Monday, April 19, 2010
"Gay Marriage" Problem Solved
"Gay Marriage" Problem Solved
Posted by J. Bradford Sivils on Monday, April 19, 2010 10:17:00 AM
I've offered this "solution" to the "Gay Marriage" problem with friends and associates, so I decided I would codify it in writing and share with the world.
As most of you know, the primary issue about "gay marriage" has been one of definition. Set aside the fact that for roughly 10,000 years of human civilization, we have understood "marriage" to be a union between a man and a woman. Oh, sometimes one man would have MANY wives! But never has a civilization recognized "marriage" of people of the same sex.
Here in California, the people have voted in referendums on 2 recent occasions to define "marriage". The first occasion, the people of California voted to add a statute to the legal books. Gay marriage "activists" sued the State of California to overturn the statute as "unconstitutional" and the case went to the California Supreme Court. The Supreme Court dutifully ruled the statute unconstitutional arguing that there was no "definition" of marriage in the California Constitution prohibiting the court from extending the "right" of marriage to same-sex couples.
Enter Proposition 8! Proposition 8 was the people's response to the California Supreme Court. "You can't find a definition of marriage in the California Constitution? Well, we'll give you a definition!" As an amendment to the Constitution of the State of California. And it's simple: "Marriage in the State of California shall be recognized as a union between one man and one woman". I paraphrase, but that's essentially it! Simple! Understand now?
So, the California Supreme Court rightfully concluded that they could not trump the will of the people of the State of California and let the amendment to the State Constitution stand.
What to do now with same-sex couples seeking some similar legal standing? We get back to definitions or terms. As the term "marriage" is not available to them, let's offer same-sex couples a new term to use! I suggest we create the term "Obamaige". Same-sex couples can refer to their relationship as "Obama'd". Instead of referring to themselves as "husband" and "wife", the couple can now refer to themselves as "Barack" and "Michelle".
Imagine meeting a newly-wed same-sex couple.
James: "Hello, I'm James and you are?"
John#1: "I'm John. Allow me to introduce my 'Michelle', John."
James: "Oh, so you're 'Obama'd!'"
John#1: "Why, yes. We got 'Obama'd' last week. We're on our 'Hussein-a-Moon'."
James: “And you make a nice couple!”
John#2: “Thank you! I know in my heart I picked the best man to be my ‘Barack’.”
The priest could introduce the new couple at the wedding thus-ly: “I now pronounce you ‘Barack’ and ‘Michelle’.”
How is that for simplicity?? Same-sex couples now have a term with legal standing that does not confuse with “marriage”.
Oh, wait! I want to give same-sex couples a new term based on Barack and Michelle Obama’s names?? Didn’t Barack Obama say in the 2008 Presidential Campaign that he was against Gay “Marriage”?? Not to worry! He didn’t mean all those things he said in the Presidential Campaign anyway, did he? Like being a “moderate centrist” or “not raising taxes”.
At least “Obama’d” same-sex couples won’t be punished with a baby.
Voiceman of the Geico Gecko Gets Canned
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
Posted by: Meredith Jessup at 2:12 PM
As Kevin noted last week, a man identifying himself as Lance Baxter, the voice of the GEICO gecko, left a message accusing FreedomWorks and its Tea Party supporters of being "mentally retarded" and inciting violence.
Now, one week after FreedomWorks put Baxter's angry voicemail online, the gecko actor reports he's been dropped from GEICO's campaign. In a statement, Baxter claims his tirade was motivated by "the recent gay and racial slurs slung by Tea Party members at Congressman Barney Frank and Representative John Lewis during the Health Care Reform Weekend," (sic) and says he's "open to any attorneys taking on this case pro bono."
Yeah, good luck with that.
For another article about what's up with the fags - click here
Posted by Brett at 11:43 AM