Hypocracy of Family Values  

MissAnnThrope 56F
11679 posts
6/6/2006 12:27 pm

Last Read:
11/20/2007 9:53 am

Hypocracy of Family Values

Next week, Congress is set to vote on the Federal Marriage Amendment. Again. This move didn't make it past the Senate in 2004 and I'm hoping to every deity out there it doesn't again.

Now, if you don't want gays and lesbians to get married, fine. Leave it up to the states. But let them have civil unions, at least. If two people love each other deeply, they did not make a choice to be gay, no matter what some religious group tells you.

This legislation is bad in many ways. At the moment, companies offer benefits to domestic partnership arrangements. Especially retailers, as that is a notorious profession for gay men. I used to tease an old boss at Macy's about being a straight man in retail and how he should think about a career change.

This amendment doesn't just ban gay marriage. It goes against the Ninth Amendment of the Constitution, which is part of the bill of rights. This strips away ALL YOUR RIGHTS if you're gay. If this passes, it takes away all the civil rights gays have now. No more health insurance if you're living in sin and gay. Only if you're straight and shacked up. No more being able to visit your lover of 30 years who is in ICU dying. Hell, a lot of hospitals still won't allow that. But if you're straight and in a common law marriage, step right into the hospital room.

This is fag bashing, pure and simple. It strips gays and lesbians of all their civil rights. Hey, you don't want to watch Kevin Spacey kiss his lover? Guess what? Neither do I and thankfully, they keep it behind closed doors. I wish some really ugly and vulgar straight couples would use the same common sense.

For some of them, it's not even the fag bashing. It's the sodomy, be it between a gay married couple or a straight married couple. Ricky Sanatorium, er I mean Santorum, was just on CSPAN ranting on the floor of the Senate, about Lawrence vs. Kansas. You know the case. The one where Texas cops burst into the bedroom of two gay men having sex and threw them in jail for a blow job. Yes, the old sodomy laws the Supreme Court struck down said oral sex, anal sex and sex in any position other than missionary are crimes. Glad I'm not Ricky's wife. Talk about boring in the sack.

This amendment would also kill all state's rights to grant gay couples civil unions, benefits, everything. All those civil unions in Vermont and Hawaii and those weddings in Massachusetts? Null and void immediately.

This is bad. In many ways. You have no idea the kind of things families have the right to do to long term companions. You leave your lover and partner of 30 years everything in your will. Your family has the right to come in and contest and leave you with nothing. It happens all the time. Let me tell you a story, about a straight couple this happened to.

They were together for 45 years. They were friends of my parents. He was Catholic and had married too young. His wife, who moved out, refused to give him a divorce in all those years. So, when he died, the common law wife he lived with, who had started working for him as a housekeeper after his wife left was left everything. Including life rights to his house. All well and good, right? Wrong. His family wanted their hands on his money, he was a very successful excavator and his property, as he had lots of land he refused to sell to a developer and the developer went to his family.

The developer helped them get the will overturned. They managed to claim she was nothing but the live in maid and bookkeeper. She was so tired from taking care of him the last few years of his life and up there in years herself, not to mention afraid of his family that she just gave up the fight and ended up with nothing.

This kind of thing happens every day.

Now, the Neo-Cons are saying this is to protect the sanctity of marriage. That marriage should be a union between a man and a woman to produce children. OK, by this token, any straight couple who are barren, or who don't want children, or anyone who has been sterilized shouldn't be allowed to marry at all, or should be forced to leave their marriage, once the children are out of the nest.

Let's take a look at a few of them supporting the bill and see how seriously they take the sanctity of marriage:

Elizabeth Dole, Senator from NC. Not only did this woman have an affair with Bob Dole when he was married to someone else, she's a home-wrecking hussy. He left his wife for her. No respect for the marriage of others, or the sanctity of the vows he took with another woman. She is an adulterer. Whose husband was the center of a national ad campaign, hawking Viagra. If sex is purely to produce children, why is he taking Viagra? Or does he have another side piece, this one of child bearing years? Honey, you are past menopause, therefore, you shouldn't be having sex by your feelings about gays. But then, you committed fornication before marriage, which is against the bible you hold so precious.

