Absurd, Politics
Comments 5

Let the, um… fun begin…

*Sigh*

Already it begins…
Hours after the Supreme Court announced its decision on same-sex marriage, the conservative ‘right’ – as in those on the ‘right’, or ‘starboard’ side of some imaginary line that everyone keeps on referencing, but no one ever manages to find the time to actually define (and despite the fact that line probably moves all over the place, like a greased pig at a state fair), as opposed to those on the liberal ‘left’, or ‘cognac’ side of said line – ahem – the ‘right’ began gearing up for their assault on the new status of equal marriage rights for all.

They want their ‘right to religious liberty’ to be more strongly encoded into law.
I’m not really sure how you can get any stronger than the 1st amendment to the constitution; which reads, in full:

Amendment I – Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Of course, no law actually needs to be passed, to abridge anyone’s rights. They just go ahead and do what they want. And then look around all innocently, and say things like “… what?”, and things like “… who, us?”, when someone calls them on their unlawful behavior.

I’m here referencing the mass arrests of protestors at that Republican National Convention in New York City, back in 2004, when police used plastic construction fencing to sweep people off the street – literally, like cattle being herded to the corral – including some people who weren’t trying to protest at all, but simply got caught in that there roundup, pah’dner…

All those arrests were ruled illegal, and overturned.
Some ten years later.
But by that time, the damage had been long done, and forgotten by the bulk of American society.

But back to the conservative ‘right’.
Oh… wait…
Those arrests were ordered by the administration by that sometime darling of the conservative ‘right’, His Honor Mayor Adolph Bloomberg… who thinks because he’s rich, he can tell everyone what to do,* and they’ll just fall all over themselves, trying to be the first in line to toe that line.

But back to the conservative ‘right’…

I suppose some state could come along and try to limit some of these ‘religious liberties’ everyone is so hot and heavy about… No, wait, that’s kinda what the Supreme Court just struck down, isn’t it? Not the abridging of religious liberty, per se; but liberty, none the less.

Basically, the ‘right’ (how can the ‘right’ be so consistently wrong?) wants the ‘right’ to establish a modern version of the old southern Jim Crow laws.
Now, obviously we can’t call these new, quasi-legal attempts at continuing discrimination Jim Crow. That one’s already been used, and would be a dishonor to all those who lived and suffered under them.
Let’s come up with a different moniker, for this new and improved brand of codified hatred, shall we?

How about the ‘Linda, George, BobbySue and, um… Tommette’ laws?
We already have LGBT ingrained into society.

Nah…
It just doesn’t flow readily enough.
We need something that trips off the tongue.

How about the ‘Peter Peacock’ laws?
… *snort*…
Yeah, I know…
Redundant…

Well, then, how about the dreaded ‘Hansel and Gretel… and Ted and Alice’ laws (with apologies to Professor Peter Schickele).
Ooohhhhh…
Me likey!!!

The Republican hopefuls are, predictably, tripping all over themselves in their rush to pander to those who disagree with the decision announced on Friday.

Now, I’m not gay (though I do try to maintain an upbeat, positive outlook on life…), nor am I an immigrant or a woman, or Muslim or black, nor uneducated or any of the other oppressed categories of citizens the ‘right’ is so fond of castigating in the media.
And I’m not married, nor have I ever been.
So it’s quite possible that some would say I lack standing in this debate.
Especially those who might disagree with my position on the issue.

But let’s take a look at some of the hopefuls for the Rainbow House.
Let’s see if they have standing.

Walker – Wisconsin Ranger said: “As a result of this decision, the only alternative left for the American people is to support an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to reaffirm the ability of the states to continue to define marriage.” Yet he’s shown a disturbing propensity to go after state laws his base finds objectionable. He’s broken unions like a bronco-bustin’ cowboy from yesteryear, and then went after the notorious “Tenure Gang” at the university.
This guy’s just much too quick to come out with his shootin’ irons a-blazin’…
I think he’s beholden to the NRA – and besides, he hasn’t actually declared he’s a candidate.

Verdict on standing = UNCLEAR.

L’il Shrub – In 2009, he listed his ethnicity on a voter registration card as Latino. He also said yesterday: “It is now crucial that as a country we protect religious freedom and the right of conscience and also not discriminate.”
Apparently, he actually said this with a straight face.
Which either makes him an idiot (which would be my vote), or uneducated, to the point that he keeps on using those words, but I don’t think they mean what he thinks they mean.

Verdict on standing = YES, on several fronts.

