“The Bugman” is back. He really never left us, though. He’s one of those psychopaths who can’t stay out of the public eye for long. He’s a weasel of the lowest order, having pioneered the art of “primarying” any Republican who stood in his way as whip. He’s the guy that forced a vote on Terry Schiavo. He helped create K Street. He’s best known for resigning his position in ignominy amidst charges of conspiracy and violations of campaign finance law. He’s a real piece of…something.
Politics is the ultimate recycling bin. From it, you can join the board of a major corporation. You can become an author. You can become a lobbyist. You can have your own radio talk show. No one goes away for good. George Fucking Bush the Junior became a painter. Few remember the horrible things these personalities have perpetrated.
Which brings us to back to Tom Delay. His recycle? “Dancing With The Stars”. And now he’s palling around with the likes of Phyllis Schafly, who is obviously some sort of lich who cannot die. Tom joined the chorus of lizard people who went full page in the Post about not “honoring” a ruling in favor of gay marriage, whatever that entails. Did you know he is a constitutional expert too?
DeLay lamented that “people don’t understand the constitution. We haven’t taught our children now for three or four generations what the Constitution is, and the separation of powers, and what our Founding Fathers had in mind as this brilliant understanding of how you can limit government and limit the tyranny put on us through people or oligarchies.”
Because of this supposed constitutional ignorance, DeLay claimed, “right now, the American people don’t understand that the Supreme Court, when it makes a ruling, it’s just an opinion if no one enforces that ruling. The Supreme Court doesn’t have a police force; the Supreme Court doesn’t have an army; the Supreme Court doesn’t have people that can enforce their ruling.” Therefore, if conservatives “stand up to them and invoke the Constitution, then we don’t have to accept a ruling on marriage that redefines marriage.
Tom, like most Republicans, pines for the days of the Articles of Confederation, where the federal government is toothless. The Constitution was created to establish and expand federal power. So right off the bat, Delay is already not credible when he speaks of the Constitution(like most Republicans). Then he says that the Courts “opinions” are just that-mere opinions, like the opinions you and me share. They don’t have the force of law. This is so stupid I don’t even know what to do with it. May I quote your precious Constitution?
“The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority”
We don’t even have to go to Marbury v. Madison to see that the judiciary’s activities are an integral part of the separation of powers. But it gets better, doesn’t it?
The Supreme Court doesn’t have a police force; the Supreme Court doesn’t have an army; the Supreme Court doesn’t have people that can enforce their ruling.
What? The executive branch is sworn to uphold the Constitution and they do have an army and police force. To pretend that judges everywhere have no power just because they aren’t “armed” is willfully ignorant at best, and delusional and dangerous at worst. Tom Delay is walking free right now because of a judge.
Here’s my favorite part:
Proving his Constitutional prowess, DeLay argued that “it’s not in their authority to write law by ten unelected, unaccountable people, lawyers, and if – this is a red line that we’re drawing.
Submitted without comment.
Those who lionize the Constitution seem to me to be the ones who understand it the least. Maybe they have a learning disability. Because the right-wing can’t read the law, the Bible, or any other book that would make them less stupid.
The hyper-religious right is in its last throes over gay marriage. The usual suspects have taken out a full page ad in the Washington Post that states, in part:
“We will not honor any decision by the Supreme Court which will force us to violate a clear biblical understanding of marriage as solely the union of one man and one woman.”.
We affirm that Marriage, as existing solely between one man and one woman, precedes civil government. Though affirmed, fulfilled, and elevated by faith, the truth that marriage can exist only between one man and one woman is not based solely on religion but on the Natural Law, written on the human heart.
Oooh, you won’t “honor” it. So what. Is that a threat? What the hell does that mean? I mean, we already knew you wouldn’t respect gay love so this is kind of a nothingburger. Please be more specific as to what else you are going to do besides be an asshole about this. And what is the “natural law”? I guess that’s their weird way of saying the poo chute is not for fucking. Research suggests otherwise. I’d like to know As for the biblical understanding of marriage, I must defer to America’s Best Christian, because she already did the heavy lifting:
This epitomizes the problem. You have people who live every bit of their pathetic little lives by some Iron Age book they clearly haven’t read. And they won’t be satisfied until everyone thinks like they do. Why? Because that’s in their Bible too, to witness for Jesus-who incidentally never said a word about gays or marriage.
