Bomb Throwing Pacifist
Monday, June 05, 2006
Barbarians at the Gates!
Why we need a constitutional amendment
Ooooh...a scary subtitle. I think I just felt a shiver go down my spine, and we haven't even hit the first sentance yet. This is gonna be good.
Today Mark Earley and I will be at the White House, meeting with President Bush and leaders of the pro-family movement.
Mark Earley and Chuck C here are members of the "pro-family" movement. But not the icky, cootie-filled “gays are people too” type family movement, complete with its gay-empowering Teletubbies family, the disturbingly undefined Bert-Ernie Sesame Street family, and Postcards From Buster’s Vermont lesbians and their maple-sugarin’ family. We’re talking about solid traditional family values here, like mommy baking pies in the afternoon and daddy giving a good ol’ fashioned leather-belt ass whuppin’ if the chores aren’t done on time. Coincidentally, Mark Earley (if indeed it is the same person we are thinking of-perish the thought) was a former candidate for governor of Virginia. Store this little factoid away for later kids, as it will soon become relevant.
The president will then speak to the nation in support of the Marriage Protection Amendment. Thank God we have a president who supports this. I have discussed it with him several times, and I can tell you that he understands fully the social, cultural, and legal reasons why amending the Constitution is the only way to protect marriage.
Sound the sirens, bells, whistles, and all that tackle, professor! I think we finally found the lodestone! After years and years of apathy on the part of GOP officials and the occasional pandering to the religious right in the moment of electoral crisis, we have finally found it. Definitive proof that the Religious Right and its Bible-thumping, crucifix-polishing crowd really is as dumb as they come.
Guys, the GOP did the gay marriage thing in the 2004 election to drum up support from your base and then proply forgot about it as soon as the last electoral votes were in, they used Terri Schiavo in Florida and even sent out a memo in which they talked about how this was a great issue for them to use to rally the evangelical base, and they're still doing it with immigration even as we speak. When are you going to realize that the GOP does NOT GIVE A DAMN ABOUT YOU AND YOUR PET ISSUES. This is just a tool. They aren't serious about banning gay marriage, don't care about gay marriage, and to be honest, probably would rather not deal with the issue at all. As soon as the dust clears and they are safe from the threat of losing their majorities in 2006 (or, more likely, after they already have lost their seats and have to start again from scratch), your little pet projects and concerns will go out the window and will be forgotten...AGAIN. The fact that you fail to learn this simple fact is I believe the single, most damining indictment of your religious outlook to this very day. (As an interesting aside, did you know the word “Cretin” was originally a Pagan Roman insult used to hurl at people who were considered particularly gullible or overly credulous- in other words, Christians? It’s true, look time up. Le plus ca change…) Unfortunately, a lot of politicians don’t get it. They argue that we do not need a marriage amendment.
If we want to keep marriage between one man and one woman—which they say they do—then all we have to do is pass state referenda. Nineteen states have already done so. So amending the U.S. Constitution is unnecessary.
And just when the wingnut is starting to make a little sense…
Well, these politicians apparently do not understand the inexorable logic of a series of cases that make it virtually certain that when state statutes barring gay “marriage” reach the Supreme Court, they will be struck down. Other politicians understand all too well, and when they claim that we do not need a marriage amendment, they are being disingenuous.
…it all comes crashing down. You see, part of the whole “leave it to the states” tack used by pro-family (whatever the hell that means) advocates is that once state bans on same-sex marriages reach the supreme court, they will be overturned on the grounds that they are discriminatory and discrimination is clearly banned in the constitution (or at the very least, heavily frowned on). Therefore, the only way to make sure that gays are not allowed to fall in love, marry, and get the same benefits Britney Spears presumably enjoyed for 50-odd hours in Las Vegas, it is essential that we draft a constitutional amendment permanently enshrining discrimination- presuming of course that the discrimination enshrined is of the gay-baiting variety and not of the more obvious racial type. It’s totally what the founding fathers would have wanted.