Polo Rubio – The son of Cuban immigrants (ooohhhh… so close), he’s neither muslim or black, nor a woman, as far as I know. He was, however, born in, and is a Senator from, the great state of Hanging Chad. He’s also said to be a former protégé of L’il Shrub. So his judgement is, at best, questionable… I mean… will you look at that haircut?

Verdict on standing = YES, through guilt by association.

McGee Jindal – I don’t know. ‘Jindal’ sounds Muslim to me. Where was he born? Are you sure? I think he’s Muslim. He looks Muslim. I swear to you he’s Muslim. I want to see a birth certificate, which I’ll then claim is a forgery, and an attempt to hoodwink the American people.

Verdict on standing = … no… not really… 
Although he, too, is an idiot.

Gee…
Who knew hatred could be so much fun…?

South Carolina Senator Lindsey Cracker – (Oh, I’m gonna have to keep that nickname. It’s appropriate on so many levels.) Anyway… He said: “Rather than pursuing a divisive effort that would be doomed to fail [a constitutional amendment], I am committing myself to ensuring the protection of religious liberties of all Americans.” Unless you’re Native American. Or Muslim. Or black. Or have a religious tradition other than those for whom he was pandering.

Verdict on standing = Cracker, please… 

Former Arkansas Governor Mike Hack-a-bug – There’s some really juicy bits from this guy, so I’ll just let his own words speak for themselves: “I will not acquiesce to an imperial court any more than our Founders acquiesced to an imperial British monarch. We must resist and reject judicial tyranny, not retreat.” He also said: “This ruling is not about marriage equality, it’s about marriage redefinition. This irrational, unconstitutional rejection of the expressed will of the people in over 30 states will prove to be one of the court’s most disastrous decisions, and they have had many. The only outcome worse than this flawed, failed decision would be for the President and Congress, two co-equal branches of government, to surrender in the face of this out-of-control act of unconstitutional, judicial tyranny.” He also said: “The Supreme Court can no more repeal the laws of nature and nature’s God on marriage than it can the law of gravity. Under our Constitution, the court cannot write a law, even though some cowardly politicians will wave the white flag and accept it without realizing that they are failing their sworn duty to reject abuses from the court.”

Well… where to begin…
Apparently, the Governor formerly known has “p’tui”, is unclear as to how many states there are in this country. According to one site, before Friday’s decision, same-sex marriage was legal in 37 states and the District of Columbia.
I had thought the number was 31… but then, I lack standing, so nothing I think should count.
Now, let’s just do a little math… hmmm… 37, plus his 30, equals… carry the one… factor in the bigotry involved, and tell that one it can bloody well carry itself… take into account his name… add the equivalent of two-hundred plus years of entrenched discrimination, multiplied by his blatant misunderstanding of the Constitution, and you get…
34% more states than you get with any other Republican contender for the Rainbow House.

How can you not like this guy?
Under him, we’re growing by leaps and bounds!

Additionally, there’s nothing in the Constitution about marriage, although there is something about equal rights for all citizens.
Which makes the Supreme Court’s decision neither unconstitutional nor irrational.
And as I understand it, the Supreme Court is the last word. In this country, anyway.
It’s written right there in it’s name – the Supreme Court.
Which makes Friday’s decision so heartening; while other decisions are more likely to call for a modicum of despair.
But equating the traditional definition of marriage to the law of gravity is just ridiculous.
Hello…? the definition was changed…? yesterday…? and I haven’t floated off into the air…?

Verdict on standing = NO.
Besides… would you want a President whose name sounds like he can’t ride a motorcycle and keep his mouth closed at the same time…?

So, stay tuned for the further adventures of the Old and the Ridiculous.
Or would that be the Yutz and the Relentless?

Honestly, do any of these people listen to what they’re saying?
Do any of them think, before they speak?

 

 

* – Don’t get me wrong. I’m against the consumption of overly-sugared drinks as much as the next guy. I haven’t had a soda in well over a decade. I consider them the third worst thing you can put into your body… just behind sulphuric acid (No. 2) and Fox News (aaannnnddddd we have a winner). But I’ll be damned if I follow the dictates of some power-mad tyrant, who used the free-market system to get where he is today; and then, once he was elected, promptly used said power as leverage to run rough-shod over the city charter and stay in office longer than was legal (Turkey, anyone?), and now wants to dictate to that free market what is, and what is not, permissible.*

* – And don’t get me started on the free market… 

 

Image found here.

 

Advertisements

5 Comments

  1. I believe you have misspoken about the third amendment, which is about quartering soldiers and such. It is the FIRST amendment which speaks to freedom of religion and free speech, etc.

    Like

Don't sugar-coat it... Tell us how you feel...

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s