House of Representatives spits in faces of God, country

The move to ban legally sanctioned unions between gay partners is dead for at least another year, with those praying for God’s will to be done seeing their hopes dashed by a wide 47-vote margin.
The USA Today story is a study in right-wing rhetorical predictability. Note the obligatory invocation of the term “activist judge,” the claim that Congress had subverted the desires of “the overwhelming majority of the American people,” and various references to the need to “protect” an institution that the heteros rendered far from sacrosanct a long time ago. All in all, just one more step toward the total marginalization of American Christians, who enjoy almost no representation in government and whose shrill theocratic demands carry no influence in realms such as, oh, stem-cell research and euthanasia.

Advertisements
  1. #1 by Mr. Ed on July 19, 2006 - 8:01 am

    The whole thing was done for show as the bill was already DOA. The Senate had already failed to pass the bill so even if the House did it was dead. This was just the religious right trying to stir the base and distract every one else, not that there’s anything going on now.

  2. #2 by Jim on July 19, 2006 - 8:18 am

    I love this bit:
    “Our momentum in the states is extremely strong and Washington is playing catch-up,” said Matt Daniels, president of the Alliance for Marriage.
    Daniels, who was involved in drafting the amendment’s language, said it was essential that Congress eventually set a national standard. Members of Congress are “the only hope for seeing marriage protected in this country and they should be on record.”
    Why is this guy “involved” in writing the ammendment? Maybe I should get “involved” with his church, and maybe, I don’t know, demand that they teach evolution and debunk Genesis. Further, maybe they should go to the EPA and have marriage placed on the endangered species list if they’re so concerned about it being “protected”. “National standards” for marriage? I am amazed that someone would even mention something like this. Are we going to arrest people that have affairs or get divorced? After all, those certainly constitute a “threat” to marriage by their logic.
    What we need to do is come up with a new term for marriage in the civil arena. This unhooks it from religious dogma. Let’s call it “blorg”. All current marriages would be a subset of blorg but we define blorg in the public space. In other words, blorg is what determines whether or not you’re single in so far as income taxes, spousal benefits, etc. This way the religionists can make whatever arcane, arbitrary limits they want on their “marriages” and the rest of us can get on with keeping our noses out of other peoples’ private lives.
    My wife and I were “married” in our backyard in front of a group of close friends and family by the town judge. It was dogma-free. Being that we were outside the reach of a church, I wonder how many of these “protectors” consider our union to be of a lesser quality as it wasn’t “blessed”? Does that make us a threat? Are we diluting the instituion? Did we not reach the “standard”? Or does the standard simply stipulate that a single penis and vagina are required? If so, then they shouldn’t call it “the defense of marriage”, the should call it “the single penis and vagina requirement” (SPVR). It’s much more honest and people would see immediately just how dumb it really is.

%d bloggers like this: