I don’t know how much more mental, spiritual and physical abuse I can take from the most conservative president ever. Oblomova brings us today’s example of Obama’s GBLT hatred [via the White House Blog, 19/7/11]:
President Obama is proud to support the Respect for Marriage Act, which is being introduced by Senator Feinstein and Congressman Nadler in the Senate on July 20. This legislation would uphold the principle that the federal government should not deny gay and lesbian couples the same rights and legal protections as straight couples.
The President has long called for a legislative repeal of the so-called Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which continues to have a real impact on the lives of real people — our families, friends and neighbors.
It’s enough to make you cry out “How long, O Lord. How long?”
June 28, 1969 June 24, 2011
Update: I suppose I should comment on the actual passage of the law, but frankly this shit is starting to wear me out.
Or at least, reading the comment by the 900,784,265th misguided str8 jackhole to argue that there should be two classes of citizens: Those who are legally joined by civil unions and those who are legally joined by marriage is a strain.
I swear to the God Mike claims he believes in that this shorter is 100% accurate.
The destructive effect of Equal Marriage Rights is SO POWERFUL, it sent shockwaves back in time and forced parents to neglect their kids even when simply being attracted to someone of the same gender was a crime and/or a mental illness!
Because heaven forbid we blame straight men for ANYTHING.
Shorter Santorum: Waiter, I didn’t order this flabby, pallid … Hey! How’d my ass get on this platter?
Alternate Shorter Santorum: Are we sure those civilization-destroying pervs have 1st Am. rights?
By the way, if anyone knows Dan Savage, tell him it is way past time to fire up the website again. Thx!
The Doughy Pantload (AKA Jonah Goldberg), on equal marriage rights, Take 2:
But all I can say in my defense is that I think I’m right about the inevitability of gay marriage or at least very strong civil unions (which would ultimately lead to gay marriage, anyway). [Bzzzt! The correct answer is: All I can say in my defense is I’ll shut up and never seek to communicate with another human being for the rest of my miserable life – ed.]
I don’t take this position because I’m dodging, or caving, or playing games of some kind [Butcha aaare, ya aaare in the chair, Blanche! – ed]. I just happen to think it’s true (barring some scientific developments down the road).
Yup. According to the Loathesome Doughfucker, unspecified “scientific developments” could stop the inevitable spread of equal marriage rights in this country.
Those of us who know a teeny bit about events both past and current tend to reach for the trusty blunderbuss we hear this kind of talk. It makes us nervous.
However, those of us who know jackshit about anything are free to blithely claim that gays were the best friends a Nazi ever had ergo liberals are fascists but maybe a scientific development or two will set things right, which is (of course) central to the point.
Shorter Ross Douchehat: We must preserve imaginary relationships between theoretical people at the expense of real relationships between real people (via MY):
This ideal holds up the commitment to lifelong fidelity and support by two sexually different human beings — a commitment that involves the mutual surrender, arguably, of their reproductive self-interest — as a uniquely admirable kind of relationship. It holds up the domestic life that can be created only by such unions, in which children grow up in intimate contact with both of their biological parents, as a uniquely admirable approach to child-rearing. And recognizing the difficulty of achieving these goals, it surrounds wedlock with a distinctive set of rituals, sanctions and taboos.
Got it? Ross has a pretty picture in his head of the prince and princess riding off into the sunset where they live happily ever after in a big castle that looks just like the Barbie Princess Castle Playset.
The thought that two princes* or two princesses might do the same thing simply ruins everything for him. Boo. Hoo. So America must stick this ideal between two acid-free sheets of paper and lock it up in an air-tight safe marked “Heteros Only” so the kw33rs, people who understand the Constitution and people who object to bigotry don’t get their filthy hands on it or the Barbie Castle.
He says all of this, even though he admits his pretty picture has practically bugger all to do with reality:
Or at least, it was the Western understanding. Lately, it has come to co-exist with a less idealistic, more accommodating approach, defined by no-fault divorce, frequent out-of-wedlock births, and serial monogamy.
The more these assholes stand athwart the roof yelling “Tradition!” the more they slip and crack their balls. I’m sure it will cease to amuse eventually. But for now, let’s see that again in slow motion!
I’m working a project that I hope I can pull off. Here’s a quote I came across that I thought worth sharing:
Surrounded as I am now by wonderful children and grandchildren, not a day goes by that I don’t think of Richard and our love, our right to marry, and how much it meant to me to have that freedom to marry the person precious to me, even if others thought he was the “wrong kind of person” for me to marry. I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry. Government has no business imposing some people’s religious beliefs over others. Especially if it denies people’s civil rights.
I am still not a political person, but I am proud that Richard’s and my name is on a court case that can help reinforce the love, the commitment, the fairness, and the family that so many people, black or white, young or old, gay or straight seek in life. I support the freedom to marry for all. That’s what Loving, and loving, are all about.
-Mildred Loving, June 12, 2007