CrispE

Please! No Constitutional Amendment against Lefties

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 #52 Top
But so be it. No longer anonymous.


Welcome Baffled.
Reply #53 Top
Well whadaya know...Tocqueville was the one who coined the phrase "Tyranny of the Majority". All this time I thought it was John Stuart Mill. Learn something new every day.

I noticed that Tocqueville died the same year that Mill's "On Liberty" was published...

Coincidence or Conspiracy?
Reply #54 Top
"Many do not have "the right" to marry, like brothers and sisters, mothers and sons, fathers and daughters, adults to minors, women and dogs, men and sheep" (like these are equivalent?)


So, if a brother and a sister are consenting adults who want to marry is completely different than a man and a man who want to marry? So, when somebody what two consenting adults do is their business, it's only when they're homosexual? Also, why only two consenting adults? What's wrong with three or four or ten? Homosexuals should already know that love isn't always just between one man and one woman.

Of course, I'm starting to guess that most gay marriage advocates are simply homosexualists who don't give a shit about anybody else being discriminated against.
Reply #55 Top

"So, if a brother and a sister are consenting adults who want to marry is completely different than a man and a man who want to marry?"

Heh - I kinda sidestepped that one earlier. Obvously this is a different kettle of fish from the marrying children or animals issue... I confess that I personally am bothered by the concept of two siblings marrying (hello? ew!), but I'm pretty sure that MY feelings on the subject is irrelevant to whether or not other consenting adults should have their options proscribed in law...

"Of course, I'm starting to guess that most gay marriage advocates are simply homosexualists who don't give a shit about anybody else being discriminated against."

I suspect you're correct to a certain degree. Although I'd argue that this is a failing they perhaps share with every other political group in pretty much every democracy...

I'm not generally a huge fan of sexual or 'identity' politics - It's far too confrontational and exclusive - being all about 'us' vs 'them'. My objection to a constitutional ammendment is based in my feelings regarding the system of checks and balances and my STRENUOUS opposition to Social Conservatism's sustained efforts to suborn the instruments of democracy to its purposes.

Baffled
Reply #56 Top
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 rightie


Actually, most lefty support groups have made it QUITE clear that this is not an acceptable "compromise". The very WORD, it seems, is important to them. This gives me great pause to consider their agenda. While I believe the federal government should be out of the marriage business, the concern I have is that, with court victories, some churches will be forced to either allow lefties to marry or lose their 501 (c) 3 status (the precedent's already in place with the decree that churches may not preach politics from the pulpit). This would be a blatant first amendment violation. The best solution is to get the government the heck out of it, and allow churches to follow their interpretation of scripture and be accountable to God for themselves.
Reply #57 Top
How very tolerant of you to portray all Conservatives as bible thumping ignorant rednecks dedicated to limiting everyones freedom! Youre right, and anyone disagreeing with you is not only wrong, but a a facist, uneducated, religious fanatic...take a valium, dude, we're only talking about queers tying the knot here, and watching your rage escalate leads me to believe you suffer from heartburn, ulcers, and high blood pressure, as well as a bigoted view towards those who feel differently, and an extreme closedmindedness to any opposition.


Thank you, LW...It is getting so that whites, males, Christians, and conservatives are the only acceptable targets for discrimination.
Reply #58 Top
"BIGOT! How dare you deny sibling love and attempt to shove your morality down others' throats? Stay out of other peoples bedroom! Whats "eww" about 2 consenting adults doing whatever they want, hmmm? Why shouldnt they be allowed to marry, for that matter?"

Read the whole post. Heck with that, just read the rest of the PARAGRAPH.

Cherry picking comments and quoting them so completely out of context is an even cruddier argumentative technique than the other junk used hereabouts. Precious little effort to discuss the substantive material. Lots of room there too - gay marriage is NOT a simple issue. Plenty of valid arguments available to the 'other side'. I'd point 'em out, but it ain't MY job.

As to tearing my arguments apart? I'm sure it's possible, but as neither you nor anyone else seems inclined to engage said arguments, I'm afraid that'll just have to remain your little 'masturbatory fantasy'**.

Look. That there is what's known as an 'ad hominen argument'. It borders on the abusive, in fact. Not unlike several of your comments towards me. Argumentatively, it's not so effective, as it attempts to weaken your position (that I will have my arguments torn apart) by casting aspersions on your character.

