo Hoo
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Jan, 2004 03:58 pm
I 100% think that gays should be allowed to marry, but I have one question:

Why the hell would they want to? Why ruin all the good they have for something like marriage? Know whaddum' sayin'?
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Jan, 2004 04:34 pm
Well, this is one of those opportunities for me to agree completely and without reservation with Centroles.

I like to jump at these chances.

I also agree with just about everything everyone else has said on this subject.

Let's all hope Bush and his handlers realize how petty they are being.

(I ain't gonna hold my breath!)
0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Jan, 2004 04:53 pm
Perhaps they should have a constitutional amendment to bar Britany Spears from marrying?
0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Jan, 2004 04:54 pm
The stupidity of that part of the speech is stupendously silly and stupifying spin, not upstaged by the comments on steroids. This is the Stature of the Union.
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Jan, 2004 04:58 pm
An interesting question is how this is going to play out in the presidential election. I suspect that opinions on A2K do not reflect those of the American public at large.

I belive that 40% of the nation will support Bush no matter what, and 40% of us will oppose him no matter what. The fight is for the middle.

At work today, we were discussing what the middle American thinks. One point made was that there is a lot of uncomfortability with Gay Marriage in middle America.

I believe and hope that the "religious extremist" tag is going to be a net negative against Bush. I wonder if the Dem candidate will be able to sway the middle with this argument.

Scary religious extremists against scary homosexuals. The middle American needs to decide with is more frightening.

This is going to be a very interesting election.
0 Replies
 
Slappy Doo Hoo
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Jan, 2004 05:00 pm
Lightwizard wrote:
The stupidity of that part of the speech is stupendously silly and stupifying spin, not upstaged by the comments on steroids. This is the Stature of the Union.


Yea, he really took care of that whole steroids issue, didn't he?
0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Jan, 2004 05:14 pm
There were a lot of people uncomfortable about black people, woman voting, slavery...should I go on? It doesn't make it fair or even legal to make laws that curtail individual rights that basically do no harm to another other than damage their own bigotry.
0 Replies
 
littlek
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Jan, 2004 05:50 pm
Kick-ass response you quoted up there, centroles! Man, that got me all riled up.
0 Replies
 
Ceili
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Jan, 2004 05:59 pm
I don't understand all the fuss, I mean really, hetersexuals have screwed up marriage. With over 50% divorce rate, who can really say if americans think it's an 'enduring institution'.
0 Replies
 
pistoff
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Jan, 2004 06:03 pm
Point
Quote:
It doesn't make it fair or even legal to make laws that curtail individual rights that basically do no harm to another other than damage their own bigotry.


We need a Regime change!!!!
0 Replies
 
Centroles
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Jan, 2004 08:07 pm
I for the life of me can't figure out why the majority of the american population is in support of barring gay marriage. I was actually interested to hear the honest sentiments of the three people who voted yes.

If we make a pact to not attack you personally and invoke in a strictly civil debate, would you be willing to explain your reasons?
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Jan, 2004 12:39 am
Well, somebody certainly has her undies in a bunch!

Centroles quoted what DSC wrote:
But that is not why we have a right to marriage. One doesn't earn rights. They are bestowed upon us by our creator. And similarly the fact you are an unelected fraud isn't why you don't get to take them away. For a right to be a right, we shouldn't have to beg a potentate for them on bended knee. You are not our creator and you don't get to take away what he has bestowed.

It certainly is odd to see a defense of natural rights in a screed regarding homosexual marriage. But marriage is quintessentially a civic right, not a natural right.

No one -- well, no one outside the lunatic right-wing Christian fundamentalist fringe -- is saying that homosexuals cannot commit to consensual monogamous unions. And that's all that "natural law" would guarantee. Anything more, such as civic recognition of the union, is beyond the realm of natural rights.
0 Replies
 
Ruach
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Jan, 2004 01:00 am
Whatever the outcome, it will most likely end up in the Supreme Court. Shocked The will need only 5 votes yea or nay to legalize or not. Shocked
0 Replies
 
the prince
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Jan, 2004 02:03 am
I guess that us gays have the reputation of being promiscuous, lose, immoral etc etc. It probably is pretty difficult for the population to believe that we can also fall in love - stay together for the rest of our lives with someone, be committed. Or they dont want us to...
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » A constitutional amendment barring gay marriage!!
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 11/12/2024 at 06:32:02