Prosecute the torture.

May 10, 2012

Clash Of World Views: Obama vs Teh Crazies

President Obama makes an exceedingly reasonable statement:
So I decided it was time to affirm my personal belief that same-sex couples should be allowed to marry.
And the culture warriors go crazie.

We have to start with Senator Man on Dog himself:
The announcement today by President Obama should come as no surprise to the American public. President Obama has consistently fought against protecting the institution of marriage from radical social engineering at both the state and federal level. The President recently opposed the North Carolina constitutional amendment and, of course, he refused to defend President Clinton's Defense of Marriage Act before the U.S. Supreme court. The charade is now over, no doubt an attempt to galvanize his core hard left supporters in advance of the November election.
Cardinal Timothy Dolan, president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops:
President Obama’s comments today in support of the redefinition of marriage are deeply saddening. As I stated in my public letter to the President on September 20, 2011, the Catholic Bishops stand ready to affirm every positive measure taken by the President and the Administration to strengthen marriage and the family. However, we cannot be silent in the face of words or actions that would undermine the institution of marriage, the very cornerstone of our society. The people of this country, especially our children, deserve better.
Rush Limbaugh:
It's official. Obama has announced he supports gay marriage after talks with his wife and daughters, gay service members, and others. Pink smoke coming from the White House chimney.
Catholic League president Bill Donohue:
President Obama will be hurt by this decision in the swing states. More than that, he has now made this cultural matter a major issue in the presidential campaign.

The time has finally come to pass a constitutional amendment affirming marriage as an institution reserved to the only two people who can naturally produce a family, namely a man and a woman.
Same sex couples should be allowed to marry. It's only fair.

And just because the bigotry is faith-based, doesn't mean it isn't bigotry.

4 comments:

Heir to the Throne said...

Senator Man on Dog himself:
So you can't refute his point so you just mock it.

No one has explained how the two people who love each other should be able to get married talking point does not apply if they are related or already married to someone else.
Courts use the excuse Society is too bigoted to allow that to happen.

VP Joe Biden expresses his approval of incestuous and polygamous marriages

Ol' Froth said...

I have no issue with polygamy. Its not for me, but I don't think it should be illegal. The prohibitions against marrying close relatives are there because of increased chances of genetic maladies, and its certainly open to argument if those chances are great enough to warrant such laws or not.

EdHeath said...

HTTT, has anyone (in the Obama administration) explicitly advocated marital infidelity or incestuous relationships? Newt Gingrich has showed us (repeatedly) his view of an acceptable path for changing passions within marital relationships. Many people (including many Democrats) think that reflects poorly on him.

Have you heard of Claude Levi-Strauss?

And you know, it was Santorum who said "man on dog" first.

scott huminski said...

Second Plaintiff Files in United States of America v. Sheriff Arpaio

United States of America v. Joseph Arpaio, et al.,

Docket # cv-12-981-PHX-LOA, U.S.D.C. (PHX)

Court Document:

http://www.scribd.com/jarpaio_1/d/93245267-USA-DOJ-v-Arpaio-2nd-Plaintiff-files
or
http://issuu.com/scottx/docs/usa_v_arpaio


Background:

www.sheriff-arpaio.com

Plaintiff's Youtube Channel:
http://www.youtube.com/user/scottxmysteryband


For those with access to the federal courts data base (PACER), select Arizona and search on Huminski for collateral very relevant matters.