Ramblings Of The Degenerate Elite
It almost seems laughable to me that Dubya regards a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage as being "an issue of such profound importance." I say "almost" because more pressing issues were ignored so that Dubya could focus on his War On Sin, and frankly that disgusts me. Dubya then goes on to state that "These amendments and laws express a broad consensus in our country for protecting the institution of marriage," which again leaves me stranded in a strange world where disgust and laughter salsa dance together.
Not surprisingly, I discovered that Senator Wayne Allard was also capable of using the same semantic magic trick that Dubya used when he (Allard) stated that "Now is the time to send to the states a constitutional amendment that protects traditional marriage and prevents judges from rewriting our traditional marriage laws." After reading that, I was overcome with a sense of satisfaction at knowing that I did not vote for him either.
All kidding aside, I often wonder if Dubya actually believes that the institution of marriage needs to be "protected"? Or has he just been using semantic magic tricks to appease his base? If he does believe that marriage needs to be "protected," then what (or who) does it need protecting from? "Activist judges" who believe that consenting adults have the right to enter into a marriage contract? Sexual deviants who wish to defile his illusion of a married couple? The Bavarian-Secular-Leftist Illuminati? I thought that sect of the Illuminati had it's hands full with the whole "trying to destroy Christmas" thing? I guess that just goes to show that I need to check in with Illuminati Headquarters more often.
Speaking of the BSLI, this Illuminati historian noted similarities in the arguments being used against interracial marriages back in the 1870's (and late 1860's), and arguments being used against same-sex marriage now. Two of the arguments listed by the BSLI historian illustrate that not much has changed in the minds of those who affirm the "profound importance" of fighting the War On Sin. (The first argument cited in the historian's article/blog claims that interracial marriage, much like same-sex marriage, "was contrary to God's will," while the second argument asserts that "interracial marriage was somehow unnatural.")
Then again, I am obviously showing my Illuminati colors by advocating that whole "learning from history" nonsense. I have also completely ignored one important fact concerning the similarities between interracial marriage in the 1870's, and same-sex marriage now: "Being black is not a sin." Thankfully, the words of pastor William Shields serve as a light to shine on the darkness of my rhetoric. Indeed, preventing consenting adults from entering into a marriage contract because of differing ethnic backgrounds was folly. Preventing consenting adults from entering into a marriage contract on the basis of gender combinations seems completely logical, however. It would behoove all of humanity to understand why this distinction does not classify as discrimination.
Not surprisingly, I discovered that Senator Wayne Allard was also capable of using the same semantic magic trick that Dubya used when he (Allard) stated that "Now is the time to send to the states a constitutional amendment that protects traditional marriage and prevents judges from rewriting our traditional marriage laws." After reading that, I was overcome with a sense of satisfaction at knowing that I did not vote for him either.
All kidding aside, I often wonder if Dubya actually believes that the institution of marriage needs to be "protected"? Or has he just been using semantic magic tricks to appease his base? If he does believe that marriage needs to be "protected," then what (or who) does it need protecting from? "Activist judges" who believe that consenting adults have the right to enter into a marriage contract? Sexual deviants who wish to defile his illusion of a married couple? The Bavarian-Secular-Leftist Illuminati? I thought that sect of the Illuminati had it's hands full with the whole "trying to destroy Christmas" thing? I guess that just goes to show that I need to check in with Illuminati Headquarters more often.
Speaking of the BSLI, this Illuminati historian noted similarities in the arguments being used against interracial marriages back in the 1870's (and late 1860's), and arguments being used against same-sex marriage now. Two of the arguments listed by the BSLI historian illustrate that not much has changed in the minds of those who affirm the "profound importance" of fighting the War On Sin. (The first argument cited in the historian's article/blog claims that interracial marriage, much like same-sex marriage, "was contrary to God's will," while the second argument asserts that "interracial marriage was somehow unnatural.")
Then again, I am obviously showing my Illuminati colors by advocating that whole "learning from history" nonsense. I have also completely ignored one important fact concerning the similarities between interracial marriage in the 1870's, and same-sex marriage now: "Being black is not a sin." Thankfully, the words of pastor William Shields serve as a light to shine on the darkness of my rhetoric. Indeed, preventing consenting adults from entering into a marriage contract because of differing ethnic backgrounds was folly. Preventing consenting adults from entering into a marriage contract on the basis of gender combinations seems completely logical, however. It would behoove all of humanity to understand why this distinction does not classify as discrimination.