Oppose the Anti-Gay Marriage Amendment
From my friend T_m, who is a covert member of the Evil Atheist Conspiracy (his super-duper covertness being the reason I have to encrypt his name), comes this action alert to write your Senators about the proposed Same-Sex Marriage Amendment.
I think most people see the proposed amendment as a right-wing diversionary tactic that’s doomed to fail, and I agree. But it’s worthwhile to actually let our Senators know that this particular shit sandwich is not going over well at the picnic.
22 Responses to “Oppose the Anti-Gay Marriage Amendment”
-
Paul Tergeist says:
Your friend Tum sounds a proper dorkus if you ask me. “Marriage” is supposed to be a financial contract between two consenting adults, one male and one female. But absolutely NO ambiguous-gender dysphorics. Or Ornamental ping-pong paddlers (I don’t know what ‘oppps’ are but Michelle Malkin went through roof when someone mentioned the ping pong ball trick so it must be bad). Just no lezbeans or gender-jumpers, that’s my point.
May 25th, 2006 at 1:00 am EST -
Infidel says:
Alternatively you might endorse a “No such thing as marriage” amendment which sees all United States citizens as non-gendered, non-ethnic, and not a part of any sort of union; gay or otherwise. Children, custody, property rights, insurance, lawyers- it would be a huge opportunity for legal scholars and entreprenuers- and could re-align the entrenched patriarchy. Write your representative today.
-
Paul Tergeist says:
I think most people see the proposed amendment as a right-wing diversionary tactic that’s doomed to fail, and I agree.
-VioletWhat are they trying to ‘divert’ us from? Noticing the subversion of the state by the church? An overwhelming percentage of the population thinks we need to be on the road back to living by the Bible….which they believe, having never read it, means peace and love for all.
to 2: Women wouldn’t allow it. Marriage to a woman is a security blanket consisting of a 50% interest in hubby’s property, plus $19,000.00 a month in child support if he dumps her. Marriage to a man is usually seven years of hell followed by a lifetime of drama. As Woody Allen said, a wife only lasts as long as a marriage. An ex-wife lasts a lifetime.
-
Alon Levy says:
Marriage to a woman is a security blanket consisting of a 50% interest in hubby’s property, plus $19,000.00 a month in child support if he dumps her. Marriage to a man is usually seven years of hell followed by a lifetime of drama.
Uh, in what universe?
-
Mandos says:
And what does this have to do with the Eurovision song contest?
-
love2all says:
I’m a bit perplexed at Paul’s opposition to this..
Anyway, yes it is a diversionary tactic. You know, the repubs are doing shitty in polls now and they need something to boost them and force other conservatives to stick to their side.
You don’t know how many times I’ve heard my extremely conservative mother say (regarding voting), “Well, I didn’t really know much about Mr. So-and-so when I voted for him but I knew he was Pro-Life and I wouldn’t be a good christian if I voted for someone pro-abortion.”
Point being, my mother didn’t know diddly squat about who she was voting for in local races but BECAUSE they were pro-life, she felt it was her Christian duty.
Same thing with same-sex marriage.. many conservatives will think that, “Well, hey, the Republican party is really proving they’re anti-fag. That’s WONDERFUL! That’s SO CHRISTIAN! I can’t possibly feel morally justified voting for anything else other than a Republican even though they’re destroying the country at this point. Yes, a double shit sandwich for me, please!”
Hey, I KNOW my mother (whom I still speak to but for no longer than a few minutes at a time) will have her Republican faith boosted by this Amendment if it should pass and so will millions of other idiotic American Zombies.
-
Alon Levy says:
These people are a minority. Pandering to them while ignoring the rest of the country will get the Republican Party marginally further than McGovern got in 1972. In 2004, 22% of the voters chose moral values as their most important issue, in a closed-form survey; pandering to these while ignoring those who voted Bush because they said the most important quality in a President was honesty or strong leadership is a stupid tactic.
-
love2all says:
I know, I know, some of you don’t think this latest tactic will work with most republicans. I hope not. But the majority of the republicans and homophobes *I* know will fall for this and will give them one more reason to vote Republican again. I guess they’re just trying to do whatever it takes to get a few more people back on the bandwagon. It might work, sadly.
It’s also sad that my husband and I are pretty much lone liberals in my family and neighborhood.
-
Paul Tergeist says:
to 4: In this one.
Diddy’s appeal denied, must pay high child support
from 6: “I’m a bit perplexed at Paul’s opposition to this..”
