Liberal Utopia: Liberals fear The People's right to choose

Wednesday, June 20, 2007

Liberals fear The People's right to choose

Next time a liberal says he's "pro-choice," ask him about this:

BOSTON — Lawmakers voted Thursday to keep a constitutional amendment that bans gay marriage off the 2008 ballot during a joint session of the Massachusetts House and Senate.

ight of a people to choose what they do with their own body of laws, including their written constitution, is a right liberals would rather oppress than uphold. Why let us rubes have any self-determination when they have robes making decisions about everything that affects us, especially what we hold most sacred and dear?

A lot easier that way — for them.

The amendment that defined marriage as a union between one man and one woman needed the support of 50 of the state's 200 lawmakers in two consecutive sessions. The 151-to-45 vote blocks the amendment from going before voters next year. It passed with 62 votes on the final day of the last legislative session earlier this year, but it only received 45 votes on Thursday.

Voting in favor of the people's right to choose were Senators Scott P. Brown, Robert S. Creedon Jr., Robert L. Hedlund, Richard T. Moore, and Steven C. Panagiotakos, and Representatives Bruce J. Ayers, Fred Barrows, John J. Binienda, Linda Dean Campbell, Paul C. Casey, Robert Correia, Geraldine Creedon, Sean Curran, Viriato Manuel deMacedo, Paul J. Donato, Lewis G. Evangelidis, James H. Fagan, David L. Flynn, John P. Fresolo, Paul K. Frost, Colleen M. Garry, Susan W. Gifford, William G. Greene Jr., Robert S. Hargraves, Donald F. Humason Jr., Frank M. Hynes, Michael F. Kane, William Lantigua, John A. Lepper, James R. Miceli, James M. Murphy, David M. Nangle, Jeffrey Davis Perry, George N. Peterson Jr., Thomas M. Petrolati, Elizabeth A. Poirier, Karyn E. Polito, Mary S. Rogeness, Michael F. Rush, Angelo M. Scaccia, Todd M. Smola, Joyce A. Spiliotis, Walter F. Timilty, A. Stephen Tobin, and Daniel K. Webster.

Oppressors of the people are 34 dictators and 117 totalitariatives who feel the people have no right to choose whether, "When recognizing marriages entered into after the adoption of this amendment by the people, the Commonwealth and its political subdivisions shall define marriage only as the union of one man and one woman."

More than 8,500 same-sex couples have married in Massachusetts since they became legal in May 2004. The Bay State remains the only state in the nation to allow same-sex couples to marry.

If anyone has the "right" to marry whomever, marriage means nothing. Whoever means to deny anyone that "right" has nothing by way of argument beyond cultural fear and prejudice. Since plural or group marriages have long established roots in other cultures, arguing to exclude these from anyone's "right" to marry means resorting to nothing more than that fear and prejudice. Once this argument is dismissed, anyone has the "right" to marry whomever. Repeat.

Or as Karl Marx put it, "Philosophers have only interpreted the world in various ways; the point is to change it."

Earlier in the day, activists on both sides of the issue gathered at the Statehouse to make their voices heard. Preaching a message of marriage equality, members of the Religious Coalition for the Freedom to Marry marched from St. Paul's Cathedral to the steps of the statehouse.
"God loves all of God's children — gays, straight, transgender and bisexual — and everyone has equal rights," the Rev. Anne Rousseau said.

God loves polygamists, too. They also have equal rights. Right, ~~Karl~~ Anne?

Opponents of gay marriage demanded that the issue be decided by the voters of Massachusetts.

What? In the "People's" Commonwealth of Massoqueeretts? You obviously have much to learn, comrades.

But we're not here to talk about anyone's necessary enrollment in a reeducation camp — yet. So let's MoveOn.

"If the majority of people in Massachusetts think that marriage should remain between a man and a woman, they ought to say that," said Wally Atwood, who supports a gay marriage ban.
"To take the position that a small group of unelected judges can determine who we are as a people, I think it's not right," said Elizabeth Dionne, who supports a gay marriage ban.

"Who supports a gay marriage ban." "Who supports a gay marriage ban."

Bet they'd support a plural marriage ban as well. Why are they so full of fear and prejudice?

"This is a clear issue of civil rights and social justice, and we are here in support of it," said Alex Coleman, who supports gay marriage.

Who'd support plural marriage as well, no doubt. Unless he's full of fear and prejudice.

The issues has made national headlines with Democratic lawmakers. U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi lobbied to keep the question off the ballot.

Denizens of Missa Nagcy's own plantation house were not surprised.

"I think it's a choice people of Massachusetts need to make. Not Nancy Pelosi. She is not from here. She has nothing to do with it," Dionne said.

All right, let's try this again. "Choice" and "people" are two words that will never belong in the same sentence together — much less next to each other — so long as any liberals have power over the latter's lives.

Their desperate desire to eliminate your right of choice isn't based on saving the lives of our most innocent children, which deserve absolute and universal acceptance, but on elevating the lifestyles of a few selfish adults which they demand be forcibly afforded such privileged acceptance.

Others, such as Joan Fahey, who married her long-time partner in 2004, said that the issue transcends politics.
"It will really impact (us) on a day-to-day basis to the extent that gays and lesbians feel safe in this state," she said.

As opposed to all The People feeling that way.

Nonetheless, this does transcend politics: Liberals in power take away the people's right to choose. They want to take away free speech (Mr Minority). They say, "We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."

Anyone starting to detect a pattern here?

Or as our Founding Fathers put it, "But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism," it is our right and duty to throw liberalism and its many oppressions and tyrannies on the trash heap of history.