As a quick follow-up to my Nader-rant, check out Ralph Don’t Run. It’s an organization that’s trying to prevent Nader from screwing up another election by either getting him to not run or making sure that no one is fooled this time around. Watching the flash intro definitely pissed me off as it is painfully obvious how much Nader helped to screw over the American public. If he honestly wanted to help this country out, he’d go back to being an activist. Unforuntately he’s a selfish, egocentric ass who just wants to make sure everybody remembers his name.
I would never support Nader – not even as an alternative to Bush. But if that jackass of a president can actually get his latest homophobic, hate-mongering crusade to go through… well, let’s just say that I’ve started talks with Canada.
Thankfully, we found the WMD, caught bin Laden, balanced the budget, and recreated those 2 million jobs… now we can get back to pressing matters at home, like adding amendments to define words in our Constitution.
You mean adding amendments which CONTRADICT the constitution :p
Well, I think the proposed amendment would simply “define marriage as being between a man and a woman.” There’s nothing unconstitutional or homophobic about that definintion. What they plan to use this possible amendment to argue or or against, well, that’s another story.
You’re completely right. As I said in an earlier post, the actual definition of marriage is a union between a man and a woman. Along the lines of what you were saying, it’s not the amendment itself, so much as the intent behind it that’s the real problem. And of course intent is one of the most difficult judgement calls.
I think I’ll be writing a follow-up to this post as I just started reading over the various amendments to the Constitution. It’s been years since I studied them, and I truly am amazed at how well thought out and planned the Bill of Rights is.
ralph is a inside puppet for republicans