Bachmann, Kline suit to stop D.C. gay marriage dismissed

After watching her guru Pat Robertson “explain” the Haitian earthquake, I finally figured out how a certifiable loony like Bachman made it all the way to Congress: a pact with Satan.

Denying democracy – Democratic style!! There’s always been a good ‘reason’ to not allow the voters to weigh in on critical issues like the definition of marriage. The liberals have yet to discover a good reason, though. Americans don’t want same-sex marriage.

Steve, democracy has not been denied in this case. The city council of the District of Columbia, which was democratically elected, passed a law to allow same-sex marriage. If the citizens of DC do not like what their council members did, they can vote them out during the next election.

Representatives Bachmann and Kline shouldn’t have any say one way or the other regarding this law as they are not citizens of DC.

Steve, you don’t understand our nation’s legal system, do you? We can’t enact laws that violate other laws. That you don’t like gay people doesn’t mean the country can break the law to stop them from marrying.

Steve,

You write, “Americans don’t want same-sex marriage.”

May I ask which Americans you are referring to? Because, as far as my birth certificate says, I’m an American, and I support same-sex marriage (if you didn’t glean that information from my name).

So obviously you cannot mean, “All Americans don’t want same-sex marriage.”

Please speak for yourself.

And if you try to bring up polls, think on this:

In 1948, roughly 90% of the adult U.S. population was strongly (morally) opposed to interracial marriages when California became the first state to legalize them.

In 1967, still 76% of the adult U.S. population was strongly (morally) opposed to interracial marriages when the Supreme Court of the United States legalized interracial marriages that year.

It wasn’t until 1991 when those polled showed that the percentage of Americans who opposed interracial marriages was in the minority.

Now, you may say that you’re not a racist (and, agreed, you most likely aren’t). But this just goes to show you that the majority should not be the final vote when it comes to people’s rights. That’s why we have a Constitution and a Bill of Rights, to protect the rights of the minority from the majority.

You can argue, “But there isn’t a right to marry in the Bill of Rights.” Look again. The 9th Amendment states, “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

Basically, it is saying that just because some rights are not enumerated, or written down in the list, does not mean they do not exist and can therefore be denied to the people. I don’t know about you, but I feel that I have a right to get married.

You can say, “Sure, you have the right to get married, but only to a person of the opposite sex.” And that’s just a farce. Believe you me, back in the 40s, 50s, and 60s, people were telling interracial couples, “You have the right to get married, but only to people of the same race.”

Such discrimination cannot be tolerated, Steve, and it’s high time you, and everyone like you, started realizing that.

DEMOCRATS = GAY MARRIAGE

Only way to protect your children is to vote them out of office in 2010.

REPUBLICANS=IGNORANCE

Only way to protect your children is to vote them out of office in 2010.

Mary,
I taught school for 33 years before retiring at the end of May 2009. We had quite a few members of our faculty and bus drivers who were LGTB individuals, and none of them attempted to molest the students. The molestation problems occurred with male heterosexuals who, subsequently, were fired or forced to resign. Let me say it again. Not one LGBT person was EVER found to have posed a threat to the students. NONE.

This is a FALLACY created and propagated by far right-wing dominionists with no basis in fact intended to deny American citizens their constitutional rights.

Your comments are spot on, Progressively Queer!

[...] the Minnesota Independent: The District argued that a referendum on marriage would violate its non-discrimination laws, and [...]

equal protection under our law is a bedrock of our constitutional republic.

eventually the tide of history will wash away the bigotry and misinformation that continues to impede some American’s ability to enjoy their rights as citizens.

we’re not there yet.

‘Who can I hate and fear and build fictitious threatening narratives about now?’, asks the right-wing religionist. What mere difference between people can I cook up into a grand conspiracy and imaginary threat to country, family and faith? What Other or unfamiliar social reality can I profoundly misunderstand, concoct urban legends about, and discriminate against and dehumanize? What other social issues can I ignore the complexity of and reduce to simple-minded ideological formulas? Where would my shaky sense of self and identity be if I can’t put myself into the category of the good, godly and moral, and shove everyone else not like me into categories of evil, ripe for social exclusion? I’ve stopped using my mind years ago, preferring stasis to curiosity, current prejudice to the quest for knowledge–and this is the basis for my “moral absolutes.”