We need a “Defense of Drinking Fountains” Amendment to the Constitution.

| June 5, 2006 | 4 Replies

Gays’ enjoyment of drinking fountains undermines MY enjoyment of drinking fountains. Therefore, we need a “Defense of Drinking Fountains” Amendment to the United States Constitution.

I’m simply extending this Administration’s logic, you see.  As Mr. Bush said

“Our policies should aim to strengthen families, not undermine them. And changing the definition of marriage would undermine the family structure,” said Bush, who raised the issue’s profile with an event at the Eisenhower Executive Office Building.

As MSNBC also reported,

Traditional marriage, Bush said, is the cornerstone of a healthy society and the issue should be put “back where it belongs: in the hands of the American people.”

Except in those states, such as Massachusetts, where the people don’t care about defending marriage or drinking fountains.

Share

Tags: , , ,

Category: American Culture, Culture, Law, Politics

About the Author ()

Erich Vieth is an attorney focusing on consumer law litigation and appellate practice. He is also a working musician and a writer, having founded Dangerous Intersection in 2006. Erich lives in the Shaw Neighborhood of St. Louis, Missouri, where he lives half-time with his two extraordinary daughters.

Comments (4)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Erich Vieth says:

    I came across this link after writing this post. I offer it as postscript: http://illuminations.berkeley.edu/archives/2002/a

  2. grumpypilgrim says:

    Bigots (like Bush) who want to institutionalize their bigotry against same-sex marriage use an argument that goes like this: bigots before us have successfully practiced sexist bigotry ever since America was founded; therefore, we should enshrine this bigotry in the federal constitution. Of course, bigots (like Bush) don't use the word, "bigotry," to describe their behavior, they use euphemisms such as "protecting marriage" or "protecting the family." Likewise, racist bigots of the past, who supported legalized slavery and mandated racial segregation, used euphemisms such as "protecting racial purity." Their arguments also consisted of nothing more than pointing to the many years of previous bigotry to justify continued bigotry. Likewise, they also complained of so-called "activist" judges overturning their bigoted laws, just as bigots like Bush do today.

    Why, you might ask, have I used the word "bigot" so extensively in the above comment? Two reasons: one, because "bigot" is the only word that describes it; two, because we need to label bigots what they are…we need to rub the bigots' noses in their bigotry and prevent them from taking shelter behind their euphemisms. Like racists, pedophiles, bullies and every other sociopath in our society, bigots thrive only when they can hide behind euphemisms.

  3. Erika Price says:

    Slippery slope much? I suppose I could look at is as reductio ad absurdum instead. And the bigots do use a kind of conclusion-without-support argumentation that opens them up to any kind of policy decision they please. No matter what issue or which side, no one should ever agree to a conclusion that has no evidence or even a true justification!

    I feel exactly the same way you do, grumpypilgrim, about the use of the term "bigot". In fact, I try to use it as often as possible when discussing social conservatives. I don't think we'll gain a thing by diplomatically labelling that lot.

  4. grumpypilgrim says:

    Further to Erika's comment, indeed, let's consider one glaring "absurdum" of social conservatives. On the one hand, they say that traditional families have been the bedrock of human civilization for thousands of years. On the other hand (and often in the very next sentence), they say that traditional families are so pathetically weak that they will crumble to pieces if a homosexual couple down the street is allowed to marry. Huh?

    Likewise, speaking of slippery slope, social conservatives often use this tactic when trying to defend their bigotry. They'll say, "Well, if we allow same-sex marriage, then what's to stop polygamy, or marriage between a man and a goat?" Seems to me we can deal with those issues if and when they ever become pressing. What we have today are many same-sex couples who own real estate together, raise children together, make healthcare decisions for each other, and grow old together. Seems to me they contribute to society every bit as much as any other couple does, so they deserve society's support every bit as much as any other couple does.

Leave a Reply


Notify me of followup comments via e-mail. You can also subscribe without commenting.