Blog Master G

Word. And photos, too.

Blog Master G random header image

Protect Human Rights

Tuesday, July 13th, 2004 · 4 Comments

It makes me so mad that the GOP is attempting to go to the Constitution to restrict rights by trying to make marriage between a man and a woman. That goes against not just the spirit of America, but the spirit of the Republican party. Isn’t the party supposed to be about states’ rights and less government? Except when it’s convenient for them to woo voters in swing states, apparently. Hypocritical bastards.

More kindly put:

Dear friend,

Congress is about to vote tomorrow on amending the U.S. Constitution to deny marriage equality to same-sex couples.

Never before has our Constitution been amended to take away anyone’s rights.
Yet our Senators will vote on this amendment in the next 24 hours.

It’s urgent that we speak up now. This hateful divisiveness has no place in
America. Please join me in saying so, at:

Equality in marriage is the civil rights issue of our generation. We can’t let
anyone, or any group, be singled out for discrimination based on who they are
or who they love.

Thank you.

Tags: politics

4 responses so far ↓

  • 1 glenn // Jul 13, 2004 at 11:28 am

    The Constitution should never be used to exclude anybody. These right wing nut jobs draping themselves in the flag are, in fact, the most un-American of our citizens. It is un-American to:
    1. restrict civil liberties
    2. actively violate the seperation of church and state
    3. to utilize churches to push specific political agendas (this also violates a church’s tax-exempt status; something the Catholic Church should think about a bit…)
    4. to systematically remove the right to due process
    5. to imprison individuals not charged with a crime

    It is treason to:
    1. lie to Congress
    2. violate the Geneva Convention (it is a treaty we signed on to, after all…)
    3. misappropriate and/or redirect federal funds, assets, ore resources based on favor and influence (anybody ever heard of Teapot Dome?)
    4. to engage in war and/or police action based in knowingly falsified information

  • 2 kim // Jul 14, 2004 at 8:35 am

    Not to step on anyone’s opinions… and I actually agree with you on this point. I’m just reminded of a jounalist who’s name I can’t remember who brought up an interesting view point.

    Disallowing same-sex marriage is not discrimination against any particualr group of people. They have the same rights as everyone in this country – to marry someone of the opposite sex. It is unfortunately a circumstance of that right the disallows them from marrying someone they choose to. In other words, I as a staright woman, would not have the right to marry another woman if I choose to therefore, it’s not a discrimination agaisnt any particular social group since I am straight, and still kept from marrying ANYONE I choose. I’ts simply a by-product of the law.

    That being said, it’s unfortuante that groups are now taking action to enforce this ‘written law’ in an attmpt to infact discriminate aginst those they don’t like, however, the intention of marriage as it was originally written (whenever the defination of marriage become a legal issue for tax and governmental issues 200 or 300 years ago) was not meant to discsriminate against anyone.

    Again, please don’t flame me anyone, I’m not trying to defend the GOP. Just playing devil’s advocate. The journalist’s statement (who was in fact pro same-sex marrige) was just trying to enlighten in an attempt to bring perspective.

  • 3 anonymous coward // Jul 15, 2004 at 7:07 pm

    Marriage should not be legally tied to any benefits or penalties. Perhaps there should be legislation the distribution of property and children after a divorce. But the concept of a marriage is completely artificial and arbitrary. It shouldn’t have anything to do with human rights or the constitution.

  • 4 anoymous coward // Jul 15, 2004 at 7:21 pm

    I must emphasize that perhaps the only possible rationale to legislate marriages is to protect the children, and those who try to take care of them. It’s the welfare of our children that we are fighting for. The government should not waste its legislation on marriage outside the context of our children.

    The only relevant question then is: can two homosexuals adopt children and claim benefits? I personally don’t know whether the children will be “better off” in a “normal” family. And I am sure most of our legislators don’t have a real clue either. So any legislation is arbitrary anyway.