Saturday, July 9, 2011

Bachman, here's your sign!

A Declaration of Dependence upon MARRIAGE and FAMiLY[sic]

A screed on how the rights see wrongs and how the rethugs will rule. Note that the source is one of the offshoots of the radical christian right.

The bracketed numbers are their referecnces to what justifies their "vow" excuses if you will for a special brand of thuggery. They run the gamut but are the usual screed and rad-right cruft that allows them to be bigots and anti-tolerant while having a "reason" that they are protesting things wrong. It's he old song of the First amendment allows me to say horrid things about those that also rely on the other nine.

I call Bullshit.

Some selected excerpts.

*Respect for the marital bonds of others.

Yep, so long as your not gay or... I call that an intro into the intolerance of
the very wrong tolerance. They try to make it look like we will keep out marriage out of yours. They exclude those that do not fit their model. What the wrong one and why? MYOB is the their wrong one. Read on.

*Vigorous opposition to any redefinition of the Institution of Marriage – faithful monogamy between one man and one woman – through statutory-, bureaucratic-, or court-imposed recognition of intimate unions which are bigamous,polygamous, polyandrous, same-sex, etc.

NOTE: bigamous,polygamous, polyandrous, are illegal and in many cases already criminal. The act of including those in the same sentence as same-sex is a form of propaganda that plays on association of bad with "bad" where the latter bad is defined by the propaganda source or this case the radical fundi-right.

*Earnest, bona fide legal advocacy for the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) at the federal and state levels.
*Steadfast embrace of a federal Marriage Amendment to the U.S. Constitution which protects the definition of marriage as between one man and one woman in all of the United States. [16]

Newspeak for we hate gays, single with child, divorced and use any old logic to deny their rights as humans like themselves and their associates. "WE" {those of the vow} have _dog on our side so therefore "they" {gay, and others already defined that support} are wrong. While DOMA has law form it does not have have support or any legal weight. It was legislative opinion and not supported by any Constitutional stake in the ground.

*Humane protection of women and the innocent fruit of conjugal intimacy – our next generation of American children –from human trafficking, sexual slavery, seduction into promiscuity, and all forms of pornography and prostitution,infanticide, abortion and other types of coercion or stolen innocence.[17]

*Rejection of Sharia Islam and all other anti-woman, anti-human rights forms of totalitarian control.[19]
*Recognition that robust childbearing and reproduction is beneficial to U.S. demographic, economic, strategic and actuarial health and security. [20]

Doublespeak for anti-abortion. In their opening section not quoted they talk about birthrates of minorities and whites. Guess which are lower and needs improving.. If you haven't read "Handmaids Tale" the crib notes are here "". On one hand they say Sharia (Islamic law) is bad then go on to suggest in doublespeak we know better for you. IE: theocratic christian law is the correct one.

They do present the idea of elitist theocratic dystopian republican world as so appealing. Not if you read the lines between the lines. Especially not if you don't meet their criteria of their "us".

Hey, powder up, heads down, and stay safe, there are nuts out there.