Proposition hate
The 'stick-your-nose-where-it-don't-belong' crowd in California have won a great victory over fundamental human rights with the passage of Proposition 8 on November 4 of this year. As we all know, California's Proposition 8 was to eliminate the right of gay people to marry one another in the great state of California. It was introduced by the same old crowd who are too cowardly to admit that their real problem is that they don't like and fear gay people. It's the usual sad story where when they hide behind words like "traditional" and "sanctity" what the really mean is "we know what you people get up to and we don't like it and we will tell you what to do and how to behave." It is intellectual cowardice at best.
Who honestly believes that homosexuality is a "lifestyle choice"? That is such utter and poorly thought out crap that I can't believe that anybody with an IQ in the double-digits would keep on saying it. I wonder at which age it was that these people themselves sat down and made their own choice regarding their sexual orientation? Did they write out lists, stating the pros and cons of both homo and heterosexuality, with maybe a third list close by with the bi-sexual option because who wants to go through life with one hand tied behind their back? I wonder if the deal-breaker was when under the 'con' heading for homosexual they got to "getting beaten to death for being gay"? I guess that would scare a lot of people off unless they were totally hardcore. What about "getting taunted all the time" or "being treated like a second-class citizen"? Doesn't really sound like much of a "choice" to me, but now I've gone and yanked myself off topic.
Proposition 8 was originally submitted with the name "California Marriage Protection Act" but after the Proposition qualified for the ballot it was renamed the less snappy and far wordier "Eliminates Rights of Same-sex Couples to Marry. Constitutional Amendment." For some reason this new title offended the people who had wanted the amendment in the first place. They felt that the new title with the use of the word "eliminate" would be "unflattering" and "inflammatory", and they may have had a point. Taking somebody's rights away is inflammatory enough so why add to the turmoil if you don't have to?
The campaign was tough, as they say, and at one point the group protectmarriage.com sent threatening letters to groups and organizations that opposed the proposition. In the letter they admitted that they could be bought-off with a bribe, I mean, with a donation to protectmarriage.com. The letter was signed by, among others, Ron Prentice, the campaign manager for Yes On Proposition 8. Oddly enough, when asked about it Ron-buddy denied any knowledge of any "organized attack against organizations that have given to No on 8." This suggests to me that Jim should maybe read stuff before he signs it. Or not. It does sound like implausible-deniability to me.
The final result seems to be that a majority of the good people of California have decided that gay folk no longer have the right to marry one another (and if that decision is not revolting enough, there is word that the marriages already performed may no longer be considered marriages. It would appear that someone would have to mount a legal challenge for this to happen and I can't imagine what sort of complete lowlife one would have to be to do that, although I imagine that protectmarriage.com is full to the rafters with just the right sort of lowlifes.) Bizarre as that sounds in the home of the brave and the land of the free (as long as you tow the party line.)
Once again I'm left wondering; what has to happen south of the 49th before people will be rioting in the streets (not counting trying to pass sensible gun ownership laws.) The last eight years have been a low-point in United Station history as far as loss of personal freedoms (domestic wiretapping without benefit of legal oversight? I mean, come on, comrade!) US government agencies have unprecedented access to US citizen's private information, and now, peoples fundamental rights are being taken away in the name of "tradition". As if that were not bad enough, in the most recent case US citizens themselves voted to take away that right from their fellow citizens. Now that's messed up.
Anyway... Humouroceros
PS: Shermann 4thright, a frozen-metal licker out of Eureka, California who voted for Proposition 8, says, "I don't want no homosexual guy marryin' our wimmen. That ain't right. Would you want some homosexual guy marryin' your sister? I should guess not. That ain't right." When asked about homosexual women, Shermann replied, "Those chicks are hot. They make good movies and I'd like to get me some of that!"
Who honestly believes that homosexuality is a "lifestyle choice"? That is such utter and poorly thought out crap that I can't believe that anybody with an IQ in the double-digits would keep on saying it. I wonder at which age it was that these people themselves sat down and made their own choice regarding their sexual orientation? Did they write out lists, stating the pros and cons of both homo and heterosexuality, with maybe a third list close by with the bi-sexual option because who wants to go through life with one hand tied behind their back? I wonder if the deal-breaker was when under the 'con' heading for homosexual they got to "getting beaten to death for being gay"? I guess that would scare a lot of people off unless they were totally hardcore. What about "getting taunted all the time" or "being treated like a second-class citizen"? Doesn't really sound like much of a "choice" to me, but now I've gone and yanked myself off topic.
Proposition 8 was originally submitted with the name "California Marriage Protection Act" but after the Proposition qualified for the ballot it was renamed the less snappy and far wordier "Eliminates Rights of Same-sex Couples to Marry. Constitutional Amendment." For some reason this new title offended the people who had wanted the amendment in the first place. They felt that the new title with the use of the word "eliminate" would be "unflattering" and "inflammatory", and they may have had a point. Taking somebody's rights away is inflammatory enough so why add to the turmoil if you don't have to?
The campaign was tough, as they say, and at one point the group protectmarriage.com sent threatening letters to groups and organizations that opposed the proposition. In the letter they admitted that they could be bought-off with a bribe, I mean, with a donation to protectmarriage.com. The letter was signed by, among others, Ron Prentice, the campaign manager for Yes On Proposition 8. Oddly enough, when asked about it Ron-buddy denied any knowledge of any "organized attack against organizations that have given to No on 8." This suggests to me that Jim should maybe read stuff before he signs it. Or not. It does sound like implausible-deniability to me.
The final result seems to be that a majority of the good people of California have decided that gay folk no longer have the right to marry one another (and if that decision is not revolting enough, there is word that the marriages already performed may no longer be considered marriages. It would appear that someone would have to mount a legal challenge for this to happen and I can't imagine what sort of complete lowlife one would have to be to do that, although I imagine that protectmarriage.com is full to the rafters with just the right sort of lowlifes.) Bizarre as that sounds in the home of the brave and the land of the free (as long as you tow the party line.)
Once again I'm left wondering; what has to happen south of the 49th before people will be rioting in the streets (not counting trying to pass sensible gun ownership laws.) The last eight years have been a low-point in United Station history as far as loss of personal freedoms (domestic wiretapping without benefit of legal oversight? I mean, come on, comrade!) US government agencies have unprecedented access to US citizen's private information, and now, peoples fundamental rights are being taken away in the name of "tradition". As if that were not bad enough, in the most recent case US citizens themselves voted to take away that right from their fellow citizens. Now that's messed up.
Anyway... Humouroceros
PS: Shermann 4thright, a frozen-metal licker out of Eureka, California who voted for Proposition 8, says, "I don't want no homosexual guy marryin' our wimmen. That ain't right. Would you want some homosexual guy marryin' your sister? I should guess not. That ain't right." When asked about homosexual women, Shermann replied, "Those chicks are hot. They make good movies and I'd like to get me some of that!"
posted by humouroceros at 11:08 pm
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home