Another Political Post (Audience Cringes)
Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, on the constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage.
So for me it is clear the reason for this debate is to divide our society, to pit one against another. This is another one of the President's efforts to frighten, to distort, to distract, and to confuse America. It is this Administration's way of avoiding the tough, real problems that American citizens are confronted with each and every day:
High Gas Prices.
The War in Iraq.
The National Debt.
Health Care.
Senior Citizens.
Education.
Crime.
Trade Policy.
Stem Cell Research.
Each issue begging the President's attention, each issue being ignored -- valuable time in the Senate spent on an issue that today is without hope of passing.
Thank you Harry. Who really gives a fuck if two dudes or ladies want to commit themselves to a monogamous relationship and share the same benefits that heterosexual couples have. Seriously.
Sanctity of marriage is a bullshit argument. BAN DIVORCE if you’re so fucking concerned about the sanctity of marriage.
The slippery slope argument is fucked too. It’s called creative writing. When you write the law; you say you can’t marry your sister, a cow, a statue, your five wives, etc. You say marriage is between two consenting human adults. Period.
So for me it is clear the reason for this debate is to divide our society, to pit one against another. This is another one of the President's efforts to frighten, to distort, to distract, and to confuse America. It is this Administration's way of avoiding the tough, real problems that American citizens are confronted with each and every day:
High Gas Prices.
The War in Iraq.
The National Debt.
Health Care.
Senior Citizens.
Education.
Crime.
Trade Policy.
Stem Cell Research.
Each issue begging the President's attention, each issue being ignored -- valuable time in the Senate spent on an issue that today is without hope of passing.
Thank you Harry. Who really gives a fuck if two dudes or ladies want to commit themselves to a monogamous relationship and share the same benefits that heterosexual couples have. Seriously.
Sanctity of marriage is a bullshit argument. BAN DIVORCE if you’re so fucking concerned about the sanctity of marriage.
The slippery slope argument is fucked too. It’s called creative writing. When you write the law; you say you can’t marry your sister, a cow, a statue, your five wives, etc. You say marriage is between two consenting human adults. Period.
Labels: Politics
posted by lawryde at
8:32 AM
18 Comments:
For what it's worth, I personally couldn't care whether gay people marry or not. I can't come up with one reason why they shouldn't be allowed.
But I don't think I would use Harry Reid's words to make the arguement. Harry Reid is against gay marriage himself, and has voted so in the past. It doesn't appear that he had any problem with the issue being debated or voted on then.
It's one thing to be for or against something. But to be for and against something is just stupid and hypocritical. Harry Reid is a moron and a political puppet.
By
Nick, at 12:32 PM, June 12, 2006
For what it's worth, marriage has been around in the civilized world for 6,000 years with no problems. Why do we need a law to tell us how to be married now? We used the church's rules on marriage to start. We created new churches for divorce, yet can't seem to take their advice on this one?
Personally I don't see how it is a president's responsibility to:
Control gas prices, Help Seniors, improve health care, lower crime and help education when you have a Senate and House that make the rules governing what the country is supposed to be doing. Oh and they could have voted NOT TO GO TO WAR. It was THEIR choice before Bush's.
But hey that's what you get from Senator Reid, huh? All the complaining and NO PLAN!!! Typical Liberal!! And they are supposed to be the "progressive ones".
(Our trade policy is FUCT!! Shame on you George!)
By
Steve, at 4:48 PM, June 12, 2006
There are already more pressing ssues dividing America. Why do we need to argue about this one? Live and let live.
By
Anonymous, at 11:35 AM, June 13, 2006
Steve, I don't believe that Andrew claimed any of those things were the president's responsibility. At least, not in this post.
The reason we cannot let churches decide who gets married is because marriage involves things like property rights, which is entirely secular and in the realm of law. This is America, and churches don't get to decide what is law here.
By
E, at 4:47 PM, June 13, 2006
Then why is marriage primarily done through the church. Why is it if you have a Catholic wedding that a priest decides if you are ok to be married?
If churches haven't decided a law then why don't we tax them. Why do we have laws against murder or stealing?
