Homophobia
in the White House
by Doc Cuddy, Editor
On June 3, 2006, George W. Bush gave a radio address in which he indicated his
strong support for a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.
How low have we sunk as a democracy, as a society, as a civilization? So
low that a president of this country publicly and without shame expresses support for
legalizing discrimination against a minority.
How deep is the prejudice here, how great the bias, how hateful and
irrational the judgment? We have been so consistently brain-washed by a subservient
congress, a complaisant court system, and expedient media that it becomes harder and
harder to realize just how dangerously anti-American this administration has become.
Try this: Below is the text of the president's homophobic radio message,
which we have altered slightly to help us see the extreme, hateful bias which it contains
and supports. A president in, say, 1850, could make pretty much the same speech. All you
have to do is replace the word "marriage" with the words "white racial
superiority," and your off! (The terrible, terrifying truth is that a chancellor in
Germany in, say, 1933, could make pretty much the same speech.)
Not only is the speech profoundly hately and prejudiced. It is also a
coward's work. Notice that nowhere does the president mention the hated word.
"homosexual," nor of course does he speak of any other rights such non-persons
might have.
Here's how the re-imagined speech would look:
Radio Address (with Emendations)
by George W. Bush
June 3, 2006
THE PRESIDENT: Good morning. Next week, the United States Senate will begin debate on a
constitutional amendment that defines marriage racial superiority in the
United States as the union of a man and woman persons with white skins.
On Monday, I will meet with a coalition of community leaders, constitutional scholars,
family and civic organizations, and religious leaders. They're Republicans, Democrats, and
independents who've come together to support this amendment. Today, I want to explain why
I support the Marriage Protection Racial Superiority Amendment, and why
I'm urging Congress to pass it and send it to the states for ratification.
Marriage Racial Superiority is the most enduring and important human
institution, honored and encouraged in all cultures and by every religious faith. Ages of
experience have taught us that the commitment of a husband and a wife to love and
to serve one another persons with white skin promotes the welfare of children and
the stability of society. Marriage Persons with white skin cannot be cut
off from its their cultural, religious, and natural roots without
weakening this good influence on society. Government, by recognizing and protecting marriage
the natural superiority of white people, serves the interests of all.
In our free society, people have the right to choose how they live their lives. And in
a free society, decisions about such a fundamental social institution as marriage
the role of persons with white skins should be made by the people -- not by the courts.
The American people have spoken clearly on this issue, both through their representatives
and at the ballot box. In 1996, Congress approved the Defense of Marriage Act
White Skin by overwhelming bipartisan majorities in both the House and Senate, and
President Clinton signed it into law. And since then, voters in 19 states have approved
amendments to their state constitutions that protect the traditional definition of marriage
racial superiority of white-skinned persons. And today, 45 of the 50 states have either a
state constitutional amendment or statute defining marriage as the union of a man
and a woman the natural superiority of white-skinned persons. These amendments
and laws express a broad consensus in our country for protecting the institution of marriage
racial superiority
Unfortunately, activist judges and some local officials have made an aggressive attempt
to redefine marriage racial superiority in recent years. Since 2004,
state courts in Washington, California, Maryland, and New York have overturned laws
protecting marriage racial superiority in those states. And in Nebraska,
a federal judge overturned a state constitutional amendment banning same-sex
marriage equal rights for non-white persons.
These court decisions could have an impact on our whole Nation. The Defense of Marriage
Racial Superiority Act declares that no state is required to accept another state's
definition of marriage racial superiority. If that act is overturned by
activist courts, then marriage racial definitions of equality recognized
in one city or state might have to be recognized as marriages racial
definitions of equality everywhere else. That would mean that every state would have to
recognize Mmarriages racial definitions of equality redefined by judges
in Massachusetts or local officials in San Francisco, no matter what their own laws or
state constitutions say. This national question requires a national solution, and on an
issue of such profound importance, that solution should come from the people, not the
courts.
An amendment to the Constitution is necessary because activist courts have left our
Nation with no other choice. The constitutional amendment that the Senate will consider
next week would fully protect marriage the natural racial superiority of
white persons from being redefined, while leaving state legislatures free to make their
own choices in defining legal arrangements other than marriage for
persons of other races A constitutional amendment is the most democratic solution to this
issue, because it must be approved by two-thirds of the House and Senate and then ratified
by three-fourths of the 50 state legislatures.
As this debate goes forward, we must remember that every American deserves to be
treated with tolerance, respect, and dignity. All of us have a duty to conduct this
discussion with civility and decency toward one another, and all people deserve to have
their voices heard (no matter how inferior they are racially). A constitutional amendment
will put a decision that is critical to American families and American society in the
hands of the American people, which is exactly where it belongs. Democracy, not court
orders, should decide the future of marriage white superiority in
America.
Thank you for listening.
END
Back to Magellan's
Log 103
Magellan's
Log front page
Send this page to a friend.
|
