(no subject)

[dwenius]

Isn't it funny how, when things aren't going his way, President Monkey Boy is suddenly all "the definition of marriage should be made by the people -- not by activist judges." Hey, dipshit! If it weren't for activist judges over-ruling the will of the people, you wouldn't be in office right now! Thought we'd forgot, eh?

While I'm here, a few ran^H^H^H salient points:

1. The way to strengthen marriage isn't to amend the fucking Constitution to allow fewer marriages; the way to strengthen marriage is to figure out how to have fewer divorces. This is obvious to anyone who is not a member of Congress.

2. Speaking of which, Google is failing me here: where do I go to get the breakdown of the divorce rate among congresspersons? I'm going to assume that if anything, it is higher than the national average, in which case, we are letting these people set marriage policy why, exactly?

3. You want to kick start the economy? There's 10% of the population, if you believe Kinsey, who are currently NOT contributing to the steady employment of your local caterers, bakers, florists, haberdashers, etc. Make gay marriage legal, and the local economy goes [boing]. The Castro has had an explosion of flower/ring/liquor buying in the last week; this could be happening on a smaller scale all over the country.

4. Back to the will of the people thing...the whole reason we have a representative government, with a judicial branch as a safeguard, is to get these kinds of decisions OUT of the hands of the goddamned people! Jesus, "Bread and Circuses", go look it up! Besides, look at your domestic policy...you HATE "the people". Now you're going to hide behind them? I'm going to go puke THREE TIMES.

Comments

[tongodeon.livejournal.com]

1. The way to strengthen marriage even more is to surgically graft spouses to each other like that baby with the two heads, or that other baby with the two bodies and one head. You'll have a pretty strong bond with someone who's sharing your blood supply.

2) This is, of course, a classic Ad Hominem Tu Quoque fallacious argument. There's always the "who would know more about failed marriage than someone who's experienced lots of that kind of failure" argument.

3) Indeed.

4) In this case it unfortunately looks like The People *and* The Judges *and* The Judicial Branch are all against the gay marriage thing. Of course that doesn't mean they're right: but it does make the "represenative government protects the idiots they represent" argument moot when the idiots and the representatives are both on the same page.

[dwenius.livejournal.com]

You've read this in other places by now, perhaps, but in 1967, the NYTimes poll showed 80% of the population was against the concept of interracial marriage. That same year, the Supremes overturned all of the state laws barring the practice (dozens). So congress and the people may be lining up against, but historically that doesn't mean much.