State of the Union
EXCERPT:
"Our second great responsibility to our children and grandchildren is to honor and to pass along the values that sustain a free society. So many of my generation, after a long journey, have come home to family and faith, and are determined to bring up responsible, moral children (not homosexuals like Mary Cheney). Government is not the source of these values, but government should never undermine them.
Because marriage is a sacred institution and the foundation of society, it should not be re-defined by activist judges. For the good of families, children, and society, I support a constitutional amendment to protect the institution of marriage."
After telling an entire minority class of American gays and lesbians that they're immoral and basically not aligned with families, children, or society in general, Bush has the gall to segue into the next section of his speech (on medical research) with the sentence...
"Because a society is measured by how it treats the weak and vulnerable..."
And follow it a few moments later with...
"Because one of the deepest values of our country is compassion, we must never turn away from any citizen who feels isolated from the opportunities of America."
Except, of course, if you're a homosexual (like Mary Cheney).
(photo not from tonight's address)
Posted Feb. 2,2005 at 10:53 PM EST by Andy Towle in Current Affairs | Permalink
Everyone talks about Bush's speech- you know the F**ked up part is somebody is actually getting paid to write this crap. I wonder if the speech writers get together and figure out random ways to make Bush look bad- it just seems like he doesn't even go over the speech before speaking in front of a nation.
I think we {Gays} should just stop paying taxes and planning events that would sure enough put a ripple in the economy.
Sidebar: When are we going to get mad enough to do something? Or are we all to busy working out?
Posted by: David | Feb 2, 2005 11:01:10 PM
One more note: Mary Cheney Sucks dick.
Posted by: David | Feb 2, 2005 11:02:13 PM
Food for thought:
Law for the Protection of
German Blood and German Honor
(September 15, 1935)
Entirely convinced that the purity of German blood is essential to the further existence of the German people, and inspired by the uncompromising determination to safeguard the future of the German nation, the Reichstag has unanimously resolved upon the following law, which is promulgated herewith:
Section 1
1. Marriages between Jews and citizens of German or kindred blood are forbidden. Marriages concluded in defiance of this law are void, even if, for the purpose of evading this law, they were concluded abroad.
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/nurmlaw2.html
Posted by: cswpride | Feb 2, 2005 11:02:57 PM
His connecting the idea of protecting children with opposing gay rights is even worse than what he said last year, more inflammatory, more unconscionable. It is not new propaganda, of course. The slogan, and most effective rational, of the Anita Bryant crusade in 1977 was "Save Our Children." Fundraiser and spokesperson for the opposition, Leonard Matlovich, who had been an Air Force race relations instructor before being kicked out, produced a picture from the '50s of a car bearing the sign "Save Our Children"--from "Coloreds," of course. As I recall, the proposed ad using it was one of several, including one using a picture of Anne Frank as another comparison with other bigotry, that "The Miami Herald" refused to publish. They now have a gay columnist. They may have evolved, but the state's current governor and his exalted brother have not. These shameless words got not just a standing ovation, but also yells of support loud enough to be heard above the aggressive applause. But, hey, when's the next circuit party?
Posted by: Leland | Feb 3, 2005 1:04:59 AM
I didn't watch the SoU speech. I was too busy watching the PBS documentary on Auschwitz. Figured I may as well see where we're going to be living in a couple years.
too busy working out. hehehe
Rikki Lee
Posted by: Rikki Lee | Feb 3, 2005 7:33:12 AM
Worst. President. Ever.
Posted by: Stosine | Feb 3, 2005 7:47:18 AM
MUST ... CONTROL ... FIST ... OF ... DEATH ...
Posted by: Jake | Feb 3, 2005 9:42:06 AM
There's a Sony Trinitron with a shoe in the screen out in the trash dumpster today.
Posted by: bmw | Feb 3, 2005 10:14:57 AM
Marriage a sacred institution? Riiiight! When our leaders stop getting married and divorced and remarried and divorce and remarried and divorce...then just maybe it will be sacred. How many times does one have to be married before it's no longer considered sacred?. And does anyone still say the Pledge of Allegiance? Think about the last few words, "...liberty and JUSTICE for ALL?"
