Please! No Constitutional Amendment against Lefties

OR: They Can't Help Being That Way, Can They?

The current political hysteria over the menace of Lefty marriages in the U.S. and the threat it poses to our Righty society has now reached the point where many church and social leaders want to pass a Constitutional Amendment banning Lefties from marrying. The language of the amendment: "We hereby define marriage as a union between two right handed people." fits scriptural reasoning in the old testament because we read in Exodus when God speaks to Moses at the burning bush, "Go and tell Pharoah, let my people go! Oh, and BTW: You're not left handed, are you?" Now, I have an admission for you, my brother is left handed!!!

Throughout history left handed people have born the mark of second-class citizenship and often during the middle ages, along with the Jewish people were burned at the stake in Europe when towns had famines or plagues. Left handed people were mostly considered unscroupulous and traitors. The phrase "the right hand doesn't know what the left hand is doing" probably spawned from this natural suspicion. When my brother came out of his box at the age of 5 we were all shocked that one of those left handed perverts was in our family but somehow we overcame prejudice and 1000's of years of culture to embrace what he truly is: A man who writes left handed.

Genetic surveys done would indicate left handed people comprise between 2 and 15% of the population. That would mean between 5 and 30 million Americans are born this way. The numbers are probably skewed by the fact that if asked point blank: "Are you a pervert left handed person?" many lefties will answer no because of the shame attached.

Studies done where one twin was left handed showed that more often than the general right-handed population if one twin was left handed, so was the other. Other genetic studies also indicate a genetic link in left handed people. Nevertheless, the true genetic link has not yet been found and may not be for many years but I know it has always been my mother's fondest hope that the research will go on and eventually we will let the light in on the truth.

Now I know my righty friends out there are saying, "you're not left handed, why do you care?" Well, friends, if lefties are banned from marriage, couldn't the court by implied law (which is what courts often follow) say that this clearly establishes a barrier against lefties in our society? I am not saying they would be rounded up but clearly this fear that they are invading our moral center and ruining our values, peddling drugs to our children, using unholy sexual positions that we righties would never use is pervasive. Some people in communities in the midwest put signs in their lawns exclaiming "No LEFTIES allowed in town after dark!"

Some have even tried to reform my brother. My mother tried for years to get him to write and shake hands right handed so that no one would know. "Marry a right handed person she told him in his teens and stay away from other lefties" she'd implore him. But alas it wasn't to be. He hid his "leftness" and worked 40 years for the phone company, paid taxes and raised 2 left handed children who thought they wouldn't, because of gradual acceptence in society, face the stigma of how they were born.

We are Americans, right thinking and mostly right handed. We should never disenfranchise anyone from what it is to be American. We have laws, good laws against public conduct of a sexual nature and we need to enforce them but what someone is in their heart and does in their bedroom with another consenting adult is between them and God and I say, so be it.

This proposed amendment is wrong.

What do you think, righties?

21,862 views 65 replies
Reply #1 Top
This proposed amendment is wrong.

What do you think, righties?


Great article! I think righties need to get out there and show our support for the lefties....one for all and all for one!
Reply #3 Top
Also, don't forget Jesus (the epitome of goodnes and caring) sits at the RIGHT hand of the Father. There is no mention of his Left (or opposite) Hand. I can just imagine what's there.

IG
Reply #4 Top
what someone is in their heart and does in their bedroom with another consenting adult is between them and God and I say, so be it.


I agree 100%! Good article!
Reply #5 Top
Early in my brother's Catholic education the original sin was discovered, thus, he was forced to write righthanded. Excellent imagery for the furor over gay marriage.
Reply #6 Top

A constitutional amendment will put this decision squarely where it belongs, in the hands of the majority, rather than in the hands of a few ultra liberal judges who are beholden to no one come election day.
Your reaction is overstated inasmuch as about 38 states already ban gay marriages. I never heard anyone ranting about the ultra conservatives in those states violating individual rights.


If you believe in states' rights, is it so intolerable that a few might pass a lefty amendment?

Reply #7 Top
about 38 states already ban gay marriages


I think therein lies the problem. The question I have is if a left handed couple gets married in Vermont and moves to a state that has a ban against left-handed marriage. Will the Vermont left handers be married? What is the effect of the ban. What about "full faith and credit"?

