(no subject)
Feb. 19th, 2004 01:09 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
dweniusIsn'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.
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.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
delayed processing...
Date: 2004-02-20 01:09 pm (UTC)I also keep hearing this straw man argument of "what's to keep people from defining polygamy or group marriages as legal?" Well, what's to keep the states and the feds from defining marriage as being "between two persons", full stop, no restriction on gender, no exemption for pets or trees or any other wack item somebody wants to call a "person".
Of course, I also don't think group marriages should be outlawed. Anyone delud^H^H^H^H^H brave enough to commit to such an arrangement deserves to fail on their own merits. Or succeed, possibly. The main problem with standard-issue Mormon polygamy is that it was so clearly intended as a means of widespread consolidated ownership of women for the purposes of growing the church. Ok I made that up, but you have to admit, a conspiracy of Catholics (or Protestants, or Jews) controlling federal marriage law as a way to maintain some kind of religious majority is much more interesting than the current lame posturing.