RECENT  POSTS:  » HA! Robert Oscar Lopez mentions me in truly bizarre amicus brief to 5th Circuit » Gay man realizes he shouldn't have entered an opposite-sex union—so no same-sex marriage for anyone?! » Your daily 'Gay Gestapo' moment with the American Family Association's senior analyst » Scott Lively equates accurately noting his public record with inciting murder » Audio: Mark Regnerus doesn't think marriage equality has 'a lot of gas left' » Friday: NOM president shares the bill with 'ex-gay' activists » Today in 'um, yeah, obviously': Stunt marriages not confined to opposite-sex partnerships » Video: Brian Brown's fellow panelist gives insight into Moscow panel's extreme views on homosexuality, marriage » Video: TN man condemns gays with Leviticus billboards; oddly allows local Red Lobsters to remain open » Video: 'Ex-gay' speaker at upcoming ERLC summit equates talking to gay people with talking to cancer patients  

« Go back a post || Return to G-A-Y homepage || Haul tail to next post »

08/19/2009

What do you want them to call us: 'The United Sinners of Not Jenny Tyreeville?"

by Jeremy Hooper

TyreeIn a new post to Focus on the Family's "DriveThru" blog, FOF's Jenny Tyree says the following about the Obama administration's DOMA stance and their usage of this country's name in their briefs related to the same:

It would also be nice if they could think of a way to write [the court papers] without seeming to speak for all of us (the use of “The United States” in the first line). The statement certainly doesn’t represent me, nor does it represent the majority of Americans in 29 states who define marriage between a man and a woman.
Obama shows his true colors on marriage [Drive Thru]

Which is quite an interesting complaint, since we could swear we remember hearing George Bush and company say crap like this all the time:

The American people have spoken clearly on this issue through their elected representatives and at the ballot box. In 1996, Congress approved the Defense of Marriage Act by large bipartisan majorities in both the House and the Senate, and President Clinton signed it into law. And since then 19 states have held referendums to amend their state constitutions to protect the traditional definition of marriage. In every case the amendments were approved by decisive majorities, with an average of 71 percent. (Applause.)

Today 45 of the 50 states have either a state constitutional amendment or statute defining marriage as a union of a man and a woman. These amendments and laws express a broad consensus in our country for protecting the institution of marriage.
The people have spoken. Unfortunately, this consensus is being undermined by activist judges and local officials who have struck down state laws protecting marriage and made an aggressive attempt to redefine marriage.
-Pres. George W. Bush, 06/05/06

It's interesting how conservatives only want us to be classified as "the people" when someone is trying to rip our unifying government document to shreds. When it comes to fair implementation of the same? They bring out the "not in my country you don't!" mentality faster than you can say, "how dare you deny me my equal protection?!"

*Oh, and by "interesting," we of course mean to say "mind-numbingly enraging."

space gay-comment gay-G-A-Y-post gay-email gay-writer-jeremy-hooper


Your thoughts

I have a problem when tax exempt organizations use every opportunity to forward their partisan agenda. Non-profit organizations have every right to speak out on issues, but zero rights to be partisan pundits. Even though the Obama administration is defending DOMA, they still press their partisan attacks against a POTUS simply because he isn't of the political party of their choice.

It would not be difficult at all to prove to the IRS, and any court, that they are abusing their tax-exempt status by operating as a money laundering operation for a PAC. PACs have limitations on contributions, the list of contributors must be disclosed, and none of the contributed money is tax-deductible by the donor. If they want to play partisan politics, then they need to play by the rules.

Posted by: Dick Mills | Aug 19, 2009 2:12:28 PM

Yet again, they didn't post my comment. I asked if they'd be OK with hetero polygamy considering the extreme amount of biblical precedent. I gave them some verses to aid in their decision. Perhaps they're still thinking it through.

Posted by: Brian | Aug 19, 2009 4:09:13 PM


From another post at the site:

http://citizenlinkblog.com/drivethru/2009/08/brad-pitts-political-decision-no-marriage/

"A part of the reason they haven’t married is political. Pitt declared that they would not marry until marriage is redefined for same-sex couples. He recently repeated his support for same-sex marriage on the Bill Maher show.

Pitt’s political statement is surely appreciated by the would-be redefiners of marriage although they gain nothing tangible. But his children really lose out. They lose the stability of a married mother and father and all the good things that go with it."

Don't they realized that the last part is also true for children whose gay or lesbian parents are prevented from marrying?

Posted by: Bill Ware | Aug 20, 2009 10:18:06 AM

comments powered by Disqus

G-A-Y Comments Policy


 
Related Posts with Thumbnails