George Allen, Senator from Virginia. This is a divorced man. Obviously he holds the sanctity of marriage in high regard, he dumped his wife. After the divorce, when he was still Gov. of VA, he had a habit of hiring very cute, young gay men to his staff. The State House was crawling with them. hmmmm... Yet another self-loathing fag. Maybe he and Mary Cheney can get married and have a nice self hating baby together.

Kay Bailey Hutchinson, Senator from Texas. This woman is divorced and remarried. The bible says a divorced woman who remarries is an adulteress. Her office was called yesterday. This is a woman who is for the amendment because she is a Christian. Because it's against what the Bible says. When her office was called yesterday, the caller was told, "even though the Bible might say that a woman who is divorced and then remarries is an adulterer, no Christian really believes that." What? Why does the bible apply to gays and lesbians but not those who are divorced? Hypocrite with a capital H.

Mel Martinez, Senator from Florida. When called yesterday, his staffer said, "The Senator is not interested in protecting marriage but in protecting the definition of marriage." There you have it. He doesn't care about the sanctity of marriage, or Florida's high divorce rate, but the definition of marriage. I bet that's the honest answer from all of them, if they bother to be honest.

There are more of these men and women who want to protect marriage who are divorced. If you decide to call someone who is divorced and is supporting this amendment, use this biblical quote on them:

“Have ye not read, that He which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder” (Matthew 19:4-6; Mark 10:6-9 cf. Genesis 2:24).

Among those sitting on the fence, is John Warner, Senator from VA. You know. The guy who dumped his wife for Elizabeth Taylor, used her to get into the Senate and then dumped her. He's on wife three or four right now. Sanctity of marriage? Nope. It doesn't apply if you're rich and powerful.

Tony Snow is calling this civil rights legislation. Hey Tony, does that mean we can call your colon cancer God's Plan?

Now, why is this a big deal? The people who support this bill say it undermines heterosexual marriage. No, divorce and marrying too soon undermine heterosexual marriage. Why not a constitutional amendment making divorce illegal? Oh yeah, then they can't leave their wives when they're caught getting a blow job from a congressional aid or when they're caught in bed with Jeff Gannon or some transvestite hooker. What about someone who is born a hermaphrodite, whose parents opt against gender reassignment at birth, either for financial reasons, or to let the kid grow up and decide for itself? Will they be allowed to marry if they don't pick a gender? And what of sex change operations? Can people who have had one get married? Now if this amendment passes, (which it won't as things stand, only 45 Senators support it, far from the 2/3 majority) then they have to legislate those things too.

Another thing. People who are against gays marrying are probably the same ones who wanted to see a Constitutional Amendment when Loving vs. Virginia came before the Supreme Court. What was that, you ask? In 1958, a black woman and a white man got married in Washington DC. As soon as they returned to Virginia and set up house, they were arrested and spent a year in jail, for violating Virginia's anti-miscegenation laws. After they got out of jail they moved to DC and started filing lawsuits, saying the laws violated their 14th amendment rights. In 1967, it reached the Supreme Court, where they ruled unanimously that interracial couples can wed. Imagine if we had the nuts in Congress then we had now. There WOULD be an amendment saying interracial couples aren't allowed to marry. Or co-habitate. Yes, it IS the same thing, people. It is Congress trying to dictate our morals.

Remember, sodomy under the old laws that were overturned starting this bullshit applied to anything but missionary sex. Today it might be the bedroom of gays and lesbians, but tomorrow it will be your bedroom.

8321 posts
6/6/2006 12:43 pm

The amendment proposal doesn't have a chance of passing.

