let’s get one thing straight. i don’t support homosexuals getting married. i don’t support heterosexuals getting married, either. but ultimately, they should have that right if they should so choose to indulge. everyone should have the right to legally bind themselves to each other and suffer the consequences.
today, on the 42nd anniversary of the Loving v. Virginia case, which allowed his parents’ marriage to even be possible in this country, President Obama decided to talk out of the right side of his mouth and defend Bill Clinton’s Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) from 1996. this law, for those of you who don’t know, says that individual states do not have to recognize the same-sex marriages of other states where they are valid. simultaneously, the federal government is prohibited from recognizing ANY same-sex marriages performed in the states.
let’s cut through all the bullshit and get one fact clear: Obama is a liar at worst or a two-faced opportunist pussy at best. for months now, people have been speculating at the motive behind the amazing disappearing (and re-appearing, and disappearing again!) act of the pro-GLBT language on the White House’s civil rights page. campaign promises to repeal DOMA have been sufficiently watered down to the point of a reversal of opinion. so what is it, Obama? are you capitulating to right wing crazies or giving your real opinion on GLBT matters? or do you just not care enough about your GLBT constituents–the ones you would have not won the election without?
while Obama opines about why DOMA is a legitimate and rational interest for the federal government, he includes precious morsels like these:
Loving v. Virginia is not to the contrary. … The Court had little difficulty concluding that the statute, which applied only to “interracial marriages involving white persons,” was “designed to maintain White Supremacy” and therefore unconstitutional. Id. at 11. No comparable purpose is present here, however, for DOMA does not seek in any way to advance the “supremacy” of men over women, or of women over men. Thus DOMA cannot be “traced to a . . . purpose” to discriminate against either men or women.
No, you fuckwad, it’s obviously NOT about the supremacy of or discrimination against men OR women. it’s about the supremacy of heterosexual relationships over homosexual relationships.
Section 3 of DOMA does not distinguish among persons of different sexual orientations, but rather it limits federal benefits to those who have entered into the traditional form of marriage.
No, you twat, it specifically DOES distinguish homos apart from everyone else. that’s like saying “we do not discriminate against black people, but we’re limiting federal benefits to only those who marry who we tell them to. (ie: don’t marry white people!)”
If [a State] were to permit homosexuals to marry, these marital benefits would, absent some legislative response, presumably have to be made available to homosexual couples and surviving spouses of homosexual marriages on the same terms as they are now available to opposite-sex married couples and spouses. To deny federal recognition to same-sex marriages will thus preserve scarce government resources, surely a legitimate government purpose.”
so we can’t give equal rights because it would be too expensive to give out the same benefits we already give to hetero marriages! how rich–or rather, how frugal of you. to that i would say, fine, get rid of all the apparently expensive benefits you give to straight couples. keep marriage a religious concept, quit getting the government involved with love and the decisions that two people make about their relationships.
fuck marriage, and fuck Obama, too. he doesn’t give two shits about your faggot ass.
HAPPY PRIDE!