You can be married and not own property. Property ownership is not a right, it's a decision.
By
Steve, at 2:43 PM, June 14, 2006
I'm beginning to think Steve is a joke account. Nobody can really be that dense or write so poorly.
However, let me try and explain. I'll use small words. Pastors are allowed to perform ceremonies, yes. Are you married, Steve? Do you remember going to the courthouse before you were married and getting the liscence? You didn't really need a ceremony to be married - all you needed was the signature of the official and the signatures of the witnesses. Pastors don't decide whether or not you can get married, simply whether or not they will provide their signature. You may always go to a secular government official to obtain your signature. Marriage falls under the rule of law because when you get married you gain certain rights. For example, you get to visit your spouse in the hospital, you become next of kin, you automatically get parental rights, and you share property (you've heard of prenuptual agreements, I assume). Not allowing certain people to be married means that you're not giving them equal protection under the law. And that's bigotry, pure and simple.
Should churches be forced to marry gay people? That's a question I'm not sure about. But the government should be forced to marry gay people, just like they had to be forced to let interracial couples marry.
Steve decided he's going to play the Morality Card. I've heard this so many times it makes me want to throw up. Obviously the non-religious are out killing people left and right, as they have no reason not to. As an atheist, my schedule looks like this:
9 am: eat babies for breakfast
10 am: play god in my laboratory, create manimals
12 pm: murder
1 pm: bury body
2 pm: more evilutionary science
8 pm: Lost!
9 pm: stealing shit
Or you know, maybe I simply play by the golden rule. Maybe I realize that humans need society, and society functions better when people aren't being murdered and having their stuff stolen. And frankly, if you need a big sky daddy to reward and threaten you, you're not a very moral person to begin with.
By
E, at 12:30 PM, June 15, 2006
Oh Erica... suck it up and stop crying to me about your poor atheist views.
Liberal defense mechanism number #1:
Pick on writing or spelling of someone on the right. That is pretty stupid if you ask me. It shows your elitist character and why your party can't win elections.
Liberal defense mechanism number #2:
You talk about "law" and "equal protection" and then use the word "bigot" to describe a conservative. Nice try... imposing your beliefs on others in authoritative way is called bigotry. It's like the pot calling the kettle black. You are saying because you believe in something so much that anyone that thinks opposite of you is a bigot. Freaking fabulous there Ms. Eichman.
You are trying to change a tradition that is nearly 6,000 years old that marriage is between a man and a woman. Expect some fucking resistance. You obviously don't read my blog too often.
Murder? Where does that fit into this discussion. I don't give a rat's ass if you are an atheist. Good for you, at least you believe in something!
By
Steve, at 8:36 PM, June 15, 2006
OK, marriage has been between a man and a woman for 6,000 years. That doesn't mean it hasn't changed in that time.
In a lot of societies, men had more than one wife. Monogamy is also pretty dang new on a 6000 year scale.
Love marriages have been around for about 300 years or so. That's pretty dang new.
Fathers used to essentially sell their daughters to the husband-to-be. Dowries have gone by the wayside only in the last few centuries. That's new.
Divorce has only been an acceptable action for...gee...30 years? 40? Very, very, VERY new.
So, OK. We get it. Marriage is an old, old institution. But, like any insitution, it evolves. Why can't gay marriage -- legally, if not in the churches -- be the next step?
By
Sig., at 11:09 PM, June 15, 2006
Um Sig... I think you need to brush up on your timelines. Divorce has been around since Martin Luther wrote: The Estate of Marriage in 1522.
And just because polygamy exists, doesn't make it right and notice it is illegal in the US. If you are so about evolving marriage then why not make that legal.
And lastly, I have a good friend from college who's parents arranged his marriage in India. He got a dowry and the whole thing. I was a skeptic until I saw him with her. She is super fine by the way!!
By
Steve, at 7:56 AM, June 16, 2006
Steve, don't you think it's time to end the deception and games, and just come out of the closet already?
By
Nick, at 11:05 AM, June 16, 2006
If you read closely, Steve, rather than merely being reactionary, I said "divorce has been ACCEPTABLE for..." not "divorce had EXISTED for..."