Picking on Ben Carson is too easy. He doesn’t understand the Constitution, he thinks Obama wants to declare martial law so he can pursue a third term, and says other stupid things that a smart person should not say. Yet somehow, he rates as a Serious Candidate-the polls show this. We live in an idiocracy where bottom-feeders like Carson flourish. His ascendance is probably being propelled by racists who finally have a black man they can like because he sounds like the massa.
A while back, Ben got himself in hot water because he doesn’t have a clue about what makes someone gay. He had to walk that dumb shit back. Then he said this:
“I simply have decided, that I’m not going to really talk about that issue anymore because every time I’m gaining momentum, the liberal press says ‘let’s talk about gay rights.’ And I’m just not going to fall for that anymore,” he said.
Translation: When stupid words formulate in my head and I emit them from my face, I can blame the mass media for repeating them.
So that was that. Ben was not going to talk about the gays.
It turns out that’s all he can talk about these days:
In a recent interview with Brett Baier on Fox News, the CNN interview was brought up and the GOP presidential candidate continued to express his frustration with homosexuals claiming that they’re owed civil rights. “I was a little bit irritated [during the CNN interview in March] that he was equating the whole gay marriage issue with the Civil Rights movement,” Carson said. “Because, quite frankly, I didn’t remember any times when there were signs up that says, you know, ‘everybody else here and gay people have to drink at this fountain.’”
Let me ask you this, Ben: were poll taxes and literacy tests a form of discrimination? Eh? News flash-just because there are no “signs”, that doesn’t mean that there is no breach of civil rights. What a turd of an argument for sanctioning homophobia. Discrimination must be on clear signage for it to be called discrimination…OK, dumbass.
There’s something very sad about a minority oppressing another minority. The enemy is forgotten and ignored history. But Ben Carson has transcended that, so he doesn’t stay true to the game. He doesn’t see class, gender and race because he’s wealthy. That sounds like a good thing. But what it really means is he is hopelessly out of touch with people. While it is true that all of our politicians are rich, we rabble need to pick the people who want to understand us. Of course, Ben does that, catering to gun nuts, religious fanatics, conspiracy theorists and unrepentant Obama-haters. Maybe he knows what he’s doing, because he needs those votes-but he will probably never break off from the base and start listening to the mushy middle that all presidential candidates need to win. And I doubt condemning homosexuals to second-class citizenry will put them in his column.
Yesterday we talked about people inventing their own realities because they can’t reconcile actual reality with their cockamamie religious beliefs.
It appears that we have to go a little further down the rabbit hole, friends. I’ll try and back us out soon. But I can’t pass this up:
Australian Nick Jensen says that if same-sex marriage is introduced, he and his wife will divorce.
Writing in the Canberra City News, Mr Jensen says he will continue to live with his wife, Sarah, and their children – and they will still consider themselves married. But they will no longer be legally married.
“If our federal parliament votes to change the timeless and organic definition of marriage later on this year, it will have moved against the fundamental and foundational building block of Australian society and, indeed, human culture everywhere.
“Indeed, it raises a red flag when a government decides it is not content only having sovereignty over land, taxes and the military — but ‘words’ themselves.
“This is why we are willing to divorce. By changing the definition of marriage, ‘marriage’ will, in years to come, have an altogether different sense and purpose.”
This type of behavior has a name. It’s right here…tip of my tongue, ah yes:
By all means though, go ahead and hobble your own marriage to protest someone else’s. The Lord loves the righteous, but does he love the self-righteous as well?
The reason, however, is that, as Christians, we believe marriage is not a human invention.
Our view is that marriage is a fundamental order of creation. Part of God’s intimate story for human history. Marriage is the union of a man and a woman before a community in the sight of God. And the marriage of any couple is important to God regardless of whether that couple recognises God’s involvement or authority in it.
