Thursday, November 5, 2009

No marriage for you!

Good news everyone!  The tyranny of the majority has ruled against fairness and inequality in the name of their own personal disgust at people different from them yet again!  Everybody celebrate!
Maine voters repealed a state law Tuesday that would have allowed same-sex couples to wed, dealing the gay rights movement a heartbreaking defeat in New England, the corner of the country most supportive of gay marriage.
And here I was almost starting to think that there were islands of rationality in our country.  I was almost getting to the point where I could have faith in humanity again. Really, I should just be embarrassed that I could ever humor such outlandish fantasies!
Gay marriage has now lost in every single state — 31 in all — in which it has been put to a popular vote. Gay-rights activists had hoped to buck that trend in Maine — known for its moderate, independent-minded electorate — and mounted an energetic, well-financed campaign.
Just goes to show that you can't fight bigotry by throwing money at it.  It doesn't matter what you say or how often you say it; the people who voted yes on this had already made their minds and no amount of pleading with them or arguing them will change their gut feeling that being gay is just wrong.
Five other states have legalized gay marriage — starting with Massachusetts in 2004, and followed by Vermont, New Hampshire, Connecticut and Iowa — but all did so through legislation or court rulings, not by popular vote. In contrast, constitutional amendments banning gay marriage have been approved in all 30 states where they have been on the ballot.
Well, if there are "activist judges" out there after all, let me just say to you:  thank you.
The defeat left some gay-marriage supporters bitter
At this point, when it comes to gay-marriage supporters in this country, "bitter" is a pre-existing condition.  Any guesses why?


Pliny-the-in-Between said...

I'm beginning to think that I should just disguise myself as a gun. That way I can do what ever the ---- I want in the good old USA without question.

Sometimes I wonder if I am a different species all together. One that can't fathom why any one would give a damn what anyone else was doing as long as it wasn't predatory.

Stacy S. said...

I wasn't aware that you could vote to discriminate .. FUCK MAINE!

GearHedEd said...

While I'm not gay (I have three ex-wives; I likes my wimmens! :o) ), I have no silly arbitrary moral code that says that it's wrong for two people to wed each other if they're in a loving relationship. But I think the Gay marriage advocates may have shot themselves in the foot simply by using the word "marriage" rather than the more neutral but essentially equal term "civil union".

But it's too late to try that now.

Asylum Seeker said...

Disguising yourself as a gun? Would that be considered a form of surrealist performance art, the worst attempt to fit in an NRA ever, or the most patriotic gesture that you could perform in this country short of giving a bald eagle an Uncle Sam tattoo whilst setting off red, white, and blue fireworks?

And, sadly, you can vote to discriminate but only if you are discriminating against people that it is acceptable to discriminate against during a particular moral zeitgeist. Like I said, tyranny of the majority. The many will rarely consider the rights of the few unless forced to, whether through soft coercion in the form of widespread belief that certain minorities should be treated well, or direct coercion in the form of actual laws preventing it.

" But I think the Gay marriage advocates may have shot themselves in the foot simply by using the word "marriage" rather than the more neutral but essentially equal term "civil union"."

When they use the word "civil union" it usually isn't a marriage but only approximates it, and doesn't confer the same rights completely. But, seeing these results, accepting a civil union sounds at least like a positive step forward, even if it reeks of "separate but equal". But, if we could manage to get civil unions that conferred the exact rights as marriage, that would be perfect. I would hope that most gay marriage proponents wouldn't dismiss something like that just because people have a mighty need for the particular bond to not be called "marriage" in order to sleep comfortably at night.

I'm not sure if it is too late to accept civil unions if they come up, but it probably is too late to ask for them instead of marriage. We'll see, I suppose.

Michael Lockridge said...

How about getting the government out of the marriage business? Individual A can marry individual B under the traditions of social order X. Or not. People just do what they want, under their own system of ethics.

What? No tax break for being married?

Hmmm. Now we have to rebuild the tax laws.

Where is that can opener?


mac said...

If we allow gay marriage, where will it stop? Next thing you know, white people will be marrying black people, or god forbid, children will think these homosexuals are normal human beings. However, thinking like a man, it might just be perfect, I can hear that conversation now ~~~~~ "No Baby, honestly, I luv ya, but you know 'the man' won't let me marry you. Those Pigs"

Asylum Seeker said...

"How about getting the government out of the marriage business? "

In a perfect world, that would be the best solution. Personally, I think that it is even better solution than permitting gay marriage because then the slippery slope (I now pronounce you man, and man...and beast...and lampshade...and wife) concerns aren't even relevant.

" Next thing you know, white people will be marrying black people, or god forbid, children will think these homosexuals are normal human beings."

That's an America I simply couldn't stand to live in!

Michael Lockridge said...

