Feb. 18th, 2004
Oh, I'm so mad I could just spit  
While declining to express her own opinions about gay marriages, Mrs. Bush said, "It's an issue that people want to talk about and not want the Massachusetts Supreme Court, or the mayor of San Francisco to make their choice for them. I know that's what the president thinks.

Excuse me? Make their choice for them? Make their choice?

See, you don't get it. This isn't your choice or their choice to make. I don't let straight bigots make my choices for me. And exactly when did the President start thinking?

"I'm watching very carefully. But I'm troubled by what I've seen," [President] Bush said. "People need to be involved with this decision. Marriage ought to be defined by the people, not by the courts."

No, yet again, you miss the point. Marriage should be defined by the two people involved in getting married — not you, nor any group who thinks it okay to discriminate against certain groups of people. You forget that our Constitution is a document based upon the promotion of equal rights and freedom. Perhaps you'd forget that less often if you put down your bible and actually read the Constitution, which, by the way, is the actual document YOU were elected to promote and uphold.

He declined to say whether he was more inclined now to back a constitutional ban. However, he spoke privately with conservative Catholics about the issue, and a conservative activist who favors such a ban suggested the president would soon announce his support.

...and once again, I'd like to give a big, giant, wet "FUCK YOU" to the Catholic Church and our President. The Republican Party, once the Party of Lincoln, was once about freedom and less government. You, and your religious extremist ilk, have perverted it into little more than an evangelical group of bigots hell bent on shoving a homophobic "godhatesfags.com" morality down everyone's throats while simultaneously furthering the destruction of the Republican Party and harming the country.

The Oval Office isn't a pulpit, Rev. Bush. Stop preaching and start doing your job, or get the hell out of the people's house.

...and from yesterday's news:
2nd S.F. Judge Delays Ruling on Gay Marriages

Superior Court Judge James Warren told plaintiffs he would not issue a
court order until they corrected a punctuation error in their legal
filing.

Now, that's funny!
 
 
Mood: angry
Listening to: Brand New - Seventy Times 7
 
 
( Post a new comment )
Drop the Light!tigerroars on February 18th, 2004 - 06:12 pm
I was there when she said it. It sound like she was trying to skirt the issue as if she has a different belief than her husband. I was there wondering where the choice was in the issue, but what one believes is what one believes.
(Reply) (Thread) (Link)
The People's Exhibit Adavidology on February 18th, 2004 - 06:38 pm
Re:
oh, that's interesting.

She has generally seemed more level-headed. And I like that she agrees with teaching contraception along with abstinence, rather than towing the "just say no" line.

Perhaps she should be President instead.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread) (Link)
Drop the Light!tigerroars on February 18th, 2004 - 08:08 pm
Re:
I found myself warming up to her the more she spoke, but then she said the unthinkable. She said "George is a great person". I could not help but think "what george is she talking about? George Washington?"
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread) (Link)
ex_prezrober685 on February 18th, 2004 - 08:05 pm
Bush has a good point...

Either the people define marriage or no one does.

Those are the options but the Court is not the place and no one defining it is not an option either.

(Reply) (Thread) (Link)
The People's Exhibit A: FFYR - Proud2B [by ?]davidology on February 18th, 2004 - 08:24 pm
Re:
but they don't have the right to define it in discriminatory way. And they have no justification (other than the Bible) to back their prejudice. If they're going to allow two people to marry, they can't exclude Asians, gays, blacks, or whomever they find undesireable.

If Bush just wants to pay lip service to the issue to remain more electable, I'm fine with that. It seems, however, that he goes out of his way to make it very clear what he thinks of gay marriage, to the point that he's about to back amending our Constitution to codify that prejudice.