And even if we're talking about how long divorce has technically existed, 1522 (using your figure) was less than 500 years ago. Again, this makes divorce a fairly new concept on your 6,000 year scale.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
PS: Even if readers cringe at the idea of a political post, they're obviously paying attention. the woodwork on those. :)
By
Sig., at 1:16 PM, June 16, 2006
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
By
Sig., at 1:31 PM, June 16, 2006
THE COPY-EDITED VERSION OF THE DELETED COMMENT:
As for dowries -- they're illegal in India, and have been since 1961.
Do people still use dowries? Of course. No government could obliterate an institution that's been around for so long. Does the Indian government stop people from using dowries? No. This is an example where a national government legislated an institution that had been an integral part of society for centuries.
And did it interfere with tradition? Not really -- it just gave people more options. Men who still want a dowry will still get one from fathers who are still happy to give one. (Side note: those men still kill their brides if they feel they got ripped off, too. Isn't upholding tradition GREAT?!) Here's where things changed: the people who didn't like the dowry system don't have to abide by it anymore. They've got another option.
Again -- it's a HUGE change to the institution of marriage, if only on paper, and 1961 wasn't all that long ago on the overall time scale. Marriage is changing. Period.
If the US government was to legalize gay marriage, straight people would still marry if they wanted to. There would simply be another option for those who wished to take advantage of it. That's ALL.
By
Sig., at 1:41 PM, June 16, 2006
I don't care if dowries are illegal in India, I am just saying I know someone who got one...
500 years is much greater than 30 to 40 years but it should be bone chilling enough that divorce is growing every years. Besides the previous years before divorce had people beheading their wives like Henry the VIII.
And further more, no one is saying that gay people can't be married or saying they have no choice in who they marry, what they are saying is they can't be married to someone of the same sex. Participation in marriage is a choice and not a right. It's not like a back of the bus issue or a you can't vote issue, where you don't have the right to make the choice.
By
Steve, at 4:15 PM, June 16, 2006
If I based my opinion of all conservatives on Steve, I would have a very poor opinion of them indeed.
I have to assume that you failed to respond to my argument that marriage is a secular institution within the realm of law because you didn't understand it. I'm assuming didn't understand it because:
1. You didn't understand what I was saying about bigotry.
2. You are the one who brought up murder and played the Morality Card, and then asked me why I posted about it.
3. You somehow think that a lack of belief is a belief. Not having an ice cream cone is not the same as having an ice cream cone.
No Steve, I don't read your blog. I could read the incoherent rantings of a semi-literate troglodyte, and I could also beat my head against the wall until it's a bloody stump. I don't imagine either activity would accomplish much.
By
E, at 4:59 PM, June 16, 2006
You can have any color car you want, as long as it's red.
That's not a choice, that's a joke.
By
E, at 5:00 PM, June 16, 2006
Hmmm... (sorry lawryde, I want to stop responding but I just can't, this one is pissing me off...)
Erica, looking back over the comments sweetie, you are the first one in this entire thread that brought murder.
"Look I'll cut and paste for you:
9 am: eat babies for breakfast
10 am: play god in my laboratory, create manimals
12 pm: murder
1 pm: bury body
2 pm: more evilutionary science
8 pm: Lost!
9 pm: stealing shit"
BAM!!! Right there in bold.
And get the saying right:
"You can have any color car you want, as long as it's red."
Red? Black is the answer we were looking for and it refers to Henry Ford's Model T's being one color. And again, it was not your right to have a Ford back then, it was your choice. You could buy other cars in other colors. Bad analogy...
"Not having an ice cream cone is not the same as having an ice cream cone."
True... But still some people are eating ice cream cones that shouldn't.
Nice try picking on me though, sounds as if your mind is already a bloody stump. If it is, then I have succeeded.
By
Steve, at 6:48 PM, June 16, 2006
Actually Steve, this is what you said:
"Why do we have laws against murder or stealing?"
And that's what I was responding to. So, actually, it was you who brought it up. Your reading comprehension problems are really making things difficult.
By
E, at 4:33 PM, June 18, 2006
Post a Comment
<< Home