What is the “defense” of DOMA and its Intent?
What is the “defense” of DOMA and it’s Intent?
Just yesterday I was at http://iowntheworld.com/blog/?p=73642 a website where I comment often and am fairly well known. And this fine lady Claudia posted some images which caused me to think, and to check out the source site: http://www.bossoenterprises.com/index.html which is filled with fun and mirth indeed. I recommend a stroll through it. And I found some images which I will use today to help soften my words. Thanks Claudia.
Now raging across this land is a debate on DOMA and all the mini-DOMAs. Oh it’s hysterical, as debates go. For there’s really just two sides of the issue – those who want NO GAYS, and those who could care less or even like us. Here’s the lay of the land, as gleefully presented by Professor Jacobson at www.legalinsurrection.com – he seems to be quite sure that this is the very way things are going to remain and heaven forfend anyone who questions such a thing. Except well, he seems to be not quite sure of whether DOMA should stay, only that it should be defended. He doesn’t offer his own defense, only that someone should defend it or else perhaps. He seems more upset with the legal way things are going for gays, and would like it to stay in the legislatures. Only that sort of puts us at a disadvantage for we can never get enough votes on our side. All we get is a lukewarm tolerance and no malice from the Democrats. Oddly, Republicans have often been more upset at the homo-hate than Democrats – like Alan Simpson of Wyoming lashing out at Rick Santorum, who always deserves www.spreadingsantorum.com to help him in his presidential run.
So here’s the map:
Now, we got marriages in a few states, and this or that civil registry here or there, you know, some crumbs off the national table of Liberty where the people sit. But that’s the problem now, you see, with all the DOMAs big and small – for it technically “dissolves” or “abrogates” or even, dare I say, automatically “divorces” a gay couple from one of the nice states who moves to one of the bad states. And logically, if you automatically do this legally – and it must be legally done, no? It can’t just be lalalala or something, can it? In fact, the very language of the DOMAs all seem to say that they will not recognize such marriages as if they don’t exist. Is that “Annulment”? Is that “legally separated”? Which term shall we use to describe the forced dissolution of the legal marriage? Ah, what a wicket done stuck. The DOMAs by automatically removing the state of marriage and contract of marriage actually recognize its existence. I mean, they passed a law specifically to break the bounds of holy matrimony. They had to know there was a marriage – they recognized as much by outlawing them. Defend that position, folks. It’ll be interesting.
Then, solidly behind the intent of Congress in passing their happy law on a national scale is the NO GAYS movement. See www.goodasyou.org for the daily compendium of horrors bestowed upon us as a distinct class of people all acting and doing the same in a lockstep line dance of sorts. Indeed, the forces which defend the law are quite intent on saying that such a thing as a legally recognized gay couple is a threat to the national order and maybe even nature itself. That has to be their defense – that such recognition is a threat. Only, Jacobson’s map shows that there’s no threat whatsoever. The Republic has stood, and the States have maintained themselves without civil insurrection of any kind. What peaceful happy places they remain, not much changed at all except gay marriage in a few and a sullen disregard for decency in the others. Oh the horrors that have befallen those places with gay marriages as the defenders of DOMA insist will happen. That is their only defense – gay people are bad and destructive. Like I said with my Bill of Attainder post – without any judicial trial nor presentation of any factual proof or evidence we have been declared some sort of threat to the nation and its people and perhaps even to ourselves as to our very competency – and a penalty is imposed – and it singles out us and only us. Yep, attain away at that defense.
So here’s the image which Claudia gave me which made my mind jump:
Because I do think as I please – and not as the NO GAYS movement insists I should. And so let’s look at this NO GAYS movement’s reasonings. Oh yes, there is a movement in this nation which is out to eradicate gay people. They call it, of course, “Curing homosexuality.” Well, perhaps this “homosexuality” thing is a ham, and it can be cured. I’m sure we get quite hammy indeed in Broadway shows, musicals and sundry Little Theaters across this nation. We also get hammy with the hair dressing and the interior designing and clothes and fashion design and model. Let’s not forget the hams of ballet either. Nor the hams that work the airlines as flight attendants or the hams that man the hotel desks of the finer sort of establishments. We don’t do Motel 6 much, but the Radisson? I mean really. Of course at thousands of restaurants across the nation ham is served by Tony or Tyler, John or Jason, who is very happy to serve you indeed. And you must enjoy the service, for you all keep coming on back. Indeed, the very entrepreneurial gay folks are employed at many a thing and seem to get on just fine with everyone. So the grave threat of these rather enterprising people bringing mirth, joy and merriment to the nation every day of the week are to be penalized as a threat by DOMA. Quite a theory of defense you all got there.
