Dear Senator Rubio. I’m not a dude. And I don’t think you should tell me that you won’t defend the rights of LGBT persons to marry.
Dear Mr. [surname redacted],
Thank you for taking the time to write to me regarding the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). I understand how important this issue is to you and I’m grateful for the opportunity to respond.
The Defense of Marriage Act was signed into law in 1996 by President Clinton. This legislation defines marriage explicitly as the legal union between one man and one woman. In addition, DOMA gives states the ability to not recognize same-sex marriage licenses issued by other states. On February 23, 2011, President Obama stated that he will no longer support or defend the federal Defense of Marriage Act.
While I respect the rights of all individuals, I believe marriage to be a divine institution where a man and woman resolve with mutual love and respect to live together as husband and wife, and must adhere to applicable laws and conform to civil ceremonies that may be required. As a United States Senator, I will work to defend Acts of Congress and preserve the legal definition of marriage.
Thank you again for contacting me to express your views. As your elected representative, I am committed to hearing your concerns and opinions, and I welcome any views or input you wish to share with me in the future.
Dear Senator Rubio. Firstly, I don’t appreciate you assuming I’m male. If you think my first name is a toss-up (could be, I admit, though it’s become much more popular as a female name in the last, oh, twenty years - come on, keep up), then don’t use salutations in that manner. Treat this letter like what it is - a form letter with no personal touch.
Secondly, I love that you cite your personal feelings as though they make you sound like a good person. I don’t think you are. Good people don’t limit the human rights of other law-abiding, tax-paying citizens. I don’t care what your personal beliefs are, I’m not out to police your opinions. To each their own. If you want to be discriminatory in your personal life, I don’t have to like it, but that’s your business. I’ll just tell you it’s wrong. But you are a representative of my state. As a representative of my state, I would appreciate that you stop telling me you WON’T support the rights of law-abiding, tax-paying citizens who MAY or may not adhere to your religious tenants. Separation of church and state is a big deal - it means that no religion should have sway over the state. If you don’t want to let LGBT people get married in your church, well that’s your/your church’s loss. But don’t you dare assume that your church has or should have anything to do with my government. It doesn’t. It shouldn’t. Worse, you are effectively prohibiting married couples from moving to Florida, judging their ability to contribute to Florida’s culture and economy by rote of their choice of spouse. That’s not for you to decide. If Florida doesn’t want LGBT individuals getting married in the state of Florida, well that’s a damned disgusting violation of human rights but it’s a different issue completely from prohibiting recognition of marriages performed in other states. Now you’re trying to set Florida apart from states who welcome people of all gender identifications and sexual orientations - are these people any less capable of paying taxes, of being valuable members of Florida communities? Absolutely not. You’re advocating for the destruction of families. I don’t care how YOU define family - families are not defined by you, they are defined by themselves. Families come in all shapes, sizes, colors and combinations and you have been given no power whatsoever to define a family.
I’m not seeking religious debate. This isn’t about religion. This is about your responsibility as a representative of the state of Florida. And if the majority of the state of Florida seeks to disallow rights to LGBT individuals, that gives me just one more reason to leave this state and in that way, you would be voting to represent your constituency.
But nowhere in your letter do you tell me the people of Florida have conveyed to you that this is the right thing to do. Instead you heap on me your self-righteous religious opinion which means nothing to me - either state that you’re representing your constituency or admit that you don’t care what we say and that you’re doing to do what your religion tells you regardless of what we say.
Telling me you won’t support a human rights cause is disgusting, and it in no way shows support for all individuals or respect for the rights of all individuals. Trying to make me feel better about it by saying “your voice is important” when clearly voices such as mine mean nothing but chatter because you disrespect the separation of church and state is extremely disappointing but something I’ve learned to expect from those who cannot separate the desires of one group from the needs of the many.
I’m okay with paying taxes. But the dude who owns my house and makes more than me? He should pay more taxes. And the guy who sent out that sad letter about messing up Netflix? That dude should pay, like, way more taxes than either of us.
“It is wrong that in the United States of America a teacher or a nurse or a construction worker who earns $50,000 should pay higher tax rates than somebody pulling in $50 million.
Anybody who says we can’t change the tax code to correct that, anyone who has signed some pledge to protect every single tax loophole so long as they live, they should be called out.” —-President Obama (9/19/11)
You wanna add another candidate? It’s like the Republican primary is like a season of American Idol in reverse, where every week, you just add another idiot. …First you guys wanted (Michele) Bachmann, then (Rick) Perry — now (Chris) Christie? You know what, Republican base? Meet me at camera three!
