I have written of these concerns [about DOMA] to the President in separate correspondence, and I pray that he and the Department of Justice may yet make the right choice to carry out their constitutional responsibility, defending the irreplaceable institution of marriage, and in so doing protect the future generations of our children
53 comments
I pray that he and the Department of Justice may yet make the right choice to carry out their constitutional responsibility, defending the irreplaceable institution of marriage
As far as I see the matter, the President has already made the right choice, and with his decision he has done quite well to defend the institution of marriage against the onslaught of fundie weirdos. (Marriage = Bond of trust between two adult partners. Regardless of their biological gender)
Yea well, you can pray in one hand, shit in the other, and see which one gets filled up the quickest.
Unlike you, I've read the constitution, it's amendments and it's articles, and there's no mention of marriage anywhere in it.
Fuck all your ideas of what is good for the future generations of our children
You piece of shit trying to force your bigoted homophobic desires onto everyone else. I am not, nor will I ever, wear Jesus's thighs as blinkers. There are many more like me. In the immortal words of Derek "How very dare you!"
The constitutional responsibility of the President is that they make no laws regarding establishment of any religion (which giving in to the demands of the conservatives would essentially be) and that everyone has the same rights (which would be denied if the conservatives get what they want). You get freedom of religion, not freedom to insist that your religion is the basis for lawmaking. This is very fucking simple. And it's so important, it's right there in the 1st Amendment. You should read it. But take off your Jesus tinted glasses first.
Oh, you want him to uphold his constitutional responsibility? Because the only responsibility I see him needing to abide by is to tell you to get fucked, as, courtesy of the first amendment, your religion cannot be the cornerstone of law, and has no place in the government.
"In the name of the greatest people that have ever trod this earth, I draw the line in the dust and toss the gauntlet before the feet of tyranny, and I say segregation today, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever." - George Wallace
That's as close as I can come to the level of irony in your statement, Timmy, and I think it falls short of the mark. Do us all a favor and stop thinking of the children. It's creepy.
So you think the moment gays marry, there won't be any heterosexuals having kids.?
Hmmm, I know I like dick, but not even I think its as good as you do!
The Catholic Church is the last organisation that should even seek to speak about the protection of children. The abusers were protected and hidden by that body - just like it did with Nazis. It is disreputable, and the distrust reaches right to the desk of Benedict XVI himself. Remember Munich, Benny? Or is it a case of selective forgetfulness?
I've mentioned this before, but it bears repeating. It's time for us as a modern society to separate the spiritual side of marriage form the civil side. If religious folks want to keep marriage as a religous act, the let them. Every church, temple, whatever, may define marriage however they want. They don't want to allow gays to marry, so be it.
As for the civil side, let's stop calling it marriage and start calling it something else. Personally, I prefer the term "Domestic Partnership." It's two people, regardless of gender, who form a partnership for whatever reason to gain certain legal benefits (visitation in the hospital, power of attorney over certian matters, health insurance, etc). The Domestic Partnership doesn't even have to be for love. It can be two roommates. This way, religious folks can still keep their religous beliefs, while people who want the legal benefits of what is now called marriage can still get that.
Good thing prayer is fucking useless, then.
If you really want to preserve marriage, as you claim, why don't you fight to make divorces harder to obtain?
Oh, because that's not your goal, yours is to deny gays the same level of human being you hope to attain one day
Riiiight. Like the definition of marriage hasn't changed many, many times - even in Christian history. After all, it was common practice for the Catholic Hapsburgs to marry within the family - or does Carlos II of Spain not ring a bell?
Furthermore, it is NOT the President's constitutional responsibility to defend the laws on the books - only to enforce them whilst they remain on the books. If Congress wants to defend DOMA (as Boehner apparently does), then it may do so separately from teh regular DoJ.
In short, Your Grace, you are so full of shit that your eyes are probably brown.
Okay, where in the Constitution does it say anything about marriage? Oh right, nowhere. So actually Obama and the Justice Department are upholding their constitutional responsibility by ensuring the maximum amount of liberty.
Really if anyone is making a mockery of marriage, it's the ones who currently are legally allowed to marry.
What you're saying is kinda like:
Stupid badgers, they ruined laying eggs for everyone!
Or
Stupid Picasso, he ruined video games for everyone!
The abuse crisis is a very major threat to children.
...but no, let's talk about something that isn't, like gay marriage.
> their constitutional responsibility, defending the irreplaceable institution of marriage
Being a non-US person, your legislation is a bit hazy to me. Tell me again: was the DOMA part of your Constitution? If it was, I suppose it was their right to defend it, like any other part of the Constitutions. If not, well...
Marriage is not a fundamental right that the constitutions are supposed to protect. If it was, it'd be damn creepy.
Yeah because preventing gay people who could be wonderful parents to kids in need of adoption from having the same rights and benefits as other parents is TOTALLY protecting the future generations of our children. </sarcasm>
Seriously, people like you have no right to claim that you know the first thing about what's good for the future generations of our children, or about what's good for anyone or anything, for that matter. You people do your best to prevent things that harm no one and that may actually be beneficial, for reasons that have no basis in reality, and in so doing you create more suffering in the real world that we sane people live in. Abortion, contraception, sex education, stem-cell research, legalizing drugs, separation of church and state, the list goes on and on these are all things that have been SHOWN to benefit society in places where they've been implemented. And yet, for completely unjustified reasons that have no basis on anything that anyone knows about reality, you guys want to prevent them by any means possible. How fucked up is that? Do you enjoy perpetuating suffering and ignorance in the name of a God who exists only inside your minds? </rant>
(Sorry, I've been reading Sam Harris, it's been fueling my misotheistic rage)
Obama's refusal to enforce DOMA is based on his belief that the law is unconstitutional. He is supported in that opinion by several court cases. That's more support than George W. Bush had for most of his many, many refusals to enforce laws he didn't like through presidential signing statements.
If you don't like presidential signing statements, where were you 10 years ago, you hypocrite?!
And nobody is telling you or the Catholic Church they have to give their opinion of God's stamp of approval on such marriages.
In the Prop 8 decision in California last August, the court found, as a "finding of fact:"
"Permitting same-sex couples to marry will not affect the number of opposite-sex couples who marry, divorce, cohabit, have children outside of marriage or otherwise affect the stability of opposite-sex marriages."
In other words Dolan, you're wrong.
most religious people in the US don't care about the constitution, and only bring it up as another thing to rape during their arguments.
fuck them, unamerican pricks
[defending the irreplaceable institution of marriage, ]
If you want to defend marriage so much, then fucking ban divorce.
Presidential correspondence handler: (sifting through a stack of mail on her desk) Hmmm... what's this? "Dear Mr. President, I would like to urge you to consider... blah blah blah... think of the children yada yada.." (snickers, then tosses the letter into the rubbish bin).
Just for one day, I want to turn gay, and bring a couple guys with me, and just have a gang bang on this guys front stoop. Just go at it for hour after hour.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
