Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

OUTRAGEOUS quotes about the "sanctity of marriage"!!!

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
Bluebear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-09-05 03:54 AM
Original message
OUTRAGEOUS quotes about the "sanctity of marriage"!!!
1. A U.S. representative from Georgia declares that allowing this type of marriage "necessarily involves the degradation” of conventional marriage, an institution that “deserves admiration rather than execration."

2. This type of legal marriage must be forbidden, says the Republican senator from Wisconsin, "simply because natural instinct revolts at it as wrong."

3. "The next step will be the demand for a law allowing them, without restraint, to have free and unrestrained social intercourse with your unmarried sons and daughters," warns a Kentucky congressman. "It is bound to come to that! There is no disguising the fact. And the sooner the alarm is given and the people take heed, the better it will be for our civilization."

4. "When people (like this) marry, they cannot possibly have any progeny," writes an appeals judge in a Missouri case. "And such a fact sufficiently justifies those laws which forbid their marriages."

5. These types of marriages are "abominable," according to Virginia law. If allowed, they would "pollute" America.

6. In denying the appeal of this type of couple that had tried unsuccessfully to marry, a Georgia court wrote that such unions are "not only unnatural, but always productive of deplorable results," such as increased effeminate behavior in the population. "They are productive of evil, and evil only, without any corresponding good in accordance with the God of nature."

7. Attorneys for the state of Tennessee argue that such unions should be illegal because they are "distasteful to our people and unfit to produce the human race." The state Supreme Court agrees, declaring these types of marriages would be "a calamity full of the saddest and gloomiest portent to the generations that are to come after us."

8. Lawyers for California insist that a ban on this type of marriage is necessary to prevent "traditional marriage from being contaminated by the recognition of relationships that are physically and mentally inferior," and entered into by "the dregs of society."

9. "The law concerning marriages is to be construed and understood in relation to those persons only to whom that law relates," thunders a Virginia judge in response to a challenge to that state’s non-recognition of these types of unions. "And not," he continued, "to a class of persons clearly not within the idea of the legislature when contemplating the subject of marriage."

====

Gay marriage? No, actually the quotes date from 1823 to 1964 and refer to interracial marriage. 15 states still criminalized black-white marriage until the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously overturned those laws in the appropriately named 1967 case, Loving vs. Virginia.

http://www.ericzorn.com/columns/request/
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
deliusmax Donating Member (29 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-09-05 04:20 AM
Response to Original message
1. Well, deep in their hearts, the white xtian fundamentalists
that control the republican party probably still feel that way about interracial marriages :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluebear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-09-05 04:38 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. Of course they do, and now they turn to gay marriage
Same end-of-society-as-we-know-it rhetoric.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TaleWgnDg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-10-05 11:33 PM
Response to Reply #2
54. Hmmmmmmm . . .
.
Hmmmmmmm . . . you've hit the nail directly on center!

When you don't have the facts on your side, then argue law. But if you don't have the (constitution) law on your side, then pound your fist with righteous "morality!" Scream into the microphone about "natural law" (bible stuff) and "moral stuff" and wink and nod into the camera! It can work for awhile. It can get you votes if your constituency is dumb enough. Fill your campaign coffers with "moralities" money if the constituency is ignorant enough.

However, when all else fails, tell everyone that it's the Judicial System gone awry. Those damn "activist judges!" Call upon God to stop this secularist idiocy in the name of Jesus! Amen.

How many years did the colonies plus U.S.A. endure slavery? Jim Crow laws? Lynchings? "Strange Fruit?" Segregation? From 1619 until mid-1960s but some say it hasn't ended yet. I agree.

Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967) (where the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that racially-mixed (black and white) couples could not be denied their constitutional right to marry by state laws).

And, now it's homosexuality. Now it's the very same people shouting and quoting Jesus about homosexuality. The very same arguments. The very same results for how many years? It's homosexuality now that feels the hateful venom of ignorance and discontent.







.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Terran Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-09-05 08:46 AM
Response to Reply #1
18. You better believe it's true.
A white female co-worker of mine is in a domestic partnership with an African-American male, who also works in this office and holds a highly responsible position. She told me she has been subjected to all kinds of nasty treatment since their relationship became apparent to the rest of the office. And one well-meaning lady told her, "No one will want you now that you've been with a Black man." Both these people are well-liked, individually, but the fact of their loving relationship outside the office is apparently revolting to some people here in a way no different from the distaste expressed by those attorneys arguing against interracial marriage.

I was genuinely surprised when she told me this, because on some level I guess I used to think that most of America had gotten over that. And this isn't even the South, it's the Midwest.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Catfight Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-09-05 05:37 AM
Response to Original message
3. I knew it as I read it it was interracial marriage, however, their bigotry
never changes. They remain so blinded by their own bigotry, it's sad to me, these people who are so fearful of differences must live such an unhappy life.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClintonTyree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-09-05 10:26 AM
Response to Reply #3
27. I have a fundie Uncle....
never married, (he's devoting his life to jesus) :eyes: who has so shut himself off from the world that no one is allowed to watch the news in his house, bring in a newspaper or turn on the radio. He has completely shut himself off from the outside world and has no idea what is going on in it. Of course, he ALWAYS votes straight repuke because "they're the party of god and country". :puke:
He has NO IDEA what's happening in the world, but he trusts both god and george bush to do everything right. :crazy:
I can't believe that the same blood runs through our veins.
The Slugs always must have someone to look down on and feel superior to. That's their purpose in life, to pass judgment on everyone else without ever taking a peek into their own twisted souls. I'm willing to bet that MANY of them have some Black, Latin, Jewish etc. blood coursing through their veins and don't even know it. Their "pure" blood probably isn't that pure. Judging a person by the pigmentation of their skin, sexual preference, class, whatever.....only serves to display their ignorance and intolerance. Freaking bigots. :grr:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Catfight Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-09-05 06:17 PM
Response to Reply #27
42. your post reminded me of my grandparents that were religious nuts.
The sad thing is, they barely made an impression on my life growing up, they were always so absorbed with jesus all the time they never 'saw' their grandchildren for the little souls they were. I really hardly ever think of them since they passed away and I don't recall getting any feelings of 'missing' them. Now my other grandmother who sat with us kids, cooked with us and took time to know us, I ache for her some days I miss her so bad. She was italian catholic, so she was fun fun grandma! It's strange that these 'jesus' lovers only love their imaginary god but never love the people in front of them. I see that with any person that's obsessed with something in their life, whether it be religion, alcohol, sex, money, power, politics, they neglect the people around them in the moment. It's very sad.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
expatriate Donating Member (853 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-09-05 06:58 PM
Response to Reply #27
50. I've seen people of this ilk find out that
indeed they do have black/Hispanic/Jewish, etc ancestry - that their blood or pedigree is not "pure".

It's extremely amusing to watch. Happened in my own family - our "proud Anglo-Saxon" branch was driven to near suicide when it turned out that my great-grandmother was half black, half Cherokee (and a very beautiful lady she was too).

The sort of ignorance you describe is more widespread than many people realize - those folks who cut themselves off entirely from what is going on, yet go out and vote. When I was taught about the right to vote, I was also taught that it came with the responsibility of being an informed voter. That must now be an antiquated notion, considering the number of people I encounter who are willfully uninformed as your uncle is, yet go out and vote in the same bad guys who do the very things they refuse to read about because its "all so depressing".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
H2O Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-09-05 05:40 AM
Response to Original message
4. Hatred is hatred.
Prejudice is prejudice. Ignorance is ignorance. The stance that any two adults can not get married, based upon someone else's hatred, prejudice, and ignorance, can never be justified.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
B Calm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-09-05 05:43 AM
Response to Original message
5. For the sanctity of marriage we can't have gays running out and
getting happily married. Next thing you know there will be small gangs of happily married gay couples roaming the streets late at night and gang raping married straight couples. Thus turning the married straight couples into flaming homosexuals and ending in divorce..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
no_hypocrisy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-09-05 05:55 AM
Response to Original message
6. Ironic: Loving v. Virginia ended state bans on interracial marriage, yet
Edited on Thu Jun-09-05 05:56 AM by no_hypocrisy
instead of passing another ban necessary to prevent "traditional marriage from being contaminated by the recognition of relationships that are physically and mentally inferior," and entered into by "the dregs of society," the state went wholesale into the eugenics program.