Now, near as I can figure, your 'position' is that gays SHOULD be prevented from marrying through the device of a constitutional ammendment narrowly defining marriage to exclude them. I'm extrapolating a bit; more accurately, you characterized homosexuality as 'deviant' and implied that gays should be happy with what they have and be more 'considerate' of the feelings of straight folk (the majority).

I believe I engaged those points: Deviance? Arguably not. Rather common, demonstrably 'natural', and ubiquitous. Possibly even serving legitimate evolutionary and societal purposes. Minority kowtowing to unreasonable demands of a factious majority? Heck no. Checks and balances, independant judiciary, citations from the fathers of your federation... Effort goes into that, you know. Sure, it looks easy, but I still gotta reference the citations...

Responded to with: 'Bigot!' 'Heartburn! 'Ulcers!' 'Intolerance!' Yah. Okay. Whatever...

So folks, is this the customary level of discourse? Perhaps this comment area is just an informal poseur venue not suited to serious conversation? In which case I'm just being a silly newbie and it ain't worth my time or yours.

Although, it was such a CLEVER article... Swift woulda been proud of you CrispE.

Moving from Baffled to Irritated


** for those thinking I'm going WAY offside here, I'm quoting miss whip. She previously suggested that gays could cope with their 'deviance' by relegating their desires to 'masturbatory fantasy'. Considering that this immediately followed her equating homosexuality with pedophilia, I'm not inclined to pull punches...
Reply #59 Top

"the concern I have is that, with court victories, some churches will be forced to either allow lefties to marry or lose their 501 (c) 3 status"

Now that's a pretty darn valid concern.

I DO see the precedent you cite (the prohibition against politicking from the pulpit) as a 'good thing' because it helps reinforce the neccesary (to my mind) separation of Church and State. Heck, I'd like to see a whole lot MORE separation... That said, however, I think it would be a spectacularly BAD thing to impose a governmental definition of marriage on churches.

If lefty members of a congregation wish to lobby their church heirarchy - that's cool. Internal matter. If a church wants to change their own policies - great. Imposed from without by government? A matter of faith dictated by secular power?! Hell no!


Baffled
Reply #61 Top
Oh, who cares? I'm gay and I don't care what the Senate votes today. It'll never pass te Senate because most Republicans aren't even dumb enough to vote for it (which is surprising). Even if by some stroke of luck it did, 33 of the states would never agree to it so its a moot point.
Reply #62 Top
Homosexuality is a lifestyle choice?

Perhaps it is built into the species - a genetic method of population control. Unless you're an expert on the human genome, I wouldn't suggest opening that can of worms...

Hard to say.

Nature versus nurture is not relevant as far as I see it. The changing face of the nuclear family is a fact of life. My best friend, who just turned 25, is the daughter of gay parents. She is amazing. Her parents (all four of them) are amazing. She says nothing but wonderful things about her parents and her upbringing and her family is VERY close.

What would be wrong with her father marrying his partner of 23 years?

If they have the love, the commitment and the desire - I say go for it.

Frankly - Heterosexuals in the last 50 years have pretty much abused their right to the sanctity of marriage every possible way...

Reply #63 Top
I DO see the precedent you cite (the prohibition against politicking from the pulpit) as a 'good thing' because it helps reinforce the neccesary (to my mind) separation of Church and State. Heck, I'd like to see a whole lot MORE separation... That said, however, I think it would be a spectacularly BAD thing to impose a governmental definition of marriage on churches.


I don't see it as a good thing. It is a blatant violation of a pastor's freedom of speech when he has to continually fear being punished for politics that he feels consistent with scripture. Once again, I must defer back to the Constitution on this and question whether a ban against politics from the pulpit doesn't violate the "free exercise" clause.
Reply #64 Top
Baffled, I like your post

As far as the lifestyle choice vs. genetic argument, has anyone heard of this hypothesis? I read this somewhere quite a while ago and don't remember where: that there is indeed no single GAY gene, but rather several different genes that happen in isolation in heterosexuals, but then appear together in homosexuals. This would answer the survival-of-the-fittest argument since heterosexuals can pass these to their offspring...

In any case, I don't know any gay person who thinks it's a lifestyle choice, so I'm inclined to believe them. But in the gay marriage amendment debate, I don't see how it's relevant anyway.

Bob