It's simply Bush trying to distract people from what the real issues are while simultaneously throwing a bone to social conservatives who are pissed at him by now due to his inactivity on the issue.

He campaigned on issues like these, but has done absolutely nothing to appease the social conservative base who helped elect him. The very same people who voted in mass as if their lives depended on it are not feeling betrayed.

This mirrors the situation Bush finds himself mired in with respect to Immigration Reform. He painted himself in to a corner and now finds himself reduced to throwing a bone to appease his constituents.

His nephew is Hispanic and the Republicans need the Hispanic vote because they'll never get the black vote, so he can't risk alienating them by coming down hard against immigrants. It's a no-win situation for him and he knows it.

Just as the Cuban immigrants were granted amnesty back in the early 80's, so will the Mexican immigrants now.

This is reality.


"My every move is a calculated step, to bring me closer to embrace an early death." -Tupac Shakur

MissAnnThrope replies on 6/7/2006 11:07 am:
Not to mention, we have the midterm elections. The Republicans are sinking in the polls and they wanted to do something to appease the far right, to try to pick up votes.

There are real issues. Such as, why is Rick Santorum's house in PA abandoned and mail sent to him there sent back with, "Return to sender. Unable to forward." The man doesn't even live in PA anymore, he lives in Arlington, yet he's supposed to be repesenting PA?

There are lots of other issues. Inflation, unemployment, the elderly, oil prices, homelessness, the war, national debt, crime, trade policy, health care, education... The list goes on. While everyone was paying attention to this on Monday, the Dow fell over 200 points. There was a mass kidnapping in Iraq. Katrina victims are STILL homeless, but David Ritter, Senator from NOLA actually said on the subject of gay marriage on the floor of the Senate, "I don't believe there's any issue that's more important than this one." Hey Dave, how about all the homeless people in your state?

NickRules999 39M
9462 posts
6/6/2006 1:16 pm

This is a travesty.

I think Bush is using this to keep our minds off of the Americans troops in the Middle East, dying for our freedom, yet he wants to piss all over another domestic freedom, the freedom of love. I, myself, a not gay, though I think if I were, I'd have better success on this site, but that's beside the point. Many poeple are attracted to a personality, and if that personality happens to be one belonging to a member of the same gender, who are we to say it's wrong? Last I checked, this was 2006, not 1952.

These conservatives, and I'm willing to lay down some cold hard cash on this, are the same guys that push away gays and lesbians with one hand, and jerk off to lesbo porn in the other. Hypocrisy has always made me sick to my stomache, and the examples of politicians ou have provided are the very definition of hypocrisy. These guys are pushing for a marriage ammendment, and have all pissed all over their own marriages.

I guess what ol George W wants to do is put in writing what marriage is, in case we forgot. Years from now, when we're all dead, when we've used up every resource this planet has offered us, aliens will land on this planet, find the documant that set us free, read the part about marriage, and say to one another, "Look, they wrote down what marriage was, just in case they forgot. These people were extremely primative." I must admit, I "borrowed" that joke from Lewis Black.

To make it a law that you can't be gay is total bullshit. You can't force someone not to be gay. You can't "cure" someone of being gay, even this bullshit mediation that churches do. What the hell happened to live and let live? Aren't we all human? Aren't we all "God's children"? If Dubya wants to put his approval rating in the toilet, he's doing a splendid job. I guess he doesn't care if he's popular. I personally think his time in office was only to take care of George Senior's unfinished business. This attack on gays and lesbians was something he pulled out of his ass. Also, the reason he was re-ellected could be one of two things: the American people didn't trust Kerry, and figured "better the devil you know than the devil you don't", or another little thing I was told, you can't bribe the American people, but you can damn sure bribe the eletoral college.

I'm am so sorry to get into a rant on your blog, but I totally agree with you.

Come into my realm! You aren't afraid...are you?

MissAnnThrope replies on 6/7/2006 11:20 am:
Oh, he's using it for a lot of things. See my comment to Div.