What about Naomi?

IG
Reply #8 Top
Barriers to what? No one is telling them they cant live together, sleep together, form lifetime partnerships, and even "civil unions


Civil unions which are not recognized by most states....they should be entitled to the same rights and privileges as those who are in "common law marriages".....

None of these are lifestyle choices, they are conditions of nature that cant be helped or changed.


As is being a leftie......

That being said, the question remains, must one have sex in order to live? Must one act on these desires?


Then why not pass a Constitutional amendment against adultery? What sets being a leftie so far apart that they have to be singled out for a Constitutional amendment?
Reply #9 Top
little_whip and others:
I am not stating I know left handedness to be genetic. But can't we wait on an amendment that would essentially say that we can discriminate against someone until we are sure we know? There are many possibilities but the only one that should make lefthandedness wrong is if it is purely a choice. Otherwise, legislation by the states to control civil order (in public) should be all that is required. All lefthanders say they want is equality and isn't that what the founding fathers wanted?
Reply #10 Top

Being left handed and being gay are not the same.  You can teach yourself to write with your right hand (I draw with my left hand a lot because the person who taught me to draw is left handed) but can you teach yourself not to be gay?

About gay marriages being illegal in some states.  If you are legally married (in any form) it does *not* guarantee that your marriage will be considered legal in another state.  Marriages are granted per state, and are guaranteed only to be legal in the state that granted it.  Of course, that is one of the reasons why there shouldn't be any *federal* rules on marriage.  Leave it with the states and how they govern their people.

Reply #11 Top
Marriages are granted per state, and are guaranteed only to be legal in the state that granted it.


So, the Vermont couple then has two choices. Stay in Vermont or question the legality of the ban as the case in Loving v. Virginia (388 U.S. 1 (1967) )

"Richard and Mildred Loving were married in 1958 in Washington D.C. because their home state of Virginia still upheld the antimiscegenation law which stated that interracial marriages were illegal. They were married, then lived together in Caroline County, Virginia. In 1959 they were prosecuted and convicted of violating the states's antimiscegenation law. They were each sentenced one year in jail, but promised the sentence would be suspended if they agreed to leave the state and not return for 25 years. Forced to move, they returned to Washington D.C. where, in 1963, they initiated a suit challenging the constitutionality of the antimiscegenation law. In March of 1966, the Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals upheld the law, but in June of 1967, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled the law unconstitutional. Thus, in 1967 the 16 states which still had antimiscegenation laws on their books were forced to erase them."


IG
Reply #12 Top
Karma Girl:
The fact that you can write with your right hand doesn't alter your genetics, it simply is an attempt to compensate. This might occur if you lose your hand, for example. But otherwise, why should the left-hander have to compensate? Shouldn't it be their choice?

BTW: I absoulutely agree with your second paragraph. The states are better equipped to deal with their people on their terms. Bravo!
Reply #13 Top
Though the article is inherently satirical, it's not correct to compare homosexuality to the trait of being left-handed. I suppose that most of this article is based on interpretation, but I congratulate you on this interesting satire.
Reply #14 Top
A constitutional amendment would prevent any state from being forced to recognize a homosexual marriage performed in another state, correct? So for those of you arguing from the "States Rights" position should be supporting the amendment, not going against it.


I understand what you are saying, but I think you are incorrect (from a “states rights” position). The constitution, I believe the Constitution supersedes state law with regards to rights. If Vermont wanted to allow lefty marriages, once the amendment went through they would not have that option. Any law they would pass would not stand constitutional muster.

So the proponents of “states rights” would oppose the amendments. We could have lefty states and righty states. We did it before. It almost worked. Minor upridsing.

IG

Reply #15 Top
little_whip:
What an amendment does is hold all states to the same law. So, "A constitutional amendment would prevent any state from being forced to recognize a homosexual marriage performed in another state, correct?" could be "A constitutional amendment would prevent any state from recognizing such a marriage of lefties." If there is no amendment, states choose, if there is an amendment there is no choice.