OK, you caught me. I am not opposed to it, I was writing the minority opinion and attempting to emulate Violet’s sarcastic tone. You made a very nice post.
-
Violet says:
I know, I know, some of you don’t think this latest tactic will work with most republicans. I hope not. But the majority of the republicans and homophobes I know will fall for this and will give them one more reason to vote Republican again.
I hear you. I’ve lost track of the number of times we on the left thought for sure the country would go our way now, after all this, only to be smacked upside the head by a reality that refuses to conform to our expectations.
I am noticing that the small-town papers in Jesusland are weighing in with their pro-Amendment editorials. Jesusland is a weird place.
-
Alon Levy says:
Well, I’d agree with that observation, Violet, if Bush didn’t have an approval ratings most leaders get assassinated at. Of course wingnuts and other Republicans will fall for it; the good thing is that the moderates won’t.
-
Paul Tergeist says:
I would have been happy if he had got assassinated at the rating he had when he was elected. Is the NSA reading this?
to 10: Are you seriously suggesting that people are dumb enough to vote Republican because the party started some hokum about a gay marriage amendment? ‘Cause if you are, I am going to have to find my way to a smarter place.
-
Violet says:
‘Cause if you are, I am going to have to find my way to a smarter place.
Personally, I’d be delighted to have the blue states peel off into a separate country and let the red states incorporate as Jesusland. Remember those maps after the ’04 election? I saved one somewhere. I think it showed the blue states joined with Canada for the United States of Canada. (That’s assuming the Canadians would even have us.)
It’s interesting to overlay the red state/blue state map with the antebellum map of slave and free states (and territories). Not much has changed.
-
Mandos says:
Us Canadians wouldn’t, and not because of anything about the blue states, at least not primarily. Canada’s got a delicate population balance and too many Americans would disrupt it. Sometimes it not about you :)
-
Alon Levy says:
Well, I’ve seen another map, which has Alberta joined with Jesusland but the rest of Canada intact and together with Blue America. Not that Canada would want to have to deal with a huge area with broken health care and excessive murder, but still…
-
Violet says:
Sometimes it not about you :)
No, it’s always about us! We are the sun…
-
Violet says:
BTW, Mandos, I’m loving that book, Kiln People. You will not have to PayPal me the $7.99 after all.
-
Mandos says:
Well, I’ve seen another map, which has Alberta joined with Jesusland but the rest of Canada intact and together with Blue America. Not that Canada would want to have to deal with a huge area with broken health care and excessive murder, but still…
Canadians (including me) joke about lopping off Alberta, but in reality, it would be just as disruptive as anything else. I have family in Alberta. If we lopped off Alberta, we’d also lose the Rockies, and how would we get to BC?
Seriously, though. I’m living in America now, have been for the past couple of years. Scale makes a difference. In Canada, we do see each other more as family, I think, even when we’re angry at one another. I’ve never actually been to BC, but I suspect that I think of Brandon, Manitoba more as “home” than the average…SFian thinks of Topeka, Kansas. Everyone in Canada gets the jokes on Corner Gas (rural humour) or the now cancelled This is Wonderland (downtown Toronto lawyers).
Canadian divisions also have a different quality even when they’re bitter. Quebec speaks a different language, but the average Quebec separatist doesn’t really want to leave—the mainstream position is to have some kind of looser EU-like federation. It’s really, “I love you but I’m frustrated that I don’t know how to tell you how to love me.” I spent a lot of time on my blogs analysing this. (Alas I neglect my blogs now.)
This kind of political intimacy wouldn’t be sustained, needless to say, if we added millions of Americans.
Violet in 17: Next you will have to read the Uplift Saga, all six of them. You may want to avoid his gender dys/utopia, Glory Season, though.
-
Paul Tergeist says:
I’m pretty certain we are going to annex Canada in the near future, but first we have to explain to Puerto Rico why they lost their spot in line.
-
gordo says:
Thanks for the reminder about the amendment. You can bet that our senators will be innundated with e-mails, letters, and telegrams from the Puritans. It’s easy to get complacent when media is repeating over and over that the amendment has no chance of passing.
-
BAC says:
Of course the federal marriage amendment is a political tool of the Republican party … why else would they roll it out every two years?
Rove knows it’s the only way to get the base motivated to GOTV … and God knows they are going to need it THIS year! Even conservative religious right Republicans are angry with Bush.
As for Paul, he seems firmly entrenched in the 20th Century.
BAC
-
Jim Deeny says:
No one wins. Winning is contagious just so we all gain that comradery you know. Do what’s right.