Now Nick, you know there are all those groups that promise to make you not gay anymore. However, on the rare occassions they work, they don't turn you straight either. You're still not attracted to the opposite sex, you're just turned off of sex completely. Then you have to come to grips with the sin of masturbation.

The attack on gays and lesbians is something Dubya doesn't even care about, according to some of his closest friends. But that the religious right wants it and he has to appease them. They don't seem to understand it is ONLY the religious right that wants this amendment passed. Moderates don't care and Liberals are all for gay marriage. Paleo-Cons might be grossed out by it, but then realize, all these domestic partnership acts can be tossed out the window if gays can marry.

nightstalker172 36M
1258 posts
6/6/2006 2:19 pm

Hmmm...I agree with Div and Nick its just public fodder Bush is throwing to distract us from the real issues....but My opinion on Gay mariages...

The whole purpose behind it is that gay couples want the benefits of straight married couples...They want the legal rights....Personaly I say let them have them...I myself Im not gay and I dont care what gay couples do in the privacy of their own homes (they do it anyway )...I admit I dont understand why anyone would be attracted to the same sex...and Im not sure I believe its genetic or hormonal or whatever..that has always been up in the air...but I know that SOME choose it...but I think they should be given the freedome to do what makes them happy...And if this coutry actaully had true freedome this wouldnt even be an issue...This is also why I dispise religion in all it's forms...they use it as an excuse for control...I will say that even though I could care less either way...my family is firmly against gay couples...as my mother says its an abomination to god or whatever...Trying to get them to be open minded about anything is impossible...I think god cares more if you kill someone for pleasure than if you pack fudge together (sorry I coulnt help myself ) At any rate...For me Im neither for or against it...I think there are more important things to worry about...Like bringing our soldiers home for exsample...and perhaps stopping with draining the life out of us with gas prices...which in turn raises the price of everthing else...But oil tyrants LIKE BUSH...couldnt have that you know...and the sad thing is most Americans are too dumb to even catch on to this...they think..."Oh our president if Chirstain there is no way he could be BAD" sigh...its enough to just make you want to bang you head against the wall in frustration....

MissAnnThrope replies on 6/7/2006 11:25 am:
Yeah, but I bet you watch your share of lesbian porn...

This is purely pandering to the religious right for the midterm elections. The surprise nay vote this morning was Arlen Specter. Two years ago, he was a yea vote on this. He must be getting ready to retire or something. Or this is something the people of PA really don't want.

You do realize, Bush has a ton of oil stocks in a blind trust, waiting for him to get out of office, right? He's not going to have to worry about the lecture circuit when he's out of office. He's set for life.

RevJoseyWales 69M/66F
14393 posts
6/6/2006 2:29 pm

Wag the dog Ann, wag the dog. But all of you better watch out. You'll be placed on the anti-Amercian list sure as hell for supporting gay rights. Ooops, the watchdog is divorced too, so much for the sanctity of neocon marriage. For my thoughts on it all, feel free to drop by.

"McVeigh had the right idea, wrong address."

"This ain't Dodge City, and you ain't Bill Hickok."

MissAnnThrope replies on 6/7/2006 11:26 am:
Hey, the Senators from both our states are going to be on the No-Fly List along with Teddy Kennedy. They all voted nay this morning.

flagg134 35M
1582 posts
6/6/2006 3:34 pm

Well Ann I agree with Div in the fact that this is a bone that Bush is throwing to the Neo-Cons. I read about this yesterday it has about a snowballs chance in hell of getting ratified. It needs 2/3 of the senate and house vote on top of 38 states passing it onto their legislature. His support has dropped from those on the right so he needs to do something to appease them. This will likely serve as a rabble rousing call for the christian right. While keeping their minds off of issues they feel he is weak upon such as immigration reform.

