THE HISTORY OF
Those, who oppose any Group’s Basic Rights, always come up with specious arguments to support their untenable position. And those Obstructionists are generally the same people, who try to DEHUMANIZE and DEPRIVE Blacks, women, Atheists, Muslims, Catholics, Hispanics, Poor, Ex-Cons and all other disenfranchised Groups, who differ from their WASP (White Anglo-Saxon Protestant) heritage in some way, of their Constitutional Rights.
These are the very same OBSTRUCTIONISTS, who attempt to deny Women their Roe V. Wade rights, the Rights of We The People to Unionize, and the Rights of Blacks & Poor to vote against the REPUBLICAN PARTY! From the Days of Slavery until the middle of the 20th Century, these people voted Democratic – but today they vote Republican.
And these are the same folks, who scream like Banshees over any perceived threat to their NRA 2nd Amendment Rights!
Now they are out to get Homosexuals and Lesbians, even though some of them are Homosexual and Lesbian. Ever hear of that Gay Faction called “Log Cabin Republicans”? Sometimes it is pretty hard to draw a line in the sand the way you can with Blacks! (Thanks to horny Slave Owners, even some Blacks are not easily identifiable.)
But Homosexuals and Lesbians are a definite “Crossover” Group! These Bigoted Obstructionists are just plain SILLY – and they know it! But being abjectly SILLY doesn’t stop them!
Just like the Capitalist Have-Mores, who propagandize us with Lies and Half-Truths like the FLAT TAX and FAIRTAX, which are both REGRESSIVE and Unfair to all but the Very Rich, these Obstructionists use the same False Arguments they used to avoid Integration, initiate Miscegenation, to install Prohibition, to perpetuate the Phony War On Drugs, to deny Women Equal Pay for Equal Work and to mislead us by Exploiting Our Fears into permitting the unconscionable, unacceptable and unambiguously unnecessary Iraq War!
SEPARATE BUT EQUAL
ONE MORE TIME
You’ve heard it before:
“Slavery in America does not compare to the Genocide of 6 Million Jews by German Nazis in Europe”,
“The Deaths of 1 Million Muslims in Iraq do not equate to the Deaths of 3,000 Americans on 9/11/2001”, and
“Homosexual Rights do not compare to the Black Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s”.
From those 3 episodic assertions in World History, we can deduce the following Axiom (not Tabacco’s Axiom, but the Loudest Exploited Persons’ Axiom):
If you conclude that this Axiom represents nothing more than a Corollary of the Hypocrisy PRINCIPLE, go to the Head of the Class!
Lest Black Folks & White People forget those days when we could not get a Marriage License to wed each other – hell, we couldn’t even get a License for a “Civil Ceremony”! Southern Miscegenation Laws:
There appears to be a General Principle here that whenever any Group (Jews, Blacks, Americans-in-General) is exploited, denigrated, rights-abused or murdered in genocidal fashion, that group, once recovered, will not suffer any future exploited group because that future group is deemed “less worthy”!
Let us pray that, in the future, Homosexuals and Lesbians, once recovered, do not join Jews, Blacks and Americans-in-General in the pursuit of that General Principle. But I would not bet on it!
There are a plethora of quotes that apply here, but this is by far the very best:
First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out–
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out–
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out–
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—
and there was no one left to speak for me.
Whenever anyone says, “Gay Marriage will harm the Institution of Marriage for Straights!”, ask them this:
And make them answer your one-word question! Don’t permit them to SKIRT the Question!
The Post’s View
Supreme Court must strike down Proposition 8 and DOMA
By Editorial Board, http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/supreme-court-must-strike-down-proposition-8-and-doma/2013/03/25/78b9cd84-9589-11e2-ae32-9ef60436f5c1_story.html – license-78b9cd84-9589-11e2-ae32-9ef60436f5c1
LAST THURSDAY, people started spending nights in the ticket line outside the Supreme Court, and we can’t blame them.
Over the next two days, the justices will consider two of the weightiest civil rights cases in years, both about the continuing struggle of gay men and lesbians to obtain equal recognition under the law. On Tuesday, the court will consider the constitutionality of Proposition 8, a California initiative that banned same-sex marriage in the state. On Wednesday, the justices will turn to the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), a law enacted in 1996 that bars the federal government from offering benefits to same-sex couples, even if they were legally married in their home state.
The justices have many options as they consider how to rule. But more important than the particulars of their eventual holdings is the general direction they choose to take: They must move the country forward, not back.
It is possible but unlikely that the court will hand down ringing decisions proclaiming marriage and all its benefits to be a constitutional guarantee, available to same-sex couples in every state. We believe in this outcome as a matter of moral and legal principle, and we expect it will prevail, eventually. But we also expect it will take more time for courts — and society at large — to embrace it fully.
