Linda Lingle - An American Dick (Second in a Series)

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by yg17, Jul 7, 2010.

  1. yg17 macrumors G5

    yg17

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2004
    Location:
    St. Louis, MO
    #1
    (with apologies to rdowns for the thread title, and yes, I realize women traditionally aren't referred to as dicks, but bear with me ;))

    Hawaii Governor Linda Lingle vetoes bill to allow same-sex unions
    http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nat..._to_allow_samesex_unions_aclu_says_theyl.html

    The worst part:
    What a ****ing moron. Civil rights should not be voted on. Slavery would still be legal if we let the people vote on civil rights.

    And maybe this random Hawaiian guy should be the third American Dick to be portrayed in the series:
     
  2. kavika411 macrumors 6502a

    kavika411

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2006
    Location:
    Alabama
  3. obeygiant macrumors 68040

    obeygiant

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2002
    Location:
    totally cool
    #3
    That could have been your thread title right there.

    Otherwise kindly refer to this dialog from Team America. NSFW but funny none the less. :)
     
  4. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
  5. yg17 thread starter macrumors G5

    yg17

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2004
    Location:
    St. Louis, MO
    #5
    The irony is she said that politicians should not decide on the future of same-sex marriage and then she turns around and decides on the future of same-sex marriage. And Miss Sanctity of Marriage is divorced. Yeah, that's real great for preserving the sanctity of marriage. More hypocricy from the right :rolleyes:
     
  6. AP_piano295 macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2005
    #6
    I'm surprised Hawaiians give a flying f88k about same sex marriage. I thought that was one of our most liberal states...
     
  7. bradl macrumors 68040

    bradl

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2008
    #7
    Seeing that it was the legislature that wrote and passed the bill, it sounds like they were following the will of their constituents. As they should.

    BL.
     
  8. AP_piano295 macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2005
    #8
    Fair point. Any chance that the legislature can override the governor's veto?
     
  9. obeygiant macrumors 68040

    obeygiant

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2002
    Location:
    totally cool
    #9
    And I thought Hawaii was the first stop on the road to same sex unions.
     
  10. rdowns macrumors Penryn

    rdowns

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    #10

    No apologies necessary. :D

    A worthy successor to my "Stay Classy" series.
     
  11. SwiftLives macrumors 65816

    SwiftLives

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2001
    Location:
    Charleston, SC
    #11
    The political reality is that if she'd allowed same-sex unions, the GOP would have run a significantly further-right tea partying yahoo against her in the next primary.

    Of course, we have yet to see if tacking further to the right is going to be a successful ploy for a minority political ploy.

    Still - I can't say I'm a fan of this decision at all.
     
  12. dark-saito macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2008
    Location:
    That one place in TX... mhmm...
    #12
    I think..

    People should really just get over it. I really don't see how Same-sex unions are even a topic of debate. Most protecting "the sanctity of marriage" probably also support wives being in total submission to their husbands. Besides, its not like they're involved in the marriages themselves- no one says they have to attend the weddings?

    Sorry, going on a rant. I wonder if the next generation will look at this the same way most (sane) Americans view Black Civil Rights. Dear future generation: forgive us.
     
  13. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #13
    The thing is, it's not as if they asking for marriage, it was civil unions, so her excuse of "protecting marriage" is BS.
     
  14. dark-saito macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2008
    Location:
    That one place in TX... mhmm...
    #14
    True! The irony is that these poor people are even settling for unions (for now) because in all honesty, it's just another "separate but equal" issue. The fact that the higher ups are not even accepting this compromise is disgusting; it's like nothing the gay community comes up with can ever meet their "high standards."
     
  15. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #15
    And there's the rub. No matter what we do, they will never be happy. I keep telling people this. That's why I see no need to compromise on marriage rights- all or nothing, and this is exactly why: the excuse they use to defeat civil unions is that it's too much like "marriage". We gain absolutely nothing.

    It's a load of crap, and it needs to stop. The government needs to step in, do it's job and protect the rights of all citizens.
     
  16. bobber205 macrumors 68020

    bobber205

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2005
    Location:
    Oregon
  17. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #17
    See my post above- no more "civil union" garbage. It's a huge dead end. Just goes to show you that all those people who said, "if you call it a civil union, it's OK with me" were full of it. It's clear that they simply don't want us to have any legal rights at all.
     
  18. bobber205 macrumors 68020

    bobber205

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2005
    Location:
    Oregon
    #18
    I saw the government gets out of the "marriage" business all together. Leave that to the churches. Form a new legal arrangement that all marriages would automatically qualify under and support same-sex unions.
     
  19. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #19
    Not going to happen. Straight couples will never accept their "marriages" being downgraded to "civil unions" or anything else- you know it, and so do I.

    Plus, religion does not own the word, "marriage". There is absolutely no reason to act as if they do. Marriage was not started by religion. You don't just invent a new term because it would placate one group, when the word belongs to everyone.
     
  20. yg17 thread starter macrumors G5

    yg17

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2004
    Location:
    St. Louis, MO
    #20
    And I also think this series closes the book on my "What the hell is wrong with people?" series. It was a good run :D
     
  21. dark-saito macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2008
    Location:
    That one place in TX... mhmm...
    #21
    I agree totally. Everyone should have the right to marry, not to be." I don't think it's fair that I qualify for something less than any of my friends.
     
  22. CorvusCamenarum macrumors 65816

    CorvusCamenarum

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2004
    Location:
    Birmingham, AL
    #22
    Not to mention that the government will never take its finger out of the incredibly juicy pie that is the divorce machine.

    Conservative leadership really needs to learn to pick its battles. This particular one is just a big waste of time.
     

Share This Page