Democracy Has Prevailed.

March 31, 2008

"Blog For Equality"

Let me just say that as someone who will be getting married soon (no date set, yet, sorry), I am just so grateful to the Pennsylvania legislature for acting to protect the institution of marriage from those despicable homosexual hordes. I mean if my gay friend Sue - and don't get me wrong, I don't hate teh gays, some of my best friends are gay - but if she were allowed to marry her partner it would disturb my life in many many many frightening ways. Ways I can not now imagine without some horrific soul-crushing shudder.

What would we tell the children (who, let's face it are the products of the regular natural het'rosexual process) if they were to ask about Heather's two mommies? It's a completely uncomfortable discussion that no right thinking straight person should be forced to have. All we hear about these days are equal rights for teh gays. What about my right not to have to think about them? What about my right not to have my regular het'rosexual lifestyle disturbed by such notions? Why should I waste my beautiful mind on such things?

Don't get me wrong, I am not opposed to teh gay lifestyle (as unnatural as it obviously is, Leviticus 18:22), but I just don't want to see it. If only those people could cover it up and at least look straight and normal - that would make me much more comfortable in my own life.

And so in response, I think it's utterly reasonable to limit the constitutional protections of those sad, misguided people. I mean they made their choice not to have a normal regular life, didn't they? Let them live with the consequences! Make them second class citizens! We should all make sure that we're pleasing the Almighty (who, let's face facts here, single handedly created America to be a Christian-Nation) by making sure we do His will by being hateful and intolerant to teh gays whenever we think He'd want us to.

I just wouldn't be able to sleep at night knowing that some gay person somewhere might actually be getting equal treatment under the law.

And so, we have to change the law.


PS if you don't get the joke, you're reading the wrong blog.


Anonymous said...

Blog for equality = Masturbate for peace.
Very effective.

Anonymous said...

"Masturbate for peace."

John K. says: That's the idea, except it should be Masturbate for war. LOL LMAO

Sue said...

Interesting post, dayvoe. Ledcat and I spent about 17 hours this weekend on our assigned "destroy heterosexual marraige" homework.

To read what other bloggers are doing for B4Epgh, visit

Thanks to Maria for our logo.

Anonymous said...

Great opportunity to speak up here. With the number of broken families and disfunctional kids we are seeing, something is not going well with God's law. Or didn't he have any laws about faithfulness and parenting? Friends of ours, a Gay Couple, sat leaning lovingly against each other,(as most dating couples do) and I saw no reaction from a little 6 year old girl sitting nearby. A few adults seemed a bit uncomfortable, but the little girl just smiled at them and kept coloring. That was positive proof that hatered has to be taught. She has not learned it yet and with the Family I see her in, she will never learn it. Oh, she'll see others that hate, but she will not.
Maybe there is hope for a fairer world with this new generation. If they have some good examples from the "Grown-ups".

Anonymous said...

Your misunderstanding of the history of "marriage" is shocking. You have some chutzpah to post this satirical diatribe and not even know what you are talking about.

First, show me in the Consitution where you are allowed to marry ANYONE you want...and then tell me why I can't marry my 1st cousin...

You know so little about marriage, you might want to pass on pursuing it yourself

Anonymous said...

John K says: When did I say that? Have to make stuff up again I see. By the way, who cares who you hang with. The problem is you could care less about your significant other. You just want to rub it in societies eye. Something teenagers do. Grow up already.

Anonymous said...

John K. says: When I grow up and have a significant other, will HE look at my dickie?

Anonymous said...

I had an "Outdoor Adventure" hikeing a portion of the Ap. Trail with 23 women. Two of those "girls' were celebrating their 40th anniversary of committment. We all enjoyed the celebration and not one other woman had, or thought they ever would, reach that milestone. But God forbid (or this Christian Nation) they would ever have the rights of "normal" people. Who did they hurt? How many heteros have such a wonderful life?

C.H. said...

Personally, I am hoping that one day our lawmakers in Congress will pass a federal amendment ALLOWING gay marriage. How bad is it that some homosexuals can get married in one state, but not have it recognized in another?

It is truly a form of discrimination, and is no different than preventing interracial couples from marrying one another.

Anonymous said...

Come out, come out, wherever you are, and meet the young lady who came from a star!!! Go gays!

Anonymous said...

Dear Bush was right (Really? About what?)Friends.

Where in the Constitution you ask?

Feel free to read the amendments contained in the Bill of Rights

Amendment IX: Rights retained by the people
The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people

(This means States can't infringe upon your rights either.)
Some jurists have asserted that the Ninth Amendment is relevant to interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment. Justice Arthur Goldberg (joined by Chief Justice Warren and Justice Brennan) expressed this view in a concurring opinion in the case of Griswold v. Connecticut (1965):
The Supreme Court says (Goldberg penned the opinion)
"[T]he Framers did not intend that the first eight amendments be construed to exhaust the basic and fundamental rights.... I do not mean to imply that the .... Ninth Amendment constitutes an independent source of rights protected from infringement by either the States or the Federal Government....While the Ninth Amendment - and indeed the entire Bill of Rights - originally concerned restrictions upon federal power, the subsequently enacted Fourteenth Amendment prohibits the States as well from abridging fundamental personal liberties. And, the Ninth Amendment, in indicating that not all such liberties are specifically mentioned in the first eight amendments, is surely relevant in showing the existence of other fundamental personal rights, now protected from state, as well as federal, infringement."

Amendment XIV: Civil rights
The Fourteenth Amendment was proposed on June 13, 1866 and ratified on July 9, 1868.

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

What these two amendments do is afford citizens "equal protection" under the law. The 9th amendment is quite important in that the Bill of Rights explicitly says you cannot treat some one less than the other. Which is why you have the 19th Amendment giving women the right to vote (in 1920 for gods sake) Your logic and legal anaylysis is quite faulty. The Constitution does not say anything about marriage. It does say that if you are going to have a law about it then it shall be applied to all.

There is no "disenfranchisement" clause (as you would seemingly promote)in the Bill of Rights.

Under the Constitution there is no room to consider some less thean others. That happened legislativley wherein women were denied the right to vote. When push came to shove there was no Constitutional basis to support an unconstitutional law and hence the 19th Amendment.

It is not about marriage per se but the application of the 9th and 14th Amendments that liberates us from segregation, mesignation (mixed race marrriage See Plessy v Ferguson)slavery and all sorts of unconstitutional laws passed by legislatures accross this land. Under our Constitution all are seen equally before the law.

It is one of the great things about our constitution. It is the great emacipator and liberator from knuckleheads who see their role in life as being the authority to decide how the world ought to be. You have no such authority, thank goodness.

Now as to marrying your cousin, that goes to the laws of consanguinity. You can look that up yourself. It might do you some good to get familiar with these concepts being a citizen and all. Good thing you don't have to pass some citizenship test. You might not make the grade.

But hey, if you and your first cousin wanna wed you can in some states. Sister/brother deals are pretty much off limits as it is applied equally to all. That means it meets the constitutional test.

But if two unrelated consenting adults wanna tie the knot then I would argue that the Constitution provides for that via the equal application of the law.

Amendment XIX: Woman suffrage
The Nineteenth Amendment was proposed on June 4, 1919, and ratified on August 18,1920.

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

Happy Blog for Equality Day!

Call write email your representatives and tell them No Thank You Very Much to discrimination.

Douglas Shields
President, Pittsburgh City Council

Anonymous said...

John K. says: Doug Shields wrote a statement that says under our constitution all are seen equally before the law. LOL LOL LOL LMAO Doug Shields actually thinks we believe him when he says this. Since when does a liberal think all are equal under the law. LMAO

Anonymous said...

John K. says: Here's something that's more equal! Look at my peenie! See how more than equal it is! Lookie! Look at me! Look at my peenie!

Anonymous said...

Well John K. Thank you so very much to lending so much to this discussion. Your sharp wit and keen analysis of the core issues here are without equal. Henry Clay and John Adams could only wish they had John K's amazing talent.

Only a nation with the greatest President that ever lived, President, George W. Bush, could have produced such a political genius such as John K.(dated:April 1, 2008)