Now onto the people who feed into this bullshit I can't get started on just how closed minded some are. That you would basically go back to segregation this time based on sexual orientation. Treating people who are bi and gay as second class citizens is unjustifiable. Who does anyone have the right to tell anyone what to do or who to live with.

People cannot learn to accept differences with each other. Ultimately thats what causes alot of the strife in the world along with those who would manipulate the peoples views of that which they don't comprehend. Besides what better way to explain something you can't grasp other than calling it evil and the devils handywork. The true sadness of it all is lets say these people were born close to 2000 years ago it would be the christians that they would be persecuting due to it being the misunderstood religion at the time. I'm sorry but all I can see people who follow religion and a book blindly without questioning are sheep.


MissAnnThrope replies on 6/7/2006 11:30 am:
It needed 60 votes this morning to continue debate and go to a vote. The vote was 49-48 with three Senators missing. Two would have voted nay, one would have voted yea, which would have meant Cheney had to cast the tie breaker that wouldn't have meant a thing. But it would have been interesting to see how he went.

haversack_smith 40M
6192 posts
6/6/2006 3:46 pm

I never cease to me amazed when legislators can find nothing better to do than try to dictate people's private lives. I mean, you hardly have to look far to find genuine problems that genuinely inconvenience people and would genuinely benefit from a little attention...

MissAnnThrope replies on 6/7/2006 11:32 am:
What? Geniune problems in this country? No way! You lie!

cuteNEway 41F

6/6/2006 5:08 pm

This is Bush pointing away from himself shouting "WHAT'S THAT??" so that everyone looks the other way while he rakes in the piles of cash he's making by continuing this war that is killing sons, daughters, mothers, fathers, aunts, uncles or otherwise significant people in your life, FOR NO FUCKIN REASON!!

Now why the FUCK do they care who I fuck and how I fuck them? Do they realize that alot of people in this country don't make a living wage? Including the people that are there to protect us and save our lives (you should see the starting salary for cops and paramedics, its depressing) That the elderly have to choose between food and medicine because
1)Social Security is a joke
2)Medicare is an even bigger joke

There are children abandoned. There are people homeless and starving on the street. I'm not even gonna continue...I'd take up too much space here.

Bottom line...they need to stay the fuck out of everyones bedroom and mind the true problems this country faces every GODDAMN day!

MissAnnThrope replies on 6/7/2006 11:36 am:
Education is becoming even a bigger joke. Let's do away with science and teach creation science and Intelligent Design instead. Let's do away with posters of the Flying Spaghetti Monster in classrooms.

Inflation is becoming more of an issue than it was under Nixon. Who was a great man in comparison to Dubya and committed fewer crimes. There are tons of more important issues, but to deal with them would be to represent the American people instead of lobbyists.

TheRealThing655 48F
9558 posts
6/6/2006 5:34 pm

Very well written post, and all too true. Depressing really. Like everyone has said above, there are so many more important issues to address..it is fucking ridiculous. Why can't we just let people be who they are and live how they want, and not be discriminated against? I know it sounds so easy...but it will never be that way.

MissAnnThrope replies on 6/7/2006 11:41 am:
Thank you. Well, this is becoming a country of discrimination. Discriminate against the gays. They're a minority and the VP's lesbian daughter is self-loathing and says it's ok, so it must be ok with the entire gay and lesbian community! Hey, you're wearing a burka? You must be a terrorist, lady! Let's look under your skirts and make sure we treat you like shit, because you don't worship our lord and savior, Jesus Christ.

Neo-Con is a politically correct term for racist. If you don't believe me, just read some Ann Coulter or Michelle Malkin.

TechSteve 49M

6/6/2006 7:21 pm

I am up in Canada where we have baby Bushes little baby clone here, Mr Stephen Harper, in power.

He has a minority government, which means we will probably be going to the polls within 2 years of him getting into power...he got into power just a few months ago in January.

He has threatened to have a free vote in the house of commons to have it go back to the days when gay people cannot be legally married in this country.

I am not totally against this man...I want honesty and integrity...if you were aware of what was going on in the previous government, you would know what I am talking about...I dont want him turning back the clock on this issue.


MissAnnThrope replies on 6/7/2006 11:50 am:
You know, Canadian Freepers actually think Harper coming into power means the death of the Canadian liberal and that you're all going to go the way of the Reagan dream.

I remember some of what was going on up there. Bribes and graft, mostly. People who were too complacent in their powers in government getting in trouble. Of course, the news media here doesn't think Canada matters at all, so not a lot was covered. I got most of my information in smatterings, off the Internet.

But yeah. Neo-Cons really don't get it. They want to turn the world into the perfect "Leave It To Beaver" world, where Mom stays home and does housework in stilettos and the kids never open their mouths. They don't seem to realize the generation that grew up watching that claptrap was the generation that spawned the hippie movement.

RevJoseyWales 69M/66F
14393 posts
6/7/2006 12:11 pm

Marriage is nothing more than a civil union approved by religion. Isn't it time we quit allowing religion to dictate our laws? Religion needs to be kept in the church, home, and heart, not in the courts or the government. The American taliban was defeated this time, but they'll be back. Joe

"McVeigh had the right idea, wrong address."

"This ain't Dodge City, and you ain't Bill Hickok."

MissAnnThrope replies on 6/8/2006 12:16 pm:
Once upon a time, marriage was just a legalization of sex. Now, it's suddenly something sacred. It's sacred if you take vows in a church, yes. But considering the divorce rate, no one seems to take their vows as sacred anymore.

A civil union is still getting married. My parents were married by a Justice of the Peace and they had to get a marriage license. It's the religious right who say marriage is something in a church. Not the state. You get married by a JP, you are legally married in the eyes of the state. Period. So it's just semantics on the part of the right.

Now, another congressman, not congresswoman, congressman, who was caught with a male hooker years ago is pushing for another vote on another version of the amendment for next month. ARGH! Self-loathing fags piss me off. Get a grip and come out of the closet and stop trying to dictate our morals! Just because you need therapy doesn't mean you should dictate to everyone else.

redmustang91 57M  
8559 posts
6/7/2006 2:12 pm

If marriage was for procreation they would test you for fertility and refuse marriages for those who were sterile, or post-menopause. I frankly cannot understand why reducing the number of people who can get married defends marriage. if marriage is an endangered species we need more people, including gay people to support it. How does allowing gay people to marry undermine straight marriage? Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. How does what other people do in their bedrooms matter to me? Other than some envy or fear that heteros are going out of fashion, what is the issue? If I am the last hetero male left I assume my chances of getting laid will improve so I am all in favor of more men who opt to become gay... Less competition!

MissAnnThrope replies on 6/8/2006 12:34 pm:
That's right. No one who has been sterilized, is infertile or past menopause would be allowed to be married.

However, it undermines straight marriage because it tells all those closet queens out there they can leave their wives and families and marry a man instead of just having an extra-marital affair with one. Or hitting highway reststops and bookstores for anonymous blow jobs. Because if one man does it, every married man in the country will suddenly turn gay. Don't you get it?

nightstalker172 36M
1258 posts
6/7/2006 2:38 pm

Missann - no...not really...I will admit that I used to as a fit into the crowd kind of thing....you are thought wierd if you're a guy who doesnt like lesbian porn..but honestly its not really my thing...all I see it 2 headaches instead of one.....double the trouble

Its funny when people use religion only when it suites their goals and when it doesnt they treat it like it never exsisted

And yes I know about Bush's stocks hes just trying to drive up the value because hes a greedy S.O.B. and Im sure hes doing so to help out his other oil buddies as well.

MissAnnThrope replies on 6/8/2006 12:35 pm:
LMAO! Not to mention, having to perform twice as well and twice as hard. Um, pun not intended.

Become a member to create a blog