In other other words, for decades, the state advocated targeting its citizens whom it deemed "physically and mentally inferior", incarcerated them, and "neutered them" like animals in state institutions. Many people did not realize that they had been sterilized. The case Bell v. Buck went to the U.S. Supreme Court, where the law got its blessings from Chief Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, whose famous quote was "Four generations of imbeciles is enough." And, BTW, this case is still in effect. It has NEVER BEEN OVERTURNED. It could still be used if the state thought it could be popular and it could get away with it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Streetdoc270 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-09-05 08:27 AM
Response to Reply #6
16. The quote is Three Generations....
I learned that from CSI last night :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lolly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-09-05 10:35 AM
Response to Reply #16
29. And it was WRONG
In fact, I don't believe there were any certified "imbeciles" in the genrational line at all.

Primarily, they were 3 young women (grandmother, mother, daughter) who had illegitimate babies. At least one of them, I believe, was raped by a foster parent.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
geniph Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-09-05 04:24 PM
Response to Reply #16
34. Does that mean the state of VA would sterilize the Bush twins?
I mean, if three generations of imbeciles is enough...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClintonTyree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-09-05 10:30 AM
Response to Reply #6
28. That's pretty "Hitleresque"...
and pretty damned scary as well. In this day an age, to think that's there's still a law like that on the books is ........stupifying!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BiggJawn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-09-05 04:47 PM
Response to Reply #28
39. "Bush-esque", too.
Edited on Thu Jun-09-05 04:47 PM by BiggJawn
Prescott Bush was a big fan of Eugenics, as was his boy Poppy.

Press's buddy Averell's mom paid money to have German Eugenics "experts" come to Murka and talk about "Race Hygiene" in the 30's. And Poppy said as late as 1971:

``The per capita income gap between the developed and the developing countries is increasing, in large part the result of higher birth rates in the poorer countries.... Famine in India, unwanted babies in the United States, poverty that seemed to form an unbreakable chain for millions of people--how should we tackle these problems?.... It is quite clear that one of the major challenges of the 1970s ... will be to curb the world's fertility.'' ("George Bush: the Unauthorized Biography" Tarpley and Chaitkin)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClintonTyree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-09-05 05:34 PM
Response to Reply #39
40. ONLY by abstinence though....
we wouldn't want any BIRTH CONTROL methods :scared: being employed. Every sperm is sacred, and every egg is already a human being. :eyes:
The idiocy of these people has no bounds.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BiggJawn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-09-05 09:35 PM
Response to Reply #40
53. Or the sterilization of "undesirables"
Edited on Thu Jun-09-05 09:36 PM by BiggJawn
Poopy called for that. But I think Lil' Georgie has a darker agenda.

Instead of sterilizing "Those" people, let 'em have kids. Murka will need Soldiers, and PLENTY of them in the coming Age of War, and who better to supply them than Minorities and other Poor?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ayeshahaqqiqa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-09-05 05:58 AM
Response to Original message
7. Shows a lot of misinformation
Namely, that gay people are pedophiles, being effeminate is bad (I'm sure all the ladies out there are glad to know that!), and that the sole purpose of marriage is to breed. Hmmm....on the last one....does that mean that heterosexual couples like my husband and myself, who have no children and planned not to have children, are living in an illegal marriage?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluebear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-09-05 06:13 AM
Response to Reply #7
9. Remember though, these quotes were not about gays!
It was the last generation's Congressmen who said this about iterracial marriage!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ayeshahaqqiqa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-09-05 06:17 PM
Response to Reply #9
43. That's what I get for reading posts too fast
too early in the morning....I was wondering why the comments about interracial marriage in the replies......Thanks for clearing things up for me!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
area51 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-09-05 06:10 AM
Response to Original message
8. progeny
A republinazi said:
"When people (like this) marry, they cannot possibly have any progeny."