I don't know any white people. I am descended from Atlantic Islanders, but they never have that check box on the forms.

: \

Richelle said...

every time a state puts gay marriage up to popular vote it makes me want to throw up. then when that state bans gay marriage due to the popular vote it makes me want to pull my hair out.

the right thing to do isn't always popular.

who knows how long interracial couples would have had to wait to get married if we had left it to popular vote. some southern states might still not allow it.

i hope one day when people look back at this they realize how completely fucked it is.

Asylum Seeker said...

White people aren't actually white. They're really just "skin-colored".

"the right thing to do isn't always popular."

Well put.

Pliny-the-in-Between said...

It would appear that the voters of Washington State may have broken the impasse.

Asylum Seeker said...

Yes, that appears to be the case. Though the article seems to say that gay marriage wasn't exactly permitted, but they are giving more of the rights typically allotted to married couples to those in "domestic partnerships". Which is, of course, still a victory.

Anonymous said...

Snippet from Hitchens.

"Lillian Hellman was once, in her declining years, talking at some campus and she would peer out over the crowd with her very thick glasses.

And, uh, there was a squawking question from somewhere in the back. 'Ms. Hellman why haven't you endorsed gay rights?' And Lillian Hellman said...'The forms of fucking do not require my endorsement.'"

I wish our state and federal governments held the same opinion.

mac said...

Alright, I'm a dumbass. But, exactly, what shade is "skin colored". I mean, that just looks funny :-) Heck, my skin is differently toned throughout the year...we macs come from pale, red-haired Irish stock. So yeah, I'm a pale fella in the winter, and just a tad redder(?) all summer.

Asylum Seeker said...

"'The forms of fucking do not require my endorsement.'"

Hear hear! It's like giving an endorsement to happiness, chocolate, puppy dogs, justice or rainbows. Everybody already knows that they are fantastic and any attempt you make to talk about how great they are is a waste of time. However, woe unto those with the gall to question the greatness of such things, for they will verily be torn a new one.

"But, exactly, what shade is "skin colored"."

The color of skin that "white people" have! ;)
(Don't think about that too much, lest your brain begin to rupture).

Michael Lockridge said...

When I was growing up "skin color" was defined by Crayola Crayons. There was one named "Flesh." Over time the people at Crayola lost their testicular fortitude and renamed that particular Crayon, thus taking from the world a standard for the color of skin.

Now there is only chaos and confusion.

Asylum Seeker said...

That explains it pretty well. If I recall, a good portion of me is whiter than the "flesh" color. Should I ask around to determine whether I am an albino? I could gather a bunch of people off the street and put it to a vote, which is how I believe all medical diagnoses should be made.

pboyfloyd said...

I think that this business opens up new vistas for gays who are playing the role of women in society.

The 'hard to get', or, 'I'm so beautiful, you're not getting a piece of this without some kind of license!

The 'gold-digger' or 'daddy's girl(???), "Why daddy LOVED me with cash and gifts, and THAT'S what I expect of manly men!"

Perhaps the, "All I ever wanted was children(adopted in this case), and I plan to send my 'asshole' out to work every morning so's I can just love-love-love my kids! Be expecting divorce when they come of age!"

I'm guessing that there'll be the male role equivalent of, "I hitched with you for your looks, now you're dowdy, now you're 'OUT!'!"

Can't think of a thing to say about folk who believe that their freedom includes the freedom(if freedom it is) to play these roles if and only if one side of the partnership has a cock and the other has a cunt, and that those born without the right 'part' ought not be (fully?) allowed.

Seems more and more to me that ruthless (survival of the fittest) businessmen who disguise their intent using their 'loving Chrisian' role would tend to reveal themselves as 'GodsLaw' Christians as an outlet for their 'true selves', an amalgamation of their conflicting roles in life, becoming the 'righteous, ruthless Christian'.

Anonymous said...

Good day !.
might , probably very interested to know how one can reach 2000 per day of income .
There is no initial capital needed You may begin to receive yields with as small sum of money as 20-100 dollars.

AimTrust is what you thought of all the time
The firm incorporates an offshore structure with advanced asset management technologies in production and delivery of pipes for oil and gas.

It is based in Panama with affiliates everywhere: In USA, Canada, Cyprus.
Do you want to become really rich in short time?
That`s your choice That`s what you wish in the long run!

I feel good, I began to take up real money with the help of this company,
and I invite you to do the same. It`s all about how to select a correct partner who uses your funds in a right way - that`s AimTrust!.
I take now up to 2G every day, and what I started with was a funny sum of 500 bucks!
It`s easy to start , just click this link
and lucky you`re! Let`s take this option together to get rid of nastiness of the life

Asylum Seeker said...

w00t! Spambot.

Makes me feel important. I'm not dead, just very lethargic. I'll try to come back, I really will...

Richelle said...