Posted by: Thom | Feb 3, 2005 2:46:05 PM
I dunno, but it seemed like he was saying gays don't deserve the "freedom" that apparently Iraqi's 4,000 miles away do. In my mind, I wonder if he's saying we aren't humans or we aren't Americans. If so, why pay taxes? *rips up tax forms*
Posted by: Derrick | Feb 3, 2005 4:18:01 PM
"Because one of the deepest values of our country is compassion, we must never turn away from any citizen who feels isolated from the opportunities of America."
-President Bush
How can a gay person of this nation feel any different than this?
It's insulting for these wierd repelant christian bigots to malign our people. Isolation is the only thing that a gay American can ever feel, regardless of whether a republican or democrat is in office. Both of these parties are a panacea of the hate sprung from a religion that has over 2000 years of tyranny upon our people! Contrary to popular opinion, christians are not a benign people. They are often sweet talking liars and monsters that we should be spiritually and religiously oppossed to 24/7.
Is it any wonder that recently a professor called those who died at 9/11 little Eichmans? He seemed to need to use provacative language, even to be heard above the moral ignorance of an increasingly ugly and short sighted populace.
Anger is good in such circumstances. We need more anger against our enemies and less agreement about how the Government is going to "free" us. We don't need this present Government, it has clearly failed a large part of our nation.
We have fought and won wars before, time will bear us out, yet again, as a superiour and powerful people, I look forward to the day when our foes will fall like dust at our feet.
Posted by: visibleh20 | Feb 3, 2005 4:45:29 PM
Marriage is currently a priviledge given in this country, not a right, just like a driver's license. I personally think it's a priviledge to be taken away from everyone since it is primarily religious in function and origin.
And I love Bush for his Social Security initiative.
Posted by: John | Feb 3, 2005 6:59:54 PM
I wonder if anyone made a connection between the GW 'pro-marriage amendment as anti-gay pandering' and 'funding Ryan White Care Act esp. for hard-hit blacks'.
My take away was that Rove was again shoring up a new sturdy conservative base. Send him a copy of 'On the Down Low' by JL King, just so he knows that the black conservative base he's trying to shore up is hardest hit by HIV for, you guessed it, the same reasons he's using to shore up the base.
If being gay is so bad that there has to be a constitutional amendment to keep queers from marrying, then surely bisexual black guys are not going to want to disclose to their wives and girlfriends that they like a little receptive anal sex from time to time.
Posted by: jimmypermo | Feb 3, 2005 7:54:18 PM
Dear John: "love Bush" for anything while he cultivates such hate? It is my privilege to tell you to go fuck yourself and wish you all of the suffering in your solipsistic life that this monster's policies and propaganda visit upon others. Of course he's blowing air kisses at the Ryan White CARE Act--it's a distraction from his having refused in his first term to increase funding--for the first time since the act's creation. As for the extent of his and his theocratic thugs plot to manipulate the Black community, read this article from today's "Los Angeles Times."
COMMENTARY
Selling Their Birthright to the GOP
Some black ministers betray their people.
By Madison Shockley and Kelvin Calloway
Madison Shockley is the minister at the Pilgrim United Church of Christ in Carlsbad. Kelvin Calloway is the pastor of the Second AME Church in Los Angeles.
It is a sad beginning to Black History Month when a group of black preachers have so forgotten the past that they agree to be tutored in "moral values" by Republican operatives in sheep's clothing.
Don't get us wrong: Some of our best friends are Republicans. But the recent invasion by Karl Rove's minions into the heart of black communities and black churches across the country — most recently on Tuesday at the Crenshaw Christian Center, one of Los Angeles' biggest churches — has been downright offensive.
Seventy pastors apparently turned out for Tuesday's meeting, which was supposedly organized by conservative black ministers who had backed George W. Bush in November and who are seeking to promote what they say is a new agenda for the black community.
Are they doing it with programs that bring jobs, education and opportunity? Nooooooooooooo. They are doing it with a campaign against gay marriage. They are unveiling a "black contract with America on moral values." That's right, Newt Gingrich is back and he's black! And in case you didn't know, gay marriage, not gang violence, gay marriage, not hyper-unemployment and undereducation, is what has destroyed our jobs, closed our schools and forfeited our opportunities.
That the ideological descendants of the architects of Jim Crow would be setting up shop in inner cities to structure a solution to the problems of being black in America is beyond ludicrous.
