We should twist constitutional law to make sure the State law doesn't get in the way of undermining civil rights. If Massachusetts can't vote religious contempt for homosexuality into civil law, well, we'll get the Feds do it, says presidential pretender Mitt. We'll write it right into the framework of our constitution!
It's an interesting proposal from a man who wears a lot of makeup and spends a hell of a lot of money on his died hair and his clothes. It's interesting to see him play a verbal shell game with "the People" and Government too. Sometimes they're the same, sometimes they're opposite. Sometimes we argue State's rights, sometimes we argue that religion speaks for the people or that the people speak for religion. It all depends on the immediate needs of the will to power.
Is the State Legislature of Massachusetts the people? Is it there to represent them and does it serve at their pleasure? It would be hard to determine what Romney thinks from his argument that the will of the voters of Massachusetts is being thwarted by their elected representatives who "Decided not to let the People of Massachusetts vote on the definition of marriage."
So what he'd like to do is to enlist the help of the same federal government that formerly forced the Mormons to redefine the nature of marriage, to override the Massachusetts legislature to allow Massachusetts voters to thwart the decision of their elected representatives and accept Federal intrusion into private religious beliefs while facilitating "the People's" right to write religious dogma that excludes a law abiding segment of the pubic from equal protection under the law, into law.
What did I just write? I don't know, I'm just as confused as you are and just as puzzled at what this man has to offer as President of the United States other than being another whore in the musty, stinking, infected cathouse of the Religious right - and being tall. You can't discount tall as a presidential qualification - and he has good hair.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
Over here scratching my head, trying to parse through that. :-)
Good luck - If there's logic behind doing a segment of the population out of what the rest take for granted - if there's any logic behind establishing an official religious dogma in defiance of the constitution - I can't follow it either. I do know that if a Republican says people need to bypass the legislature and vote directly, there's something up his sleeve for sure.
I'm not more than half joking about any of these made-up and coiffed gay-bashers though. like Foley with his $300 ties and obsession with pedophiles, the more they protest and the more they spend on clothes and hair stylists, the more hypocritical they seem.
I just this minute finished Mike Kinsley's column in Time discussing how the quiet, ever-more successful "gay revolution" has passed the Republican party by. He says it's largely because most young adults don't see fair, equal treatment of gays as something requiring debate, much like our generation scratches our heads and asks, "exactly why, again, were separate drinking fountains needed in the South not so long ago for Blacks and Whites?" He mentions the incoherence during the recent Republican "debates" responding to how they felt about repeal of "don't ask, don't tell".
I sort of thought, Mike's exaggerating here just a bit about how clueless at least key Republicans are on the issue. Then I read your post, and followed your link on Romney's response to Massachusetts.
I really don't have a comment here - I'm just trying to explain the way I'm sitting here, just shaking my head.
These people leave me speechless too. I think the country is getting tired of the damn religious right and their sense of entitlement - but here's the new candidates, singing the same hymn.
It's time we opened a window or something - the stench of sanctimony is unbearable.
This kind of non-sense is spewed anytime you have a religious nut running for office: they cry "individual rights" -- until those individuals demand something in conflict with the edict of their whimsical god.
These people need to be treated for a mental disorder -- not encouraged to run for public office.
I don't think there is a treatment.
Post a Comment