Time to get pissed, people! (First They Came For The Gay Married Couples....)

[docwebster]

(Taken verbatim from the wise and holy filkertom, with but a few edits)

Just so we all know what's at stake here: Your House Of Representatives has voted in favor of a bill that would not only outlaw gay marriage on the national level, not only prevent federal courts from ordering states to recognize gay marriages from other states... but would specifically prohibit any court, including the U.S. Supreme Court, from challenging the law.

Never mind that, out in the real, non-fundamentalist-evangelical world, no one seems to think that marriage is threatened by gay people. Never mind that, once again, the Republicans are discriminating against an entire class of citizens. Never mind that it probably won't go through.

These bastards are trying to disrupt the basic checks-and-balances system of the government.

(Tom says, in his entry: Simple translation? And I can't believe I'm saying this, but the evidence is piling higher and deeper every single day: If you vote Republican, you are un-American.

I can't say I agree with that part. I refuse to equate these bastards with the party of Abraham Lincoln. But that's neither here nor there for the moment. I will say if you vote neo-con, you're un-American for the very reasons stated above. But back to Tom's magnificent rant.)

Update: I looked at my rhetoric above, and I was going to tone it down. Too harsh.

Fuck that.

I'm sick of watching the nice, polite, Dems and progressives try to be rational while the Right Wing runs roughshod over pretty much everything good about this country. And I've got a few dear friends (and you know who you are, and you know I love you all) who are die-hard conservatives.

Fuck that. It's time to save the country, save the world, from the neo-cons. I will offend even close friends by taking this tack, but that's tough.

Trust nothing the Republicans say or do. Not even John McCain. Especially not Tom DeLay, Dick Cheney, or anybody in the Cabinet, and that definitely includes that scumbag milksop quisling Colin "I Regret Lying To The U.N." Powell. If a right-wing commentator, especially on Fox News Network, says anything, they lie.

I'm serious. The United States of America itself is in dire danger, and we're letting these assholes herd us to the edge of the pit.

No More.

A good for instance on Neo-con lying, from the indispensible Josh Marshall's Talking Points Memo.

It's time to get pissed people. Iraq is bad enough, but now these slimeball fuckers are trying to mess with me and mine and homey don't play dat.

Comments

[filkertom.livejournal.com]

Nope, don't mind awfully. I don't even mind your substituting "neocons" for "Republicans". However, I stand by what I wrote, for the simple fact that the entire Republican party are not neocons, the vast collective of Right-Wing commentators and evangelicals are not neocons, and the great bulk of people who have been misled by BushCo's rhetoric are not neocons... but they all think and talk and act with the same damn script, time after time after time after time.

Therefore, the problem, to me, is not neocons. It's something in whatever mindset it takes to become a Republican, to actually vote against your own self-interest again and again.

(cross-posted from my LJ)

[nsingman.livejournal.com]

These bastards are trying to disrupt the basic checks-and-balances system of the government.

Sorry, but this is simply incorrect. Those people (I can't speak to their legitimacy) are not trying to disrupt the basic checks and balances system. They're finally using it, and it's centuries overdue. I am deeply offended by the Defense of Marriage Act and its motivation. However, I am far more offended by the inconsistent, unprincipled decisions of unelected federal judges and justices, answerable to no one but the Grim Reaper, who seem to believe that the plain text of the Constitution doesn't have any special value. They're simply incorrect, too.

The word "supreme" in "Supreme Court" refers to that body's supremacy over other courts - not over the legislature or the executive branches of the government. Every branch has checks against the other branches - no exceptions. And that's just how it's supposed to be. This bill in the House is just an application of the power of the Congress to make an exception to Supreme Court jurisdiction, as the Constitution explicitly permits.

[docwebster.livejournal.com]

For the record, I wouldn't even mind so much if what you said was the sole motivation behind the act. But they didn't get their way with the Defense Of Marriage Act and now they're trying to backdoor (ironic, innit?) their way in by passing this baldfaced pile of legislative fecal matter.

It's nothing more than legislative petulance of a particularly nasty sort, and I can't escape that feeling.

You Rock!

[murphymom.livejournal.com]

My only exception would be to remind you (and others) that the Republican Party of today is NOT the Republican Party of Abraham Lincoln, no matter what they'd like us to think.

[josette.livejournal.com]

I keep coming back to the 10th Amendment. Which says basically that anything not specifically listed in the US Constitution is reserved as a "state right" When you register to marry, you get a license which has the authority of the issuing state behind it. The federal government has no reason to get involved in what to me is a local issue, except to make sure that the generality of one's constitutional rights is addressed. Will there be 50 different definitions of marriage? Possibly, is that necessarily a bad thing? Some states are "community property" states, so even in existing marriage law, there are finer points that vary from state to state already. Contracts in general (and civil marriage is a contract) are administered by state laws. Separate but equal doesn't work for schools or for civil union versus marriage. NJ now has a couples registration for gay couples and seniors couples, which seems to discriminate against het couples under 62. It appears to be a "marriage lite" They can file taxes together, authorize medical care. It's a start. So it appears that we're running this issue up the flagpole. Write a law, challenge it in court, smack it down, re-write it. What can we do, what can we not do, will it stand up in court? Eventually what I see happening, is a basic federal definition of marriage, which will apply to all 50 states and what everyone will have to acknowledge. (I know we have one now, but it's being challenged) Plus additional rights which will vary from state to state. Kind of like now, except the circle will widen to include a different type of couple. It will take years of tweaking to get it right as the ball bounces back and forth from court to legislative but I have the feeling that the Founding Fathers wanted the laws of the land subject to this process which eventually results in people being able to fully excercise their rights. Whether a view is popular or not, eventually does not matter. That is not how it is supposed to work. But I'm all idealistic like that.