Burnt Orange ReportNews, Politics, and Fun From Deep in the Heart of Texas |
![]() |
February 24, 2004The Hate AmendmentBy Byron LaMastersHenseforth, on this blog, I shall refer to the Federal Marriage Amendment as the Hate Amendment. George W. Bush can't win this election on jobs or on foreign policy (because he's miserably failed in both regards), so he's playing the gay card. Blame it on the homos. Andrew Sullivan (someone who endorsed George W. Bush in 2000 if you all remember) has correctly declared (on his website, via a reader) that Bush's full endorsement of the Federal Marriage Amendment as a declaration of war against gays and lesbians in America:
Amen to that (well, other than the fact that I never bought into the whole uniter crap in 2000). Never before has the United State constitution been amended to rewrite discrimination into that sacred document. It took hundreds of years to amend the constitution to do away with discrimination against African-Americans (XIII, XIV, XV) and women (XIX), and now the President of the United States, here in the twenty-first century wants to rewrite discrimination into the United States Constitution. This is not only a declaration of war against gays and lesbians, as Andrew Sullivan writes, this is a declaration of war against the United States Constitution. There is some good news, however. Karl-Thomas wrote earlier that he wasn't sure if he could vote for Kerry in November based on some of his previous statements on the issue. Karl-Thomas, I'm here to tell you that you can gladly vote for Kerry or Edwards. Sure, neither of them support gay marriage (but then again, neither did Howard Dean), but both went on the record this afternoon as opposing a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. It's our job to hold them to it. The AP reports:
Ok, so now I just need to decide which one of these guys I'm going to vote for... Posted by Byron LaMasters at February 24, 2004 03:00 PM | TrackBackComments
Byron, Just a technical note. That quote above about the FMA being a declaration of war wasn't Sullivan's. It was up on his site, but it was an e-mail from a reader that he posted. Sullivan undoubtedly has similar feelings, but those exact words are not his. Sherk Posted by: Sherk at February 24, 2004 03:21 PMok.. fixed it. Posted by: Byron L at February 24, 2004 03:55 PMI have enough faith in Americans that they will not vote for such an amendment. However, it will bring out the far right wing who are still pissed that Bush is spending left and right and losing jobs overseas. Bush (Rove) wants them to focus on the non-issue of gay marriage. Posted by: Tape Dispenser at February 24, 2004 03:59 PMLooks like King George II needs his Willie Horton. It seems that the Republican Party once again has become the standard bearer for bigotry. I can only hope they let Pat Buchanan speak at their convention like they did in 1992 (I doubt it - he ran against W in '00). For those too young to remember, Pat gave the most racist, bigoted, close-minded, intolerant speech at a National Convention in years. It turned a lot of people away from King George I in disgust. They need to watch their rhetoric - their bigotry bit them in the ass in 1992, and it probably will again. Posted by: WhoMe? at February 24, 2004 07:10 PMCorrection: The US Constitution actually *has* been amended to deny rights before. The 18th Amendment to the Constitution prohibited the manufacture, sale, transport, import and export of "intoxicating liquors". (aka "Prohibition") The legal right to consume alcoholic beverages was denied from 1919 until the 18th Amendment was repealed in 1933 by the 21st Amendment. Posted by: Archivist at February 24, 2004 07:32 PMByron said "write descrimination into that sacred document." not deny rights. Prohibition isn't descrimination of anyone. Unless the alcohol was crying out in oppression. Posted by: Karl-T at February 24, 2004 10:35 PMWell, Edwards apparently doesn't know what DOMA is, from one of his answers at a past debate. So I'm not sure he is really someone we want at the wheel. Not that I'm excited about voting for Kerry either though... Posted by: Jason Young at February 24, 2004 11:01 PMIt's interesting that the Democrats could have the upperhand here by opposing a constitutional amendment. Americans as a whole may be against gay marriage but i don't see them supporting this amendment. I think come October this will be a non issue in the campaign. Posted by: Tek_XX at February 24, 2004 11:05 PMKarl-T the Belligerent: The prohibition movement was heavily anti-immigrant, though in the end (of course) it effected everyone. But read some history books and learn things. It's fun! Posted by: Aya at February 25, 2004 07:25 PMI don't usually believe in outing folks, but when they're as antigay as Lindsay Graham, who so often rallied the troops against Clinton, shouldn't his hypocrisy, if he is indeed gay, be shown as he supports this Hate Amendment? I've been reading for two years that his homosexuality is a known fact on Capitol Hill. How come no South Carolinians seem to know? Posted by: john taylor at February 25, 2004 08:31 PMI've heard the Lindsay Graham rumors, but I don't have any sources on that to confirm it. I don't think it's worthy of a post, unless I hear significantly more on it. Posted by: Byron L at February 25, 2004 09:50 PMWell Karl-T, Amendment 18 codified discrimination against people who were previously enjoying their right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness by manufacturing, selling, transporting, importing and exporting "intoxicating liquors". Hope that clears up further attempts at semantic tomfoolery. Posted by: Archivist at February 26, 2004 11:17 AMPost a comment
|
|