Bush "wins" the election and suddenly backs off the FMA, stating that it is not really necessary after all, considering the Defense of Marriage Act is still (shamefully) in place and the senate doesn't really think it is necessary. Everyone thought how unconscionable this was, I thought "Oh, you clever bastards. This is so smart that I almost respect you." Then again, whenever someone fucks over a fundie, somewhere a homeless person gets a decent meal. Or a child molester gets stabbed in the balls with a rusted chunk of metal. It's my own variation on when a bell rings a fairy gets her wings. By the way, the entire notion of the DOMA pisses me off for a myriad of reasons, one of which is the fact that it was signed into law by Bill Clinton, whose complete lack of respect for his own goddamned marriage should have completely invalidated this bullshit as conditionary during the impeachment trial - but pardon me if I come off as bitter. Yes, I'm a raging Liberal - but what I'm not is blind to political irresponsibility, regardless of who it comes from. I still think Clinton was the best president we've ever had in my lifetime, even though I stood in opposition of several of his policies. Don't even get me started on the great, nut-filled turd that is "Don't Ask, Don't Tell, Don't Pursue".
Back to the Shrub. Backing off the FMA was great strategy on Karl Rove's part, I mean sure it pissed off all the fundies who moved to elect him in the first place, but what it really did was to ensure they get more mobilized and push for even more support to push this Sisyphean, nonsensical amendment into law. Very clever and underhanded, but then we expect no less from this administration. Tout morality with merciless furor to twist the arms of all the stupid people, and deny your other fuckups to the hilt. Case in point? Hmmm... I could get into the Chicken Little style Social Security Reformation that he's towing the line on, but instead I'll go to Guantánamo. You know it's bad when there is dissention in the ranks, too. When you've got GOP commentators siding with the likes of Maureen Dowd, it's time to wake the fuck up. I'll reheat Guantánamo in a little while, stay with me here.
Now bear in mind, I'm not talking about people the ilk of Fred Phelps and his cult, who admittedly should be monitored by us all, I'm talking about your next-door-neighbors. I'm talking about people who want to protect their children by teaching abstinence, even though it is completely ineffective. If that surprises you, cease reading any further until you've slapped the shit out of yourself at least fifty times. With all this talk of so-called "Activist Judges", why is no one calling out the Activist Politicians/Lawmakers?
Then you have people like Rev. Bernice King, daughter of Martin Luther King Jr., who so shamefully goes against everything her father stood for. You have this sick fuck James Dobson, who is all up in Spongebob Squarepants' scene on another of his Falwellesque witch hunts. You've got Concerned Cunts For America, whom I cannot even get started on as I'd have to post all of the extra special fanmail I've sent them over the years just to give you some perspective. And the sad fact is that any one of the people living within a mile of you RIGHT NOW could be minion to any one of these winguts. Scary? Thought so.
I'm not sure how I feel about marriage for myself, I never have been. Considering that it was never a feasible reality for me, I never gave it much thought. I am, however, completely sure that I want to have the choice were it mine to make. It just makes sense that same sex marriage should be legal. The misinformed (as opposed to well informed?) fundies that are all torn up about it are constantly making baseless assertions like "Marriage is a sacred institution, it is the backbone of our society" are full of shit. Next time you hear that, make sure they understand that MATRIMONY is a holy covenant, not marriage. Marriage is a legal arrangement. It is not the backbone of this society, but rather the freedom we have to enter into it if we choose that is so important. The Canadians understand this, even the conservative MP's get it, believe it or not.
The best the opposition has as an argument against same sex marriage is the notion that being homosexual is somehow a choice, which there is no evidence to support such an ideal, excluding the ex-gay movement, all of whom are egregiously dangerous liars. If somehow it were a choice, then clearly all homosexuals were at one time heterosexual. So conversely, all heterosexuals - following this same
The second best they can offer is that this is a moral issue. I agree, it is a moral issue, just like many others. For instance, let's take fair pay. Fair pay is a moral issue. Racism is a moral issue. Torture is a moral issue. Poverty is a moral issue. Violence is a moral issue. Sexism is a moral issue. War is a moral issue. Greed is a moral issue. Pollution is a moral issue. But let's put all of this aside, conservative & religious bretheren everywhere! Because if Neal and Bob get married, that is going to absofuckinglutely ruin my own family! Even though I don't know them or any gay people for that matter. Even though my own relationship has nothing to do with them, those damned sneaky homos, they're going to ruin it all for me. Ultimate ruin for this country, just like if we had a woman president - especially if she were colored, Asian, or Latina. HOMOSEXUALITY MUST BE A CHOICE, FOR GOD'S SAKE! Kindly ignore the facts. Move along, nothing more to see here...
So back to close this with Guantánamo. It comes down to this, folks: Anyone who supports a Federal or State Amendment against same sex marriage is a sorry, lying, puerile, jacked-up motherfucker and needs to be told as much. The same people who are using Jesus and the bible as an excuse to pull this off aren't saying a goddamned thing about what has happened at Guantánamo. Maureen Dowd says it best when she says:
What good is it for President Bush to speak respectfully of Islam and claim Iraq is not a religious war if the Pentagon denigrates Islamic law - allowing its female interrogators to try to make Muslim men talk in late-night sessions featuring sexual touching, displays of fake menstrual blood, and parading in miniskirt, tight T-shirt, bra and thong underwear?Can the Christian fundamentalists trying so hard to prevent same sex marriage deny the similarity so glaringly obvious in their rhetorical homophobia to the abuses at Guantánamo? Sadly, yes - they can. Arguing logic with them, even applying logic to them is like fucking for chastity or arguing sobriety with a drunk. For me, this has become the bigger moral issue, that of the hipocrisy of the opposition. Christian hipocrisy, especially when it tries to enforce legislation on my own family, is a moral issue. As such, I'll take every opportunity to rub their faces in their own shit. What about you?
As always, feel free to link to this entry on your own journal.