I just "love" quotes like this. </sarcasm> Gee, I wasn't aware that there are laws denying older people (past the age of reproduction) and infertile people the right to marry. </more sarcasm>
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
auburngrad82 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-09-05 07:25 AM
Response to Original message
10. This one should work to Republicans' benefits
3. "The next step will be the demand for a law allowing them, without restraint, to have free and unrestrained social intercourse with your unmarried sons and daughters," warns a Kentucky congressman. "It is bound to come to that! There is no disguising the fact. And the sooner the alarm is given and the people take heed, the better it will be for our civilization."

Might keep a few of them out of jail...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Marnieworld Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-09-05 07:38 AM
Response to Original message
11. Hate by any other name stills smells like shit. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FreedomAngel82 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-09-05 06:36 PM
Response to Reply #11
45. And I've noticed sometimes
Edited on Thu Jun-09-05 06:36 PM by FreedomAngel82
the people who are going around (politicians) against something usually in private are for something. Like there was this politician who for years was an anti-gay rights person and then it turned out he went up to Massachusettes to marry his boyfriend for the same purposes he was being anti-gay about! Oy! :crazy: And it's so sad how all these people seem to think about is sex (this happened late last year).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ck4829 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-09-05 07:50 AM
Response to Original message
12. Thank you
Edited on Thu Jun-09-05 07:50 AM by ck4829
I'm in an Interracial Relationship.

Whether it's Racism or Homophobia, it's still evil.

(This post gets a Recommendation from me BTW)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BiggJawn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-09-05 07:58 AM
Response to Original message
13. My girkfriend and I can't have kids....
Guess there's no point in allowing us to marry, is there?

The Ability to Breed is a specious argument. So is to say "But you COULD have had kids". No we couldn't. Trust me, it happens as you get older. Hormones run out, eggs stop dropping, never mind the fact the Fallopians were cut and tied decades before we met...

My second wife and me couldn't have kids, either. Fibroids. Guess that was a "insult" to marriage, too, eh?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
geniph Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-09-05 04:25 PM
Response to Reply #13
35. My husband and I had both been surgically sterilized
before we married. Guess we're an "insult" to marriage, too!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BiggJawn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-09-05 04:37 PM
Response to Reply #35
38. And we're "Un-natural", too.
I forgot that one, the bit about any relationship that doesn't have producing offspring as a goal being "un-natural"...

So much for finding love in the retirement home,eh?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FreedomAngel82 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-09-05 06:37 PM
Response to Reply #13
46. They'd probably
be against adoption. You never hear them talk about adopting kids who need a home. It's always to save the fetus.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
undeterred Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-09-05 08:05 AM
Response to Original message
14. #2 Wisconsin hasn't had a Republican Senator for a very long time

:shrug:

Feingold and Kohl are both Dems.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gollygee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-09-05 08:11 AM
Response to Reply #14
15. Read the very end
this is from the 50s and about interracial marriage.

The arguments sure sound familiar, don't they?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FreedomAngel82 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-09-05 06:40 PM
Response to Reply #15
47. Maybe the people
who are against gay marriage today saved those quotes and just recycle? They sure don't come up with anything new. And I'm sure Canada, Europe, Britian etc. have interracial and gay marriage and I don't see them having any wars or problems within the country.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BrainRants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-09-05 08:51 AM
Response to Reply #14
20. I caught that too, I'd like to have these quotes sourced.
Edited on Thu Jun-09-05 08:52 AM by BrainRants
Could be a state Senator, but still pretty ambiguous nonetheless.