It is also possible that the justices will uphold Proposition 8, DOMA’s noxious provisions or both. They must not choose this direction. Although many Americans’ attitudes on these matters are far from simple — we would hardly accuse President Obama of rank bigotry for opposing same-sex marriage only a couple of years ago — denying gay men and lesbians the right to marry is unjustifiable discrimination, and denying federal benefits to duly married couples is even more obviously repugnant to the notion of equal protection.
The arguments of those defending discrimination against gay couples are beyond far-fetched. Proposition 8’s advocates, for example, contend that restricting marriage to heterosexual couples must be rational because for thousands of years people widely agreed that the institution involved only the union of a man and a woman. That reasoning stinks of the faulty logic used to justify the persistence of all sorts of discrimination. They also argue that marriage’s purpose is to ensure that children are born into stable families; therefore, California should be allowed to limit marriage to only those capable of biological procreation. That is a narrow and insulting view of marriage. Would it then be constitutional to deny sterile heterosexual couples the right to marry? How about older couples? Moreover, lesbians can bear children and gay men can adopt. Why wouldn’t society want their parents to be wed, too?
A much more reasonable outcome than that would have the court point forward cautiously. Neither Proposition 8 nor DOMA’s worst provisions should survive the court’s review. But the justices can be expected to stop short of ruling so broadly that they would require every state to recognize same-sex marriage, when four-fifths of the states currently do not.
The court could knock down Proposition 8 in a manner that would restore same-sex marriage in California without affecting any other state, perhaps on procedural grounds. The Obama administration, meanwhile, has offered the justices another way to repudiate the proposition while limiting the impact of a ruling. Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli Jr. argues that states that already offer same-sex couples all the benefits of marriage, as California does through domestic partnerships, cannot have any good reason to deny those couples the title. Ruling along those lines would have a broader impact than would a decision based on a technicality — California’s marriage ban would go, as would those of seven other states. That verdict, though, might also discourage states from offering same-sex couples partnership rights, for fear that a court would then force them to marry gay and lesbian couples.
On DOMA, the justices could use procedural grounds to strike down the statute. The high court could alternatively rule on the substance of the constitutional claims yet keep its decision narrow. In so doing, the justices would join two circuit courts that have offered legal reasoning to excise DOMA’s most objectionable bits from the federal code without writing much broader precedent into the judicial canon.
The progressive but incremental approach that these circuit courts, the Obama Justice Department, prominent attorneys and many others who would uphold gay rights have adopted represents an important phase in the evolution of legal thought on same-sex marriage. It cannot be satisfying to those of us who see a strong equal-protection case for same-sex equality. But, given concerns that a sweeping judicial mandate might cause a counterproductive backlash, it is understandable.
Gay-rights advocates are winning the argument. American society is changing faster than anyone could have thought possible only a decade ago. Nine states and the District now allow same-sex marriage. Voters in three of those states, including Maryland, affirmed their support for such nuptials last year. Opinion polling shows that a majority of Americans supports extending marriage rights to gay men and lesbians. Among young Americans, who grew up in an era in which friends and relatives could more easily come out of the closet and be themselves, there is hardly a debate. Now, it seems not only possible but also likely that same-sex marriage will be legal, widespread and, frankly, mundane and that this will happen relatively soon. The Supreme Court must play a part in this civil rights triumph — and justices should not shrink from it.
The Supreme Court has been packed over the years by Republicans with Conservative Justices, who favor Corporate Interests over Government Interests, Government Interests over Populist interests, and Conservative Dogma over Human Rights.
Remember that the next time you consider voting for a Republican Mayor, a Republican State Legislator, a Republican Congressman, a Republican Senator or a Republican President!
You’re not just voting for a single Republican Politician, you’re voting for each and every Right-Wing/Obstructionist/Conservative/Human Rights Opponent Supreme Court Justice, nominated by any and all Republican Presidents.
Tabacco: I consider myself both a funnel and a filter. I funnel information, not readily available on the Mass Media, which is ignored and/or suppressed. I filter out the irrelevancies and trivialities to save both the time and effort of my Readers and bring consternation to the enemies of Truth & Fairness! When you read Tabacco, if you don’t learn something NEW, I’ve wasted your time.
Tabacco is not a blogger, who thinks; I am a Thinker, who blogs. Speaking Truth to Power!
In 1981′s ‘Body Heat’, Kathleen Turner said, “Knowledge is power”.
T.A.B.A.C.C.O. (Truth About Business And Congressional Crimes Organization) – Think Tank For Other 95% Of World: WTP = We The People