Gay-bashing, presidential style.

Posted by admin
Jun 07 2006

I just can’t get used to Bush’s thinly veiled gay bashing.

President’s Statement on the Senate’s Marriage Protection Amendment Vote (White House):

Today’s Senate vote on the Marriage Protection Amendment marks the start of a new chapter in this important national debate. I thank the Senators who supported this Amendment, but I am disappointed the Senate did not achieve the necessary number of votes to move the amendment process forward. Our Nation’s founders set a high bar for amending our Constitution – and history has shown us that it can take several tries before an Amendment builds the two-thirds support it needs in both houses of Congress. My position on this issue is clear: marriage is the most fundamental institution of our society, and it should not be redefined by activist judges. The people must be heard on this issue. And as this debate continues, each American deserves to be treated with tolerance, respect, and dignity.

Let’s review:

First, how does the Gay and Lesbian Discrimination Marriage Protection Amendment protect marriage? Neither Michelle or I feel as if two men or women deciding to make a lifelong commitment to each other will undercut our relationship. A note to Bush and Company: Go “protect” someone else’s marriage. You don’t speak for us.

Second, what is this “national debate” Bush cites? If it is a debate between one group of people who are homophobic and itching to write discrimination into the Constitution and another group who think that the first group consists of a bunch of ignorant jerks who want to deny a group of people basic legal rights because two people who want to establish a life-long commitment with each other just happen to have the same biological plumbing, then okay, maybe there is a national debate.

Third, will Bush and his gang of homophobes please, please, please publicly and specifically name those ethereal, wicked “activist judges” they fear so much? My guess is that they would not name such names as Alito, Scalia, or Thomas. No, those are “activist judges.” They are “doormat judges” for the neo-conservative movement.

Fourth, if marriage is so flippin’ “fundamental” an institution, why not “protect” it by doing away with divorce? I never get an answer to this from people who worry that a marriage between Steve and Luke or Cindy and Mary will do far greater harm to the institution than a Mark or Susan divorcing.

Lastly, I am going to call bullfeathers (I’d call it something more crude, but I want my grandmothers to continue reading this blog without blushing too much) on Bush’s last line: “And as this debate continues, each American deserves to be treated with tolerance, respect, and dignity.” Forget that he just spent the last few sentences outlining a prescription for intolerance, disrespect, and heaping indignities on a group of people. Forget that our Dear Sniveling Leader does not mention gays or lesbians in the “national debate” he wants us to have when he knows full well that this is at the core of his “Marriage Protection Amendment.” No, what is truly insulting is that Mr. “Is our children learning?” Bush begins a sentence with “and!” This president isn’t simply a bigot. He is an ignorant bigot.

Well, at least the president and Congress can get back to the real priorities and address poverty alleviation, improving our public infrastructure, and putting together a universal health care package, reducing the deficit (with a nod to Ellen T. who added this comment to a recent post), cleaning up the mess that has become Bush’s war in Iraq and Afghanistan… *scree-ee-ee-ee-eech-ch-ch!!!*

Oh, wait a dog-gone minute. The government of Haves need to make sure that our nation institutes a system of anti-democratic, hereditary wealth by doing away with the Estate Tax. Sorry, everyone, the demands of the nouveau-riche need to be placated as Congress and the White House seek to elevate a select group of people to the status of becoming our nation’s aristocracy.

Trackback URL for this entry