And the focus on gay marriage is a fundamental betrayal of the civil rights movement in this country. If these people have their way, it will be the first time since Jim Crow that discrimination against a group of people is written into law. Everywhere you see the phrase "gay marriage," just remember the word "miscegenation." Listen to the arguments they're making: It's unnatural. It's against God's plan for humanity. Haven't we heard that before?
These ministers also claim a deep concern for the "unborn" who are aborted. OK. We all want to reduce the number of abortions. But this is best done through economic empowerment to support a family and through contraception for effective family planning. The fact is that abortions have increased in some states under President Bush, according to a study from Fuller Theological Seminary, after both teen pregnancy and abortions declined under President Clinton.
The saddest part is that these ministers, who have inherited a legacy of respect, leadership and authority, would squander their profound birthright for a bowl of faith-based porridge. The underbelly of this Republican initiative is the promise of funding for church programs. That's a true sellout.
The black church has always stood with the oppressed and never the oppressor. It has not been in the forefront of the "pro-life" movement because it recognized that prohibiting abortions leads to the maiming and death of thousands of poor, often black, women. It has not been in the forefront of the movement against gay marriage because it doesn't adhere to the biblical literalism of many fundamentalist churches and looks more to the compassion of Jesus than to conservative legalism.
If the black church took the Bible literally we would still be "slaves obey[ing] your masters" (Ephesians 6:5). The gospel of freedom that has been the hope and strength of the black church is still a powerful and meaningful message to millions who are weekly inspired to struggle harder, study longer and love so fervently that hate, discrimination and prejudice wilt under its persistent presence.
Posted by: Leland | Feb 4, 2005 1:29:06 AM
Hi Leland, it's not the government's responsibility to feed, clothe, ensure citizens have jobs, or take care of its citizens financially or emotionally, whether black or white. Government's job is to protect the freedoms of its citizens from outside or inside forces. It's up to every black person (or white) to become productive to society.
Posted by: John | Feb 4, 2005 11:17:55 PM
Thanks for taking my advice, John. Most people can't get fucked and think at the same time and your latest ejaculation indicates you're doing a great job at fucking yourself because you're not making any sense at all.
Posted by: Leland | Feb 4, 2005 11:40:24 PM
Who wronged you to make you so bitter?
Posted by: John | Feb 5, 2005 5:52:04 PM
John -
It's unlikely I'll have time to visit this blog again for some time (I've only stumbled across it by accident), and I have no intent to anger you or become engaged in a discussion that we'd likely disagree on, as we're both exercising our right to hold and express our own opinions. I even agree, though likely for opposing reasons, that marriage is being treated as functionally religious, rather than civil.
However, I did want to address a couple of your statements. Again, I don't expect to sway you and I believe absolutely in your right to think and say whatever you wish. But purely from a factual standpoint, I felt I should point these out for some other reader who might someday read your words and accept them as fact:
~ "(marriage) is primarily religious in function and origin."
Though religion certainly has a long historical presence in the institution, and though it's currently being treated as de facto religious, marriage is not religious in origin. (In fact, until about the 13th century, the Church felt marriage was inherently tainted and refused to make it a sacrament.) The historical root of marriage is economic, based on innumerable branches of economic & socioeconomic consideration (personal security, gaining an heir, allying families or fortunes or political support, securing income for your family with the marriage-trade of offspring, etc.). From medieval European fathers bartering their daughters into marriage to gain lands or soldiers or the favor of their liege, to long-ago Chinese families arranging marriages between their pre-adolescent sons and wealthy men, the history of marriage lies in economics.
(These marriages were considered completely normal and valid, btw. The youth's family gained income and an ally. The boy was thought to learn courage and obedience and manly virtues from his older husband. And the older man was able to gain a young, energetic partner, one whose gender intrinsically made him a more worthy partner than a woman [as per the mindset of the time], and who would not become pregnant and thus interrupt his non-procreation-related usefulness to his husband. When the boy reached manhood, the marriage was usually dissolved, the boy moved into adult life, and both he and his former husband were free to take on new husbands/wives or stay with each other or whatever they wished. My apologies - I digress in my nonsequitorial support of marriage not being traditionally or intrinsically heterosexual.)
~ "Marriage is currently a priviledge (sic) given in this country, not a right ..."
