I’m pretty sure that no matter what your political philosophy is, we can all agree that certain ideas and attitudes are beyond the pale and that when a candidate for office expresses, hateful, ignorant, bigoted and uninformed opinions he has disqualified himself from serious consideration.
Dopers, I give you George W. Bush, who has now gone on record as saying that allowing same-sex marroage will somehow “undermine” the American family. Here are the Chimp’s own words:
He offered no explanation of how or why two women getting married is going to destroy my family, he just threw that little shit bomb out there as red meat to his most knuckle-dragging base.
I say this statement is just as stupid, just as asinine, just as ignorant and just as indefensible as if he had said the ame thing about inter racial marriage. I say this is the modern equivalent of Strom Thurmon’s Dixicrat campaign for segregation.
I really want to know how anyone with any brains or compassion can keep defending this guy. How can you possibly support such an overtly bigoted campaign? If you for this asshole you are spitting in the face of gay people and gay families everywhere. How can you justify it? How do you convince yourself that it’s all right?
I say if you vote for this prick, you’re supporting homophobia. J’accuse, motherfuckers! Defend yourselves.
Clearly, the “motherfuckers” who disagree with you are going to be tripping over themselves to explain their position, knowing that their host and audience are going to politely listen to and then politely disagree with their arguments.
Absolutely. And I would remind you that Bill Clinton supported the 1996 legislation that defined marriage as a union between a man and a woman when he signed the so-called Defense of Marriage Act.
And in its News Editorial of February 26, In Newsweekly, which bills itself as “companion to New England’s largest Gay & Lesbian News & Entertainment Weekly” wrote:
Well, there’s your answer, apparently, Diogenes. You ask how can anyone defend this guy, and the response is “all you liberal democrats keep harping on the same stuff!”
Yes, and it was also under Clinton’s administration (IIRC) that the “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” policy was instituted in the military.
But the last I checked – correct me if I’m wrong, here – Bill Clinton wasn’t running for President of the United States. So I have to wonder how that’s relevant to anyone who acknowledges that all Democrats don’t think the same way?
Can you not tell the difference between someone who “would not oppose a Constitutional amendment” and someone who is actively campaigning for a Constitutional amendment?
Anyone who thinks that John Kerry is a friend to homosexuals everywhere, and as soon as he gets into office, we’re going to be treated like human beings again, is seriously fooling himself.
However, there is a Clear And Present Danger right now – the President is trying to alter the Constitution of the United States to make it support bigotry and fear and deny me my basic rights. I’ll do whatever I can to stop that first. Once that’s done, I’ll start worrying about the Catholics.
And I look forward to hearing a real response to the OP, something more than “Oh yeah? Well you liberals are no better!!!”
Simple answer: There are a lot of people, for some of us a surprisingly large number of people, who think the idea of marriage between two people of the same gender is an abomination an a shifting of their universe that is just unacceptable. Any national politician who stands up on his hind legs and advocates the idea is dead meat. There will be a lot of balderdash to the effect that the Constitution should not be tinkered with for unimportant reasons, but lots of people on a visceral level think this is important. We will hear comments that the issue of who is married and who gets the benefits of marriage is a matter for the state, not the national government, but there are lots of people who think the question is on a par with the presidential succession. Those of you who advocate gay marriage and those of us who have no objection to same sex civil unions can only hope that the forces of rationality can get away with standing on the Tinkering with the Constitution / States Rights defense and are not somehow forced to take an honest position. Otherwise we may be looking at 100 GOP Senators and a %100 GOP House in the very near future. If you think other wise you do not understand the power of a united social conservative base.
Given the depth of feeling on this issue I suppose there will be people who are otherwise favorably disposed toward Senator Kerry and hostile to President Bush who will vote for Ralph Nader or with hold their vote on this issue. That strikes me as unfortunate because the likelihood of any national or state legislature drawing an equivalency between traditional marriage and same gender unions is about the same magnitude as compelling organized prayer in the public schools – Yes, I know that some state legislatures, notably New Jersey, have done something, but it falls short of the ideal the gay marriage advocates want. The regrettable thing is that while a refusal to endorse gay marriage may lose Senator Kerry some votes, an endorsement of the idea guarantees that he loses enough to hand a second term to Bush & Co.
People seem to forget that politics is the art of the possible.
Don’t you mean a united bigoted base. Look, this is not really an issue of marriage rights. It is a civil rights issue. Currently, there is wide discrimination, supported by the government, to keep a said type of people from enjoying the same rights as the rest of us. That is not right on any level, no matter how brain washed Jesus has made you.
In all reality, the state and federal government should not have anything to do with marriage. If they want to give tax breaks to families, then they should support the civil union, and not any marriage in a religious sense. If the xtians want the benefits of a civil union, then they can apply to have their religious marriage recognized as a civil union.
Honestly, if you conservative fucks bring someone to office that is not rhetoric bound, that has moral integrity and basic intelligence, and that does not demand blind loyalty from their peons, then please do. It has been too long since I have respected a politician.
And, once I calmed down and actually read the entire article posted in the OP, I saw that apparently Kerry has changed his stance from when he was quoted in the article that Liberal posted:
I’m sure some fucknut will come along and say that that’s just skirting the issue. Sure, whatever. Kerry’s as much of a politician as Bush is. But one politician is seeking election by leaving the situation up to the states to decide.
The other is promoting an unnecessary and downright bigoted change to the Constitution in order to win an election. As with everything else, he’s using fear and mistrust and hatred to try and keep himself in office. Except this time, it’s not those towel-heads who are trying to bomb us, it’s all them damn fags who are threatening your marriage!
Maybe, but does it not suggest to you that perhaps there is something wrong with this administration that so many Pit threads have been started about them? I would more readily apply the term “bleating herd” to those of you who do not question the actions and motives of those who are supposed to be leading the nation.
In the town right over mine, Maplewood, NJ, same-sex couples were just granted the right to register for domestic partnerships. Today, hundreds of people trickled out of city hall with certificates in hand, smiles on their faces. In the park across the street they celebrated this first step with balloons, live music, and hot dogs. There was joy and happiness all around.
An alien from outer space could look at our country right now and think, based on the administration’s rhetoric, that Americans are afraid of two things: terrorists and gay people. Our administration thinks both are trying to undermine our society, and they are willing to go against the will of the constitution to stop both.
