Saturday, June 03, 2006

Bush's speech (with his true thoughts added)

THE PRESIDENT: Good morning. Next week, the United States Senate will begin debate on a constitutional amendment that defines marriage in the United States as the union of a man and woman. On Monday, I will meet with a coalition of community leaders, constitutional scholars, family and civic organizations, and religious leaders. They're Republicans, Democrats, and independents who've come together to support this amendment. Today, I want to explain why I support the Marriage Protection Amendment, and why I'm urging Congress to pass it and send it to the states for ratification (Because I need your votes, you stupid fundamentalists).

Marriage is the most enduring and important human institution, honored and encouraged in all cultures and by every religious faith. Ages of experience have taught us that the commitment of a husband and a wife to love and to serve one another promotes the welfare of children and the stability of society (but it's alright to divorce as long as you were in a heterosexual marriage because well yeah it might hurt the children but at least they won't turn gay or somethin'. A small price to pay. Gee I better not mention divorce or else I'll lose the fundie vote). Marriage cannot be cut off from its cultural, religious, and natural roots without weakening this good influence on society. Government, by recognizing and protecting marriage, serves the interests of all (corporations and the top 5% of the country).

In our free society, people have the right to choose how they live their lives (except if you're queer). And in a free society, decisions about such a fundamental social institution as marriage should be made by the people -- not by the courts (but it's ok for the courts to make decisions kow-towing to corporations, my true base). The American people have spoken clearly on this issue, both through their representatives and at the ballot box (thanks to us fear-mongering and implying that gays will kidnap their children and brain-wash them into turning homosexual). In 1996, Congress approved the Defense of Marriage Act by overwhelming bipartisan majorities in both the House and Senate, and President Clinton signed it into law (about the only thing he did right). And since then, voters in 19 states have approved amendments to their state constitutions that protect the traditional definition of marriage (the voters finally did something right for a change. I guess in some rare cases, you can trust the people to do the right thing). And today, 45 of the 50 states have either a state constitutional amendment or statute defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman (Because if we let the gays get married, who knows what might happen? People might start marrying pigs or dolphins!). These amendments and laws express a broad consensus in our country for protecting the institution of marriage.

Unfortunately, activist judges and some local officials have made an aggressive attempt to redefine marriage in recent years (damn liberals! they control EVERYTHING). Since 2004, state courts in Washington, California, Maryland, and New York have overturned laws protecting marriage in those states. And in Nebraska, a federal judge overturned a state constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.

These court decisions could have an impact on our whole Nation (because if the gay agenda comes forth, our nation will crumble to the dust, but that might not be so bad...because Jesus will come and smite down the queers and all heathens and rapture all us good Christians up). The Defense of Marriage Act declares that no state is required to accept another state's definition of marriage. If that act is overturned by activist courts, then marriages recognized in one city or state might have to be recognized as marriages everywhere else. That would mean that every state would have to recognize marriages redefined by judges in Massachusetts or local officials in San Francisco (I'm surprised God hasn't told Pat Robertson that an earthquake or meteor swarm will destroy our Sodom and Gomorrah), no matter what their own laws or state constitutions say. This national question requires a national solution, and on an issue of such profound importance (o yeah, we all know that gay marriage is the biggest threat of terraism that we face today. Hell for all I know, the homo agenda might be in league with what's that guy's name again?), that solution should come from the people, not the courts.

An amendment to the Constitution is necessary because activist courts have left our Nation with no other choice. (Only they were following the will of the people when they appointed me to the White House, yup, no judicial activism there, just good ole democracy working hard) The constitutional amendment that the Senate will consider next week would fully protect marriage from being redefined, while leaving state legislatures free to make their own choices in defining legal arrangements other than marriage (I know it won't pass but Karl tells me it'll bring out the fundies, the rednecks, and the bigots to the polls). A constitutional amendment is the most democratic solution to this issue, because it must be approved by two-thirds of the House and Senate and then ratified by three-fourths of the 50 state legislatures.

As this debate goes forward, we must remember that every American deserves to be treated with tolerance, respect, and dignity (as long they agree with my political views). All of us have a duty to conduct this discussion with civility and decency toward one another, and all people deserve to have their voices heard (as long as they are on my side, everyone else can go fuck themselves). A constitutional amendment will put a decision that is critical to American families and American society in the hands of the American people, which is exactly where it belongs. Democracy, not court orders, should decide the future of marriage in America (except when it comes to stealing elections and giving corporations their just due).

Thank you for listening (ya dumbfucks. O wait, did I say that out loud?).

MY CATS HATE BUSH!!!!!! And so does the dog!!!!

Great post, BTW. I'm just scrolling through the list of blogs on STN, and clicking on the ones that catch my eye. I wonder if we really WILL save the Net? Not if the MIC has it's way, (Damn acronyms...military-industrial complex) we will be paying through the nose for internet access and even then (what the hell am I TALKING ABOUT...I ALREADY pay through the nose!!) we will not be able to access our fav MY blog or my web page or all the dissident, Liberal TRASH I love so well!! (Sarcasm.)
I need to think of a catchy title for my blog (My Thoughts) but that is what I was thinking when I created it..."My Thoughts!" Profound, no? blog. Keep up the good work (Bush-bashing!! My favorite past-time!!!)
which is why Philosopher Cats for Peeing on Bushes was started just before the election here.

Yeah, and with the media totally being in the MIC's pocket we have a long uphill battle but I have hope we'll prevail. I just visited your blog and I love it! Anyone who is against bush is a friend of mine.
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?