Nope, sorry, it is totally a human invention, one that popped up in multiple places predating or in concurrence with Judaism. But for these dolts, the Bible is their history book. If it didn’t happen to the goddamned Jews, it apparently didn’t happen at all.
Gay marriage is on track to be the most significant culture bomb since integration. There are a host of people ready to die on this battlefield. Get ready. The time is nigh, and when the detonation occurs (which I believe it will) I suspect there will be much gnashing of teeth and garment-rending similar to this.
No rational person thinks that gay marriage is going to affect their lives one bit. However, 30-40% of the country is preparing itself for a civil war over the issue.
I don’t get it. I just don’t get it.
What’s all the fuss? Straight people eat pussy, suck dicks and go anal. How is homosexual sex any different when you get right down to the nitty? And no one has ever said that clergy will be coerced into performing ceremonies for gay couples. My brother, something of a Jesus fanatic, once said to me that separation of church and state is a two way street; you leave us alone and we leave you alone. Fine. Just fine. I can deal with that view. Now, as to refusing to cater to gay people hiring business, well, that’s probably going to be a no-no soon enough. Plenty of metros have anti-discrimination laws protecting gay folk. These laws should go national-they should be rolled into the Civil Rights Act. I think it is inevitable. We don’t get to treat others as second-class citizens anymore. We know how that goes.
With these things in mind, what the hell is this?
Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R) said Sunday that he supports a constitutional amendment that would bar the Supreme Court from granting marriage equality rights nationwide.
“I personally believe that marriage is between one man and one woman,” Walker, a prospective GOP presidential candidate, said. “If the court decides that, the only next approach is for those who are supporters of marriage being defined as between one man and one woman is ultimately to consider pursuing a constitutional amendment.”
An amendment? Really, asshole? That’s our founding document. Banning gay marriage is so important that it deserves a place beside free speech, disestablishment, equal protection in the eyes of the law, the banning of slavery, and the right to vote regardless of race or sex.
You’ve got to be fucking kidding me. I would like to see what an amendment would look like that doesn’t make it a festering pustule of discrimination marring our most sacred compact. Oh wait, I found it:
Grants the United States and each state, territory, and possession the power to define marriage as limited to the union of one man and one woman.
Declares that: (1) nothing in this constitution shall be construed to require that marriage or its legal incidents be conferred upon any union other than the union of one man and one woman or to require that a state recognize a marriage that was licensed in another state; and (2) no decision or order of any court to the contrary, including any decision or order issued before the date of ratification, shall have any force or effect.
Ah, the old “states” gambit. Look at that garbage. The last time we tried to enshrine morality in the Constitution, it didn’t last long.
I don’t think it’s worth worrying about since Scottie and Rafael are going to self-destruct because they are morons, but careful, we’ve elected morons before. Sometimes we did it twice. So it’s important to know what we are up against-and to be vigilant in protecting our dignity before the law.
I’m now a second class citizen in Oklahoma if this shit passes:
A bill that would restrict the right to marry to people of faith and would mandate all marriage licenses be approved by a member of the clergy was approved by the Oklahoma state House on Tuesday.
House Bill 1125, sponsored by Republican State Representative Todd Russ, is a radical measure that would end secular marriage licenses in the state. In addition, the bill would bar all judges and other secular officials from performing marriages in Oklahoma.
Under the legislation, atheists and others not wanting to be married by a religious official could file an affidavit through the court clerk’s office claiming a common-law marriage.
You read right. Not only did they outlaw same-sex marriage (unless they are people of faith?), they’ve abridged the right of atheists to enjoy the same status as believers in marriage. I’m so pissed off I could spit wooden nickels. I have had it up to here with crazy Christians dictating how we should live. If implemented, I have my doubts that this could survive a court challenge-but is that how far we have to go to secure a normal marriage?
When do we draw the line and say enough? I have always felt I had common cause with the gay community as a minority, but this will make me redouble my efforts to battle these bitches and bastards at all fronts.