Still, the eradicate gay people movement – the NO GAYS movement actually – is quite determined to label us every outrageous thing in a vain attempt to rid us from the nation. They are quite sure that they have the secret to unlock our inner heterosexuality. I guess. I don’t know. They tell me it’s deep inside me somewhere. And if only I would look, at their behest, I shall find it and miraculously clear myself of the evil demon they proclaim loudly lies on my surface being. Indeed, they do think that it lies on the surface of my being – they even call it an “act.” And I’m hardly an actor at all. Still, they are sure they know not only how I think now – and how very dangerous it is – but that they know how I should think. They’d rather sooner than later too. And they are coming at me with all they got. Alas, such will not happen. Here, here’s why –
Yes, two blocks over, that’s where you’ll find the “domestic terrorists” that Tony Perkins thinks we are.
Let us look at the plethora of reasons why they think we’re gay. First, let’s get our side out of the way:
www.borngaybornthisway.blogspot.com – there, that’s our side. It’s also known as reality – but our opponents disagree. So, some think it’s because we have both a “temperment” and either a too strong and controlling father, or a too weak and distant father, or a father who was controlling but distant, or one who was weak and too close, or some other combo. This must all occur within the tender toddling years of 2 to 4. Toilet training does perhaps do us in. NARTH does set forth this tangled bit as clearly as they can – helpfully explaining “that this is not the only reason people are homosexual.” Nor are they clear as to whether this combo is just for the sissies or the tomboys too. I await newly refined ideas breathlessly. I hope I survive the wait.
Now, the archbishop of the armed forces – who just a few months ago was saying the end of the military was nigh because a gay guy was allowed to tell the truth (Commandment lesson for the good friar – Thou shall not lie, or bear false witness.) and now the broken thing was able to swoop down and take out Enemy #One of the entire world – he just says “it’s for largely unexplained reasons.” The clarity of it is breathtaking of course. For to hold such a position and then call for public policies against that which you can’t explain is just plain fear. And I would imagine that a prelate of the strongest church in Christendom would be able to must a bit more strength within himself to face reality. Why he, might talk to Cardinal George of Chicago who has a “fine man” of a nephew who also is a craven heathen out to destroy the western world by being “intrinsically evil” as the Pope in Rome does declare from time to time. So that tortured reasoning surely must be, um, straightened up, I would think, before we pass or defend a law, no? Since that’s the rationale for the law, after all.
Then too there’s other groups who are quite sure it’s our moms who did the deed. AFTAH which is always after the truth about homosexuality, and they do state so, is sure that it’s mom. They do not deign to say that she had one hell of a nerve despoiling the country with the gay boy, no. That would perhaps be too harsh. They just blame us for having been around as a tot and letting our moms do this awful thing to us. In fact, they’re sure that it is a mom too close or far, and of course one too clingy or too standoffish. Not to mention the one who is both a harpy and over-loving. Plus, we do need that all important predisposition of course, too. Without it it just won’t work. It’s a weird theory to defend, and I hope they file with all the courts this fine reasoning of theirs, to help the judges understand just what the menace is.
Now, here’s a fine picture of how all this “learning” to be gay starts, I think –
For you see, there we were as little boys and we saw straight people going at it – not just mom and dad, oh no – but on TV, and in movies, and the beaches and everywhere else a mind numbing number of heteros going at it in one way or the other. Indeed, the forces of heterosexuality are legion and pervasive throughout society. And what the NO GAYS movement believes, and what DOMA presupposes – is that even with this near 100% daily onslaught of heterosexuality gay folks threw it off in a fit of pique in our evil struggle to destroy the world. And that also we “caught” the thing when we were but 2 to 4 by somehow envisioning at that ripe young age what they claim is our real plan of destruction of civilization by settling down as couples behind a picket fence and growing roses. Yah, sure. That’s a fine theory you’ve got to defend. Care to take it up Professor Jacobson? Ruth Markus? The NRA? Anybody else? Do tell me what your defense of the law is more than just “tough, we don’t like it.”
If I was the gay lawyer in these case I’d bring up all these points, collectively – and I’d point out that since we are only talked about in the abstract as a group but never as any particular individual or couple actually doing anything like, you know, bad or evil – then we can indeed defend ourselves and attack others as a group. We can use all the group think you folks got lying around. And lying is the operative word indeed. Just mindless fabrications that we are a threat to society as we do the laundry. It’s ludicrous. But this is what is so important to defend – the very law which states we are a threat as couples and thus cannot be recognized. As individuals we are terrible, as couples we are horrendous. And as a lobby with an agenda, well, the heavens shake and the earth rattles.
Later on that night, you go to a nice dinner theater and get a nice ham dinner from one of us along with a song and dance number and you go home to bed satisfied with whatever you did that day in defending a law against the dire threat supposed. Such a harbinger of destruction a singing gay waiter is. Egad, people. Get a grip already.
- Posted in: Uncategorized