Netroots Alliance

BlogTalkRadio

Add to iTunes





Larry Craig and David Vitter co-sponsor Marriage Protection Amendment

Toe Tapper and I pay for sex Vitter must protect us from those EVIL GAY PEOPLE.

http://pageoneq.com/news/2008/CraigVitte r_0627.html


Two United States Senators implicated in extramarital sexual activity have named themselves as co-sponsors of S. J. RES. 43, dubbed the Marriage Protection Amendment. If ratified, the bill would amend the United States Constitution to state that marriage "shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman."

Now remember Larry Craig IS NOT GAY

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/arc hives/16020.html

Section 2. Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman.'.

PA Senate to vote for Marriage Protection Amendment

The Senate Appropriations committee will vote today on SB 1250 -- The heretofore named and so-called "Gay Marriage Ban" Amendment to the Pennsylvania Constitution. This proposal, championed by Gib Armstrong (R-Lancaster), is the latest attempt to add discrimination to the Constitution of PA. More importantly, this is a clear indication of lost priorities by the governing body of this state. As Pennsylvania wrestles with issues of tolling I-80, lowering unemployment, attracting green employers, taxes and the like; I fail to see how "protecting" marriage from gays is a high priority? This ranks somewhere up there with the late night raise the legislature gave itself a few years back.

When the Dust Settles from the Marriage Debate

Cross-posted from my blog, Creative Trouble!

The Marriage Protection Amendment is dead on arrival in the Senate. The debate is a superficial one, more about pandering to conservatives than protecting America. It's pure politics, and what's great is that nearly everyone, left right and center, understands it as such. We may even find that a majority of the Senate ends up voting against - or very close to it. There seems little use in me echoing what has already been said on tons of blogs and media outlets already. Instead, all of us need to think critically about what we've seen, what the prevailing cultural narrative of what's happened offers, and most importantly, about what is to be done when the dust from this week settles.

We need to be sharply critical of the narrative I've recapped above, that "Bush and the GOP are just pandering." That statement is true, but those on the left who promote that narrative need to be careful. What lies beneath that statement is this idea that Bush and the GOP are actually a lot more fair-minded than they seem, but need to pander to the far right of the party in an election year. There's something insidiously exculpatory about this, making Bush and Frist look helpless in the face of an onslaught by rabid fag-bashers. It's a way of rationalizing their actions, such that the gay right can still claim hope for the GOP, rather than recognizing that the vast majority of that party stand shoulder-to-shoulder with the far right of the party on these issues. Bush and Frist have taken sides against our community, whereas Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi (and nearly all the Democrats in the Senate, save Ben Nelson) stand firmly with us. Just as we can't acquit Reagan for his silence on AIDS, we cannot acquit Bush and the GOP for lending their muscle to the same people who sought to kill us all with AIDS and still would like nothing better than for terrorists to blow up every gay bar in America.

Now, perhaps more than ever, we cannot afford to remain on the political fence. We have to take sides. It's true that the Democratic Party is not where it should be on LGBT issues, but abandoning the Democrats is not the solution, as plenty of people have called for in the wake of Howard Dean's recent fuck ups in LGBT community relations.  Such incidents make clear that we can't just always side with the Democratic establishment whenever possible, as the Human Rights Campaign did when it endorsed Joe Lieberman over pro-equal marriage Ned Lamont. But we do have to cast our lots with the Democrats and progressives in general. We have to reject the rhetoric that all the politicians, regardless of their party, take us for granted. We can't afford to be neutral in a culture war that has already had and will continue to have real casualties.



Embed on your site
Feed & Extra

» Recent blog linkage