Whilst people from every viewpoint have fought for years over unspoken limits and "true" meanings, it's nonetheless a fact that some of the highest judicial bodies in the land have made rulings that negate your statement - and did so prior to the increase in the push for GLBT rights of the last few decades. These rulings were made in an era rife with the demand for equal and civil rights.
It will surely be a long time before people get done placing restrictions and enforcing modern agendas on these rulings. But the essence of these statements, regardless of which hyperfocused issues were being addressed at the time, remains true. And if the justices themselves don't always agree with this truth, perhaps they should learn to more restrictively qualify their words when commenting on the rights of a nation's people.
*Supreme Court of Minnesota, Loving v. Virginia (1967): "Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man' ..." and "The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights ..."
*US Supreme Court, Cleveland Board of Education v. Lafleur (1974): "This Court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment."
*US Supreme Court, Zablocki v. Redhail (1978) (the court upheld and expanded the innate protections of Loving v. Virginia, negating the interpretation that Loving v. Virginia was restricted or qualified): "... prior and subsequent decisions of this Court confirm that the right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals." (Which says it's not only a right, but also that it applies to ALL people.) It also ruled that "the right to marry is part of the fundamental 'right to privacy'" in the U.S. Constitution.
So, regardless of personal, religious, and political standpoints, and despite the melee in today's courts regarding every side of the issue of marriage, the highest judicial bodies in the country have already declared marriage to be an inherent right for all people. Until those who oppose this right get their all-consuming and absolute way, this right is written into the annals of American - and human - history.
Posted by: Raven | Feb 7, 2005 10:44:16 AM
http://rusyk5.orgfree.com/ compare credit equity http://rusyk5.6te.net quick credit repair
http://rusyk5.6te.net/christian-credit-debt-counseling.html christian credit debt counseling http://rusyk5.6te.net/credit-debt-counseling-services.html credit debt counseling services http://rusyk5.6te.net/credit-and-debt-counseling.html credit and debt counseling http://rusyk5.6te.net/do-it-yourself-credit-repair-kit.html do it yourself credit repair kit http://rusyk5.orgfree.com/michigan-home-equity-line-of-credit.html michigan home equity line of credit http://rusyk5.6te.net/debt-management-credit-counseling-corporation.html debt management credit counseling corporation http://rusyk5.orgfree.com/benefit-credit-equity-home-line.html benefit credit equity home line http://rusyk5.6te.net/debt-management-credit-counseling.html debt management credit counseling http://rusyk5.6te.net/advice-bad-credit-repair.html advice bad credit repair http://rusyk5.orgfree.com/about-home-equity-line-of-credit-payment.html about home equity line of credit payment
Posted by: Rddean | Jun 1, 2007 3:08:51 AM
There are literally hundreds of credit repair websites and a lot of them try to guarantee success but the reality is most of them are just a waste of money.
Posted by: Credit Repair | May 28, 2009 10:12:26 AM
There are literally hundreds of credit repair websites and a lot of them try to guarantee success but the reality is most of them are just a waste of money. They use methods of repairing your credit you can do yourself if you simply google credit repair templates. Their process is very lengthy and requires months and even years to get a lot of things removed and sometimes the bad marks can come back as some companies are very persistent, especially if you still owe them money.
The only guaranteed method to repair your credit is to pay off the old bills and get your derogatory balances to $0. "Well that isn't very helpful" is probably what you are saying. Since none of us just have cash laying around to do that there are other things you can do that are guaranteed to increase your FICO score practically overnight and start rebuilding your credit.
It's actually very simple. Sign up for Millennium Secured Credit Card and send them $300. Buy $90 worth of groceries on it and make the payments. Keep the balance under $90. Then sign up for www.alliedtrustdiamond.com and get a $10,000 unsecured credit card, buy something and make the payments. Do a google search for USA Shopping Club and sign up with them for $12,500 unsecured credit card buy something and make the payments, Eclub USA and get your $3,500 credit card and finally Horizon Gold and get your $500 credit card.
Once all of these companies report to the credit bureaus you are going to see an immediate increase in your FICO score. Guaranteed. Then you can work on getting the bad marks paid off and removed. It's much easier to get them permanently deleted if you don't owe them any more money.
Posted by: alliedtrustdiamond | Jun 10, 2009 4:41:28 AM