Let me explain the precedents that make it inevitable that the Court will uphold gay “marriage.” In the 1992 case Casey v. Planned Parenthood, Justice Kennedy affirmed the right of abortion with a sweeping definition of liberty as the right of a person to determine for himself the meaning of life.
And as we all know, the definition of liberty and the meaning of life are best experienced when narrowly confined and framed within the Bible-based, evangelical Christianity that is the foundation and strength of this nation.
Many feared this definition could embrace anything. Soon enough, it did.
Holy smokes! He’s finally found that website with the hot-hot-hot man-on-potted cactus action! Get me a black helicopter and a scrambled video uplink to Bill “Gorilla Testosterone” Frist. I believe this is what people in the action movies call “a situation.” I think this may call for emergency legislation. And no, I don’t care if congress is taking a potty break. I want them now, you hear me? NOW!
In 1995 the Court struck down a democratically enacted state referendum in Colorado denying special civil rights based on sexual orientation. Kennedy wrote the opinion, Romer v. Evans, saying the vote of the people demonstrated “animus,” that is, bigotry, against homosexuals.
Yeah! Nothing gets me more steamed than when people affirm their civil rights without a good reason. Next thing you know, women will be demanding the right to vote and hold office.
Then in 2003 in Lawrence v. Texas, the Supreme Court struck down a Texas law banning sodomy. Again Justice Kennedy, who could have used a very simple Fourteenth Amendment guarantee argument, resorted instead to his holding in Casey and in Romer v. Evans. By legislating against homosexual behavior, the state was guilty of bigotry or prejudice.
For criminalizing an act which hurt precisely nobody and was perfectly legal for heterosexual couples. I mean, how much more specific do you have to get before you suddenly cross the magic threshold of prejudice? And on another side note, before the other shoe drops and you decide to go off on a rant about judicial tyrants and activist courts blah wonk wonk yak-awooga circumnavigating the desires of the voters and in essence suppressing democracy, let me remind you of another activist decision on the part of the courts which no doubt pissed off the voters to no end either. The case was Loving v. Virginia, and it overturned Virginia’s racial marriage laws. Oh yeah man, that was totally tyrannical.
Justice Scalia delivered a blistering dissent. “Today’s opinion,” he said, “dismantles the structure of constitutional law that has permitted the distinction to be made between heterosexual and homosexual unions . . . ” He went on to charge that the case meant the end to the possibility of all legislation concerning morality.
Because once you decriminalize homosexual behavior between consenting adults, you start down that slippery slope and its only a matter of time before murder is legalized (and not murder as in the blasocyst-Americans variety, or the murder which is done when people wear uniforms and carry flags, but like real-life, killing murder).
Now, what all of this means is that the Supreme Court, following its own precedents, will declare any law restricting the right of homosexuals to marry unconstitutional. The die is cast. An appeal is already coming up from a Nebraska case in which a judge threw out a statute banning gay “marriage” as unconstitutional. Within two years this will be at the Supreme Court, and the axe will fall.
In the distance to the west, just beyond the beltway, a column of black smoke rises. The pungent stench of burning legislation is carried to your nostrils on the warm spring breeze, and in the distance you can just barely make out the black-clad barbarians, rainbow flags floating in the sky, gavels swinging through the air, and the sounds of the conga-line battle chat echoing through the hills and vails. Na-na-na-na-na…GAY! Na-na-na-na-na…RIGHTS! Na-na-na-na-na…GAY! Only you hold the key to defeating them. Call your representative and demand pro-family legislation, now!
Just as with Roe v. Wade, the Court will take away the states’ rights to legislate.
The time to act is now. Don’t let politicians deceive you and tell you this is a state issue. The Supreme Court has already closed the door on that. The Marriage Protection Amendment is coming up for a vote tomorrow or the next day. Call your senators right now. Tell them this is the time to vote to protect the most important institution in American life. And if you think it’s just marriage at stake, think again.
If gays are allowed to marry, then the next thing you know your boys will be allowed to cry and your favorite NASCAR driver will be forced to put one of those “equal sign” stickers on his car. So act now, before it’s too late!