ON EDIT: I caught the disclaimer at the bottom of the page that these quotes were prior to 1964. My Bad.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NewJeffCT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-09-05 08:36 AM
Response to Original message
17. you mean my wife & I can't have any progeny?
I guess I should inform our daughter. Or, maybe she's just a figment of our imaginations?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Terran Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-09-05 08:47 AM
Response to Original message
19. Please consider nominating this for the front page.
This is an excellent (if somewhat sickening) post.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluebear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-09-05 04:32 PM
Response to Reply #19
36. Much obliged, Terran
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defiant1 Donating Member (452 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-09-05 09:06 AM
Response to Original message
21. Yikes.
Very interesting.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tmooses Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-09-05 09:09 AM
Response to Original message
22. Thanks for the enlightening post. It's even more scary that the same
level of rhetoric is being used today with the same use of fear as a motivation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LisaLynne Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-09-05 09:20 AM
Response to Original message
23. This is important.
Great post, btw. But what this really shows is that their hatred of extending the freedom to marry to gay couples isn't based in some timeless, never-changing sense of morality. It's basically socially constructed. Our society, unfortunately, didn't used to accept interracial couples in general. Right now, our society is in the process of starting to accept the right of gay couples to marry. It's a process -- this whole society thing. The "conservatives" don't want to move forward so with every step, they bring up the same arguments and try to act like there is some huge, undeniable reasoning for their position, when really it's the same stuff, all over again.

I bet there were conservatives who thought the wheel would be the end of civilization because, darn it, that circular shape is just not natural!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FreedomAngel82 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-09-05 06:43 PM
Response to Reply #23
48. What I think is
the conservative politicians don't want to move forward because then they can't control things and move things in which they want to move it. Progressives want to just move it forward for everybody conserned as a society. And of course the conservative people just follow their leaders along the way never thinking for themselves.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lisa0825 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-09-05 09:24 AM
Response to Original message
24. Great article! Thanks for posting! (nt)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RobertDevereaux Donating Member (640 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-09-05 09:26 AM
Response to Original message
25. Yes, and Biblical literalists...
...used the Bible to justify it.

First slavery itself, then laws against interracial marriage, and now homosexuality.

They pretend not to interpret, but they do it all the time, then conveniently forget their past embraces of bigotry in God's name.

Churches do change. Just too damned slowly!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
atommom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-09-05 10:05 AM
Response to Original message
26. Great post. And where did you get the "God hates morans" toon?
I love it!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluebear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-09-05 04:34 PM
Response to Reply #26
37. I doctored that up myself


Please take a copy!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FreedomAngel82 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-09-05 06:47 PM
Response to Reply #37
49. I think it's really cute
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
upsidedownaussie Donating Member (41 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-09-05 11:39 AM
Response to Original message
30. got to take some hope....
in thirty years people will be similarly appalled about what our generation's conservatives have said about gay marriage.

Can't stop progress... unfortunatley some people never learn that.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Q3JR4 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-09-05 01:23 PM
Response to Original message
31. I wrote a letter to
the local paper containing some of these quotes and laying out for everyone who read it that hate is hate.

It was, partially, targeted at our legislature who was planning to amend the Idaho state constitution to ban same-sex unions. I told them that the way we vilify those who voted for interracial bans 50 years ago will be their lot in life in another 50 years.

The newspaper refused to print it. Even with everything that was going on I was told that the article, "wasn't relevant."

In any event the marriage ban was killed by two votes in the republican controlled senate--if some of you were curious and didn't know that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
uppityperson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-09-05 01:29 PM
Response to Original message
32. You'd think they would be pro-same sex marriage for #4
They cannot possibly have any progeny, so all them qeers wud die out in 1 generashun, rite?

And, um, why did they think that different skin color people couldn't have progeny? Seems like there were a bunch of them made on purpose to increase # of slaves. Oh, that's right, higher reasoning was never their best quality.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pazarus Donating Member (247 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-09-05 01:38 PM
Response to Original message
33. You could make a game of this!
I would love to play "pick the marriage bigotry" with interspersed quotes from racists of old on interracial marriage and 'family values' guys today on gay marriage.

I would bet it would be a difficult game. There's a good reason for that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JAbuchan08 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-09-05 05:39 PM
Response to Original message
41. I'm still divided on the whole concept of marraige (for all people)
and Republicans are demanding that I defend its sanctity.

We really do live in different worlds don't we?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FreedomAngel82 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-09-05 06:30 PM
Response to Original message
44. Not surprised by those quotes
Sad and disgusting.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
truth_is_extreme Donating Member (112 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-09-05 08:35 PM
Response to Original message
51. great GREAT post thanks
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluebear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-09-05 08:36 PM
Response to Reply #51
52. No thank YOU!
For joining DU! Welcome!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Dec 27th 2024, 03:54 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC