Monday, November 15, 2010


A PERMANENT TIME OUT: Our foaming rant last week suggesting that the actions of those that want to shove their devout delusions down our throats have ripened the time for the rest of us to convince our legislators to remove those 10 little marriage defining words (“which shall be only between a man and a woman”) didn’t mean to suggest that true homophobia was the sole domain of religious fanatics.

There are plenty of fear-gripped family folks whose insecurities over their own sexuality make them think they have the right to tell the rest of the world how and who to “love honor and cherish”.

These are the bozos who, though they can’t seem to articulate why, think that somehow allowing same sex couples to marry will devalue their own mom-dad-sis-bub, white-picket-fence-and-a-mortgage, child-abusing bickerfests.

We’re under no delusions that suddenly a majority of legislators and our new avowed anti-same-sex-marriage governor will suddenly see the absurdity of their “separate but equal” solution contained in last session’s HB 444.

But what they may do could, in the end, turn out to be the ultimate irony for these sociopaths who want to make sure that BTLG folks remain second-class citizen.

We were reminded again today of a “solution” that had traction among many if not most civil unions proponents and political pundits during the 2010 Legislature.

As a letter to the editor of the local Kaua`i newspaper suggested,

the government should get out of the marriage business all together and not issue marriage licenses to anyone. Instead, all couples would be issued a civil-union license. Couples who felt the need for the sacrament of marriage could go to their church. It would be up to the individual churches whether or not to perform the marriage ceremony. This way all couples would be in the same boat. We would all have equal standing under the law and the issue of how the Bible defines marriage would be in the hands of the churches where it belongs.

As a matter of fact, at one point last session there was a version of HB 444 that would have done just that. It was only nixed due to circumstances surrounding the last minute political process needed to bring the committee-withheld version of the bill to the floor for a house vote on the last day.

Wouldn’t it be deliciously ironic if these childish little cry-babies got their comeuppance for refusing to share their “right” to marry by having mommy and daddy essentially say “if you’re going to fight over it we’re going to take it away from both of you”?

We have no love lost over the demise of an institution that has been used simply to oppress since time immemorial... an institution whose time has been “up” for decades.

Funny, it’s these same types who want to government out of their lives. In this case, we say “gladly”.

1 comment:

jonathan jay said...

but why just leave it at "gladly" ?

what's wrong with "gayly" too?