Comments on: Defending Marriage From Whom?

By: junk science

junk science — Fri, 09 Jun 2006 20:42:32 +0000

I love that gay people don’t even exist in this little speech. It’s “activist judges” who are throwing handfuls of frogs and locusts at innocent God-fearing Americans who deserve the right to stop other people from getting married if it grosses them out.

And the best part is how clearly he doesn’t give a shit about this either way.

By: plucky punk

plucky punk — Thu, 08 Jun 2006 03:42:32 +0000

I wonder what’s supposed to happen when gay people marry?

I think what they’re afraid of is that nothing will happen, and more people will realize that gay people are normal humans just like everyone else.

By: Harrison

Harrison — Thu, 08 Jun 2006 03:21:02 +0000

I wonder what’s supposed to happen when gay people marry? Rivers turning to blood? A rain of frogs? Fiery hail? Bloody frogs raining down from above that explode into flame when they hit the Earth? (Eeeew! Poor frogs!) Whatever it is, I don’t recall seeing it on the evening news…

How about Pat Robertson’s head exploding? Now there’s something I’d enjoy seeing…!

By: Medicine Man

Medicine Man — Wed, 07 Jun 2006 22:19:55 +0000

Most likely the opening salvo of an election season rally.

By: piecesofeight

piecesofeight — Wed, 07 Jun 2006 19:35:30 +0000

I agree. It’s definitely a distraction. But for what I don’t know…..

By: Loosely Twisted

Loosely Twisted — Wed, 07 Jun 2006 13:45:48 +0000

I think this is just a distraction to keep us from looking deeper into the situation.

You know like don’t let the left hand know what the right hand is doing?

I think it’s just a smoke screen to cover something even more insidious and heinous and I don’t think we are going to like it when it comes about. You can’t keep it secret forever, but you can control how long it will stay hidden to an extent.

More of a power grab incoming? The war with Iraq to be expanded to Iran? I dunno, just some speculation because it’s sure has stirred the Pot. It Reminds me of my mother’s passive agressive attacks on me. She likes to distract you long enough til she turns around and claws your heart out by something she does deliberatly, and then rubs salt in the wound to make sure you know it was deliberate.

It’s actually more insidieous that he needs to use a smokescreen. That has me worried. But eh, I can’t do anything about it even if I did know if there was a “two” coming. (e.g. the one two punch used by boxers)

Idle speculation of course, ymmv

By: ks

ks — Wed, 07 Jun 2006 12:38:58 +0000

The whole idea of a constitutional amendment is horrifying. You can add me to the list of people who really don’t understand what the big deal is if my aunt gets to marry her girlfriend or if the gay guy down the street can marry his partner. The entire argument is ludicrous. And the other thing that really gets to me about this is the arguments that people use against gay marriage are exactly the same arguments that were used half a century ago against interracial marriage (I know this point has been made thousands of times, but still). And since my interracial marriage didn’t cause irreparable damage to the institution (and my children are doing just fine), I don’t see how a gay couple would.

However, I do see why they want an amendment. It’s because the laws against gay marriage are clearly unconstitutional under the equal protection clause (if an honest supreme court ever gets hold of the case), so they have to make it constitutional by putting it in.

And I’m really sorry if this isn’t coherent, but this whole thing just pisses me off to no end.

By: Tony

Tony — Wed, 07 Jun 2006 09:58:57 +0000

Sorry should have been “ban marriage” not “man marriage”. Perhaps someone with moderator privleges could change the letter and delete this post? Thanks

By: Tony

Tony — Wed, 07 Jun 2006 09:52:26 +0000

What I like most about this article is how Link calls Bush out his utter condescention and apparent mental absence. I mean, do you know how this President never says anything that any mainstream person could possibly disagree with?

Marriage is the most enduring and important human institution, honored and encouraged in all cultures and by every religious faith

How stupid would someone look trying to argue with that? Nyah nyah nyah you're wrong! Marriage is not enduring at all nyah nyah nyah!

an amendment to the Constitution is necessary because activist courts have left our nation with no other choice

No it is possible to man marriage nationwide without a constitutional amendment nya nyah nyah nyah

we must remember that every American deserves to be treated with tolerance, respect and dignity

No they dont! We should not treat people with respect nyah nyah nyah! The President says NOTHING. NOTHING. Yes it's true that glittering generalities are often used by politicians. But I've noticed that this is ALL Bush uses. He never makes any potentially disputable argument in any way without using entirely meaningless generalities. Folks, this is not George Bush speaking... it is a artificially constructed simulation created by political consultants and speechwriters. I find it beyond condescending but rather insulting that he thinks he can manipulate people by uttering hollow nothings while pushing through radical constitutional policies that will undermine the rights of millions of people perhaps irrevocably. Utterly insulting.