Open Letter to the Judiciary, Based Upon Right Wing Fear-Mongering
I love the fascinating glimpses into the fearful rightwing mind that you can pick up by reading some of the rightwing blogs. It is fascinating to see that some of them really do believe that the earth is 6000 years old, and that evolution is bogus. Really. Some of them really do believe that if we do not continue in Bush's Iraq debacle, we will have sharia law imposed upon us. Really. Some of them think that scientists are banding together to dupe us into believing in global warming, even though it snowed a few times this past winter, so the left wing can impose socialism on them. Really.
But this morning, I was greeted with this gem: " . . . many of us have been concerned about the unilateral imposition of homosexual marriage upon the nation by judges . . .". Folks, that is funny.
Here is my open letter to the judiciary, just in case the right wing is correct about this:
Dear Judge __________,I don't think those requests are unreasonable. After all, except the snoring issues, I like to think I'm quite a catch.
I would much prefer it if you would not unilaterally impose homosexual marriage on me, but I understand that it is going to happen anyhow. Well, if that's the case, I humbly entreat you to consider the following traits I would like in my homosexual spouse. I would like him to be wealthy, and generous. It would be great if he shares my love of cooking, and I would prefer it if you could find me a non-smoker and non-snorer. Looks aren't very important to me (at least in men), but if he wore the same size clothes as I do, that would have some obvious advantages.
Oh, and if he happens to have a remarkably low libido, I would appreciate that, as well.
Thank you for your consideration of this humble request.
Gone Mild
Labels: gay issues, right wing
posted by Dan at 8/22/2007 07:17:00 AM
17 Comments:
Are they paying for the wedding as well? I'm opting for an open bar . . .
Dan,
Call Chef "Ace of Cakes" Duff for your wedding cake. I bet he could come up with something creative in an Activist Judge/Gay Wedding theme.
I always snore at weddings.
I only support gay marriage if both chicks are really hot.
Nice job totally twisting my words with a single out of context quote.
No wonder you are part of the kitchen cabinet of a Democrat politician.
greg - "While many of us have been concerned about the unilateral imposition of homosexual marriage upon the nation by judges, there is a much more insidious threat to the traditional family wending its way through the federal courts."
That's not twisting or taking anything out of context. That is an exact quote from your website.
"the unilateral imposition of homosexual marriage upon the nation by judges"
Maybe you should choose your words more carefully.
Greg - the only thing twisted is your fear of gays getting married. Nobody is going to impose homosexual marriage on anybody else. It's not going to happen.
While we're on the subject of twisted, you shouldn't allow yourself to get so twisted up in side about the fact that two foster parents are allowed to see each other. You ask, "dude, where's my country?" All I can say is, it never was your country - it's always been a country for many people with many viewpoints. Two gay people being allowed to see each other doesn't diminish my country in any way. Sorry if that's not the way you saw our country.
My point is that the judicial branch, not the legislative branch, is taking over the lawmaking function and imposing new laws and new definitions of societal institutions on an unwilling public.
If the American people want homosexual marriage, there is a correct process for getting it -- through legislation and/or amendment. To take the matter out of the hands of the people is no more legitimate in this case than it was in the case of abortion.
So you believe that anti-miscegenation laws should have been allowed to stand until the voters of all states chose to revoke them??
And if your point really was simply a concern about what you recall from your civics class, why did you lie about the effect of the ruling, claiming that it would impose homosexual marriage on us, and give all intimate associations "the same rights as a married couple or a family."
Dan and Greg, you guys sound as though you were married years ago. I think that is sweet.
Jim - you know I would never bicker with my wife the way that Greg and I do.
Yes, but that is wholly based on the generosity of your wife.
No, Dan, because such laws were clearly unconstitutional, whereas those limiting marriage to heterosexuals are not -- and are, indeed, based upon natural law.
Greg - "...because such laws were clearly unconstitutional, whereas those limiting marriage to heterosexuals are not..."
Well, Greg, determining whether or not a given law is, or is not constitutional is just EXACTLY what the court and the judges get to decide. Not you, not congress, not the president, and not Fox news. The Judicial Branch has that responsibility.
"...those limiting marriage to heterosexuals are not -- and are, indeed, based upon natural law."
Exsqueeze me? "natural law"? Where will I find this "natural law" codified? There is no such thing as "natural law". The concept of law is a human creation.
Are you suggesting that homosexuality does not occur in nature?
Au contraire, mon ami! (that's French for 'you're wrong, sparky")
From National Geographic, July 23, 2004
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/07/0722_040722_gayanimal.html
"But, actually, some same-sex birds do do it. So do beetles, sheep, fruit bats, dolphins, and orangutans. Zoologists are discovering that homosexual and bisexual activity is not unknown within the animal kingdom."
On MSNBC, November 16, 2006
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15750604/
Gay animals out of the closet?
First-ever museum display shows 51 species exhibiting homosexuality
"Homosexuality has been observed in more than 1,500 species, and the phenomenon has been well described for 500 of them," said Petter Bockman, project coordinator of the exhibition.
I understand there are also some vidoes on YouTube, if you are into that sort of thing.
Xavier:
The US Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld heterosexual monogamy as entitled to special status the US Constitution, whereas other forms of marriage and pseudo-marriage (including polygamy) are not.
And I'd also like to point out that killing and eating one's young is also commonly found in nature, but that is not a basis for giving it constitutional sanction.
greg - "The US Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld heterosexual monogamy as entitled to special status the US Constitution"
Really? Would you be so kind as to cite which court cases those were? I don't recall them.
As for polygamy, I would direct you to The Holy Bible, the Sacred Word of God Almighty. Specifically, the Old Testament which is full of multiple wives, concubines, slaves and homosexuals.
Hahaha - that "natural law" argument sure disappeared in a hurry! Greg went from embracing it to dissing it!
I also have to take issue with Greg's assertion that "...killing and eating one's young is also commonly found in nature, but that is not a basis for giving it constitutional sanction."
Clearly, he has not spent any time around some of the children I've known.
Don't get me wrong, I love kids! They taste just like chicken! :)
Post a Comment
<< Home