(To camera three.) Have you ever considered the possibility that maybe your candidates aren’t the problem — maybe it’s you? You’re hard to please or figure out! You’re unrealistic! I mean, you’re pro-life, yet — (rolls tape of GOP members applauding Texas’s death penalty) — what was that? You’re afraid of ‘death panels,’ yet for uninsured coma patients — (rolls tape of GOP members shouting ‘YEAH!!!’ when Ron Paul was asked if a patient without health insurance should be allowed to die) — that’s the crowd: ‘YEAH!!!’ You guys ‘support the troops’ — well except for Captain Creatine over here (rolls tape of gay U.S. Army soldier who asked GOP candidates if they’d repeal DADT — and was booed by GOP debate crowd).
It’s like the Republican base is at war with its own talking points: ‘I want someone who’s gonna cut taxes — and balance the budget! Someone who’s a skilled orator — that doesn’t talk all fancy! The child of poor immigrants — who will build a fence to keep them out of this country! Someone who’s strong enough for a man — but Ph-balanced for a woman!
…It’s like your ideal candidate is a rare, super-heavy element that can only exist in a particular particle accelerator. And even then, only for a fraction of a second. Before you all remember how much you hate science.
You guys need to take a long, hard look in the mirror, and not come away thinking ‘Hey, there’s something wrong with this mirror.’
JON STEWART, on media-fed rumors that New Jersey governor Chris Christie may enter the GOP presidential race — as well as the hypocritical sentiments of the Republican party — on The Daily Show (via inothernews)
CONFIDENTIAL TO AMERICAN LADIES: Republicans took the House of Representatives after campaigning on jobs, debt, and taxes. But it’s been nonstop assaults on Planned Parenthood and reproductive freedom ever since. The GOP is always going on and on about how they want to shrink the size of government, and now we know why: They want to stuff the government in your vagina.
Dan Stevens, columnist of Savage Love
Let’s take a stroll down memory lane, shall we?
1980: Ronald Reagan runs for president, promising a balanced budget
1981 - 1989: With support from congressional Republicans, Reagan runs enormous deficits, adds $2 trillion to the debt.
1993: Bill Clinton passes economic plan that lowers deficit, gets zero votes from congressional Republicans.
1998: U.S. deficit disappears for the first time in three decades. Debt clock is unplugged.
2000: George W. Bush runs for president, promising to maintain a balanced budget.
2001: CBO shows the United States is on track to pay off the entirety of its national debt within a decade.
2001 - 2009: With support from congressional Republicans, Bush runs enormous deficits, adds nearly $5 trillion to the debt.
2002: Dick Cheney declares, “Deficits don’t matter.” Congressional Republicans agree, approving tax cuts, two wars, and Medicare expansion without even trying to pay for them.
2009: Barack Obama inherits $1.3 trillion deficit from Bush; Republicans immediately condemn Obama’s fiscal irresponsibility.
2009: Congressional Democrats unveil several domestic policy initiatives — including health care reform, cap and trade, DREAM Act — which would lower the deficit. GOP opposes all of them, while continuing to push for deficit reduction.
September 2010: In Obama’s first fiscal year, the deficit shrinks by $122 billion. Republicans again condemn Obama’s fiscal irresponsibility.
October 2010: S&P endorses the nation’s AAA rating with a stable outlook, saying the United States looks to be in solid fiscal shape for the foreseeable future.
November 2010: Republicans win a U.S. House majority, citing the need for fiscal responsibility.
December 2010: Congressional Republicans demand extension of Bush tax cuts, relying entirely on deficit financing. GOP continues to accuse Obama of fiscal irresponsibility.
March 2011: Congressional Republicans declare intention to hold full faith and credit of the United States hostage — a move without precedent in American history — until massive debt-reduction plan is approved.
July 2011: Obama offers Republicans a $4 trillion debt-reduction deal. GOP refuses, pushes debt-ceiling standoff until the last possible day, rattling international markets.
August 2011: S&P downgrades U.S. debt, citing GOP refusal to consider new revenues. Republicans rejoice and blame Obama for fiscal irresponsibility.
There have been several instances since the mid 1990s in which I genuinely believed Republican politics couldn’t possibly get more blisteringly ridiculous. I was wrong; they just keep getting worse.