June 05, 2006
My Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary defines "obscene" as "disgusting to the senses: replusive; abhorrent to morality or virtue; COARSE." I can't think of a better word to describe this crap.
With all the serious problems facing the country today, our government decides to "tackle" one that is purely symbolic. It's a bunch of sound and fury, signifying nothing, which is what government seems to do best anymore.
``Ages of experience have taught us that the commitment of a husband and wife to love and to serve one another promotes the welfare of children and the stability of society,'' Bush said in his weekly radio address. ``Government, by recognizing and protecting marriage, serves the interests of all.''
Bejus. It's "For The Children." Run for your life when a politician uses those words.
I don't think we have a politician alive now who has any business amending the Constitution for ANYTHING, especially when those idiots regularly wipe their butts with the Constitution we already have--- one written by people with a lot more integrity than any gasbag you'll find posturing in Washington DC today. Just listen to the rhetoric:
``A vote for this amendment is a vote for bigotry pure and simple,'' said Democratic Sen. Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts, where the state Supreme Court legalized gay marriages in 2003.
When THAT pillar of morality speaks, we need to pay attention.
``It's politics. It's pandering and it's placating a core constituency, the evangelicals,'' Newsom (Mayor of San Francisco---ed) said on ABC's ``Good Morning America.''
C'mon, people. It's BULLSHIT. That's what it IS, and both sides are showing their asses on this issue. As for myself, I oppose ANY amendment to the Constitution--- but I could tolerate this one, for purely selfish reasons, just because it upsets a feminist applecart.
It would damn sure change the way divorce is handled in court.
Let Mary take Sally as a lawfully wedded... wife?... life partner?... spouse? Then let them divorce, especially if they are allowed to adopt a few children during their "marriage."
How is a judge gonna handle THAT case when he's accustomed to simply throwing the book at the MAN in a divorce? Who gets custody of the kids? Who pays alimony and child support? Who is the "victim" then?
Hot dayum! That kind of confusion can't do anything but benefit ME in the long run.
``In our free society, people have the right to choose how they live their lives,'' Bush said. ``And in a free society, decisions about such a fundamental social institution as marriage should be made by the people, not by the courts.''
What planet is Bush living on? It ain't earth, and it damn sure ain't in the United States today. Government already tries to micro-manage our "free" society right down to the molecular level. We, as "free" people, aren't allowed to make many decisions anymore, because we might choose WRONG. Government intrudes into EVERY aspect of our lives today, simply for our own good.
That's why you need an ID to purchase Sudafed in a drug store today.
The proposed amendment is foolish, politically-motivated and totally unneccessary. It's bound to fail, but it remains a perfect example of how overgrown and arrogant government has become.
All content © Rob Smith