(no subject)

[nfotxn]

From puckbear's journal:

"Activist judges, however, have begun redefining marriage presidential elections by court order, without regard for the will of the people and their elected representatives. On an issue of such great consequence, the people's voice must be heard. If judges insist on forcing their arbitrary will upon the people, the only alternative left to the people would be the constitutional process. Our nation must defend the sanctity of marriage elections."

-George W. Bush, State of the Union

Same Sex Marriage is such a bloody distraction from the real issues. That's right, FAGS DON'T CARE. Why is that? Because most homos want jobs and financial stability.

It's a matter of having your priorities straight.

Comments

[http://users.livejournal.com/speedy_/]

You are right George : People's voice must be heard :- Get out of the U.S. and let the presidency to somebody that will do something good for the United States. - On my humble opinion

[callingzero.livejournal.com]

"It's like a jungle sometimes..."

dont forget

[zer0ith.livejournal.com]

Don't forget that homos would like real relationships and commitment too!

*hugs*

Re: dont forget

[nfotxn.livejournal.com]

We have those already though. It's just legal recognition that's not there yet. I can wait on the legal recognition in exchange for economic stability.

Re: dont forget

[poodler.livejournal.com]

Well, are you talking about economic stability with regard to access to pension benefits, etc., and all the financial benefits which legally married spouses enjoy?

Re: dont forget

[nfotxn.livejournal.com]

That's very true. And I think those issues should be addressed. I'm not "against" same sex marriage or hold any other such puritanical stance. I just believe that it's definitely not the time to be focusing on these issues, at least in the USA.

[poodler.livejournal.com]

I like his attempt at selling the idea that law suits filed and won on equal rights issues are not a part of the constitutional process. Apparently state constitutions don't matter to this state's rights President. This is such a great issue to hammer the conservative, states rights, Republicans on the hypocrisy of their ways. And, of course, the majority of the US is not adverse to Civil Unions but you won't hear W mentioning that (it would send his radical right wingers to the bowl a-hurlin'). One wonders, does Bush consider the Supreme Court decision in Lawrence to be the result of "activist judges?"

[nfotxn.livejournal.com]

He's definitely picking and chosing his references. His handlers really ought to proof read his speeches a bit better.

I have faith that his blaring hypocracy will come to light soon enough.

[poodler.livejournal.com]

My years of cynicism have killed all remnants of faith. I think the majority of Americans are, well, stupid politically and will obligingly be led where-ever their prejudices and their politicians take them. I admire the Canadians.

but...

[slumberjack.livejournal.com]

A job and financial stability can land you a great husband!

Re: but...

[trckrfckr.livejournal.com]

but if that happens, you can't have a great apartment, according to Amistad Maupin :)

[danlmarmot.livejournal.com]

Heh. These things are never solved by legislation, but always in the courts. It is a big distraction, good for whipping up the conservative base now firmly in control of the Republican party.

I *do* like pointing out that as recently as three years ago, it was against the law for interracial marriages to take place in certain states... and fifty years ago, almost all states had miscagenation laws as well, supported by the majority of Americans. Times do change.

It screams hypocrisy...

[gmjambear]

What you wrote reminded me of the recent news story about Essie Mae Washington-Williams, the biracial woman who's father was Sen. Strom Thurmond and the fact that he had a relationship with a 16 year old black woman at the time when Jim Crow laws were still in effect.

I sometimes wonder if some people want to go back to the so-called, status-quo "good-old-days" and not deal with the reality of the world.

Re: It screams hypocrisy...

[danlmarmot.livejournal.com]

Oh yeah, I can go on and on about the good old days--especially when people invoke the 'what our Founding Fathers intended' argument--where only property owners got to vote (which meant men only--women couldn't own property)... not to mention that people could also considered property.

[abearius.livejournal.com]

The right to marry is a human right. I can understand "what we can win now" priorities, but can't say that I don't give a hoot about the issue.

My touchstone in this question is my maternal grandparents. They barely had a pot to piss in for the 40 years they were alive together. I'd trade financial security for the expectation that this kind of love can exist, shoud exist and can be respected between same-sex couples in the country I live in.

On the other hand. . .

[abearius.livejournal.com]

Idealism aside, though, Bush is clearly using this issue as a red herring to distract political discourse from issues of much greater urgency. Foul. But, well, what do we expect from a den of embezzlers?

Re: On the other hand. . .

[nfotxn.livejournal.com]

Yeah, personally I don't find much headroom for idealism these days. Which is shameful. The general feeling I have about the social world around is is akin to being late on an assignment. Much to do before you can relax and think about a point beyond the immediately necessary.

[jbear70.livejournal.com]

My sentiments exactly...