He has one last chance to mildly redeem himself to me by standing down on that threat. However, once he backs that, I will be officially done with the man. I very much fear that this is going to be a very ugly election, with us in the line of fire. I want him to prove me wrong.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread) (Link)
ex_prezrober685 on February 18th, 2004 - 08:43 pm
Discrimination is always a right
They don't really need a justification. I don't like a lotta things and maybe they just don't like gays. It's wrong but they have a right to think however they want. The majority even has the POWER, not the right, but the ability to discriminate... aka - civil rights are given to some but not all, children can't vote, affirmative action, etc.

On a technical note, I don't think that the Bible definites marriage as between a man and a woman specifically either, but I'd have to look.

Marriage is a liscense, like a driver's liscense... I think that means that they can pretty much do what they want. They ultimately do it to protect children and to serve as
"economic unions".

I don't think Bush would back a Constitutional Amendment... I think he's saying it because he believes it but he couldn't do it politically without a lot of fall out. And he's not codifying the prejudice, he's just not letting judges do the codifying... which I think is fair.

But, I tell you this... if he supports a Constitutional Amendment... Bush will lose me too. Discrimination may be legal sometimes, it may even be right, but never should it be in the Constitution of the United States.

Never.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread) (Link)
The People's Exhibit Adavidology on February 19th, 2004 - 12:44 am
Re: Discrimination is always a right
hmm..You raise some good points. I'll give him the opportunity to make the right decision there without reading what the media is quoting his advisors as saying.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread) (Link)
driftwoodsun on February 19th, 2004 - 08:31 pm
Re: Discrimination is always a right
But the judges aren't codifying - they're doing their jobs by interpreting the Constitutions of their respective States, which protect against discrimination on the basis of sex.

Once those Constitutions are changed to recognize marriage as only between a man and woman (as they have been in a variety of cases), they continue to do their jobs by enforcing that change and denying gay couples the right to marry.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread) (Link)
ex_prezrober685 on February 19th, 2004 - 08:38 pm
Re: Discrimination is always a right
They protect on the basis of sex but not sexual orientation, that has never been granted either historically or by any precident... as such they are writing the laws if they can't back up what they say with past events.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread) (Link)
driftwoodsun on February 19th, 2004 - 08:40 pm
Re: Discrimination is always a right
But society denies marriage licenses on the basis of sex, not sexual orientation - it's not that homosexuals can't marry (if that was the case a gay man wouldn't be able to marry a lesbian), it's that people of the same sex can't marry one another.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread) (Link)
ex_prezrober685 on February 19th, 2004 - 08:41 pm
Re: Discrimination is always a right
sex would be not letting a man or a woman marry... orientation is not letting the same sex marry. See the difference? A man can always marry... just not the same sex they prefer.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread) (Link)
driftwoodsun on February 19th, 2004 - 08:55 pm
Re: Discrimination is always a right
But who they can marry is an issue of sex not sexual orientation. If your argument is taken to its logical conclusion, then laws barring interracial marriage don't discriminate on the basis of race because white people can marry white people and African-Americans can marry African-Americans. Since everyone still has the right to marry, no one is being discriminated against. And this, obviously, isn't the case.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread) (Link)
ex_prezrober685 on February 19th, 2004 - 08:59 pm
Re: Discrimination is always a right
race is not the same as sexual orientation, no one is denying that men could marry just that they can't marry other men.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread) (Link)
driftwoodsun on February 19th, 2004 - 09:34 pm
Re: Discrimination is always a right
Eh. We're obviously not going to convince one another here.

Shake hands and call it a day, my good man?
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread) (Link)
ex_prezrober685 on February 20th, 2004 - 04:15 am
Re: Discrimination is always a right
Why not. ;)
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread) (Link)
driftwoodsun on February 19th, 2004 - 08:38 pm
Whatever happened to old-school Republicans?

If there's a political party that I miss, it's them.

"Excuse me? Make their choice for them? Make their choice?

See, you don't get it. This isn't your choice or their choice to make. I don't let straight bigots make my choices for me. And exactly when did the President start thinking?


Now this is the mindset I like to see - we've been groveling before the straight majority for far, far too long.
(Reply) (Thread) (Link)