One other thing, judicial decisions can be appealed all the way to the Supreme Court which has acted over the past several years as a Conservative Court, not liberal. So..."a few liberal judges" do not decide a majority of cases. In fact, most of the judges appointed to the federal courts were chosen by Reagan and Bush, Sr. Clinton had really very few chances and picked mostly moderates due to the Republican Congress.
Reply #16 Top
To the Anonymous User:
If it is genetic, is it a choice? Did you have a choice when you were born on hair color, foot size? In the Old Testament leprosy was considered a result of sin. But science has shown leprosy to be a disease, not a punishment from God. Before we call being a lefty a sin, shouldn't we at least take the time to find out for certain that it is?
Reply #17 Top
Why does everybody always forget how the government discriminates against the ambidextrous? They can't marry either. The government even intervened when Utah attempted to allow them to! That's as discriminating as not allowing lefties to marry, yet they have no voice among the Hollywood liberals who like to pretend that they care for all human beings.
And don't tell me that they choose to be ambidextrous, because it's as "genetic" as being left-handed.
Reply #18 Top
A constitutional amendment would prevent any state from being forced to recognize a homosexual marriage performed in another state, correct? So for those of you arguing from the "States Rights" position should be supporting the amendment, not going against it.


The currently proposed amendment would prevent ALL states from recognizing homosexual marriages. The CURRENT state of things would prevent any state from being forced to recognize homosexual marriages performed in other states. That's why the federal government needs to stay out of it, and let each state decide separately.

So the proponents of “states rights” would oppose the amendments. We could have lefty states and righty states. We did it before. It almost worked. Minor upridsing.


...you mean that pesky little problem in the 1860s?

Reply #19 Top
Get those left handed sunnuva guns out of here. We don't need their kind in a proper moral society such as ours. I for one will not stand a wrong handed person within 100 yards of me. Why, when I see two of those wrongies standing on a corner shakin their lefts, I just want to puke! So I yell, "Get out of my town, wrongies!" And if anybody in my family every announces they are left handed, god help me! I'll just get my shotgun and shoot em dead. The only good lefty is a dead lefty!
Reply #20 Top
Joseph:
Ambidextrose? Does that mean they can eat sugar with both hands? Hehehe. Yes, they should allow to marry too. My wife is ambidextrose, as much as I've tried to get her to just use her right hand for M&M's. They always melt in her hand the other way.....
Reply #21 Top
I think that eventually there will have to be a nationwide standard regarding whether to recognize same-sex marriage.

The ammendment as I have seen it restricts marriage to only one man and one woman.

Reply #22 Top
None of these are lifestyle choices, they are conditions of nature that cant be helped or changed.


Unfortunatly, I'm going to have to disagree there.

Being gay is a lifestyle choice. Or if you want it in the Darwinism form:

If being gay is natural and is of nature, then gayness itself would be a very rare thing. The fact that two gay men or gay women can not NATURALLY have a child together would mean that their "species" would die out because it would have no way to reproduce. Survival of the fittest.

A constitutional amendment shouldn't be necissary, but unfortunately it is still sought after because of the main-streaming of gay and lesbian acceptance.

Peace,

Beebes
Reply #23 Top
OK. Now, I cannot speak for the lefty lobby, and this seems to be a rather rational discussion of the topic, so I will bring out the other specter. Yes. I am going to use the “cu” word.

What if the federal government follows Vermont and Mass. lead and by federal statutes gives Civil Unions equal status under the law as marriage. Civil union, two people, no horses or third parties. Civil union, no religion, justice of the peace. Two people in a loving committed relationship that desire to be recognized by law with the same duties and responsibilities of righties.

IG
Reply #24 Top
little_whip:
Some actions fall into the area of criminal such as adult to minor relationships. I doubt anyone will take up the flag of such as genetic predisposition and equating that with "leftism" would be incorrect.

Did the founding fathers have in mind to protect lefties. Well, you could certainly make the case that some of them were lefties and felt the Constitution in the ratified form said what it needed to about them, right? Did they feel a need to define marriage in the way the proposed amendment does? No.

Remember, I am only saying we don't need to rush to judgement until all the research is done. That it will take a few years to do it doesn't bother me. This isn't a new situation, only the way we are looking at it.
Reply #25 Top
Being gay is a lifestyle choice.


Being homosexual is no more a lifestyle choice than being heterosexual is.