Bush, You Fucking Moron

Let's dissect President Bush's speech, shall we? Bush's words are in italics, and mine are in regular text.

Good morning.

No, it isn't, you bigot.

Eight years ago, Congress passed, and President Clinton signed, the Defense of Marriage Act, which defined marriage for purposes of federal law as the legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife. The act passed the House of Representatives by a vote of 342-67 and the Senate by a vote of 85-14.

Thanks for the civics lesson.

Those congressional votes, and the passage of similar defense of marriage laws in 38 states, express an overwhelming consensus in our country for protecting the institution of marriage.

No, it shows an overwhelming amount of antigay bigotry among lawmakers. Most of these so-called "defense of marriage" laws were adopted long before Lawrence v. Texas or the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruling -- that is, long before marriage equality for gay men and lesbians was on the radar screen. That doesn't show an overwhelming consensus among Americans; it shows a bunch of spineless lawmakers pandering to the Religious Right before ordinary Americans had a chance to voice their opinions on the issue.

Also, let's face it, "defense of marriage" laws aren't about defending the institution of marriage -- they're about exclusion. If lawmakers were really concerned about heterosexual marriage, their laws would have outlawed divorce and adultery.

In recent months, however, some activist judges and local officials have made an aggressive attempt to redefine marriage. In Massachusetts, four judges on the highest court have indicated they will order the issuance of marriage licenses to applicants of the same gender in May of this year.

Bush OWES HIS JOB to activist judges and local officials who made an aggressive attempt to redefine democracy.

In San Francisco, city officials have issued thousands of marriage licenses to people of the same gender, contrary to the California Family Code. That code, which clearly defines marriage as the union of a man and a woman, was approved overwhelmingly by the voters of California. A county in New Mexico has also issued marriage licenses to applicants of the same gender.

And unless action is taken, we can expect more arbitrary court decisions, more litigation, more defiance of the law by local officials, all of which adds to uncertainty.

Well, let's just do away with our entire system of courts and local government then.

After more than two centuries of American jurisprudence and millennia of human experience, a few judges and local authorities are presuming to change the most fundamental institution of civilization.

Just like a few local judges and local authorities tried to change the age-old institution of segregation a while ago.

Their actions have created confusion on an issue that requires clarity. On a matter of such importance, the voice of the people must be heard. Activist courts have left the people with one recourse.

If we're to prevent the meaning of marriage from being changed forever, our nation must enact a constitutional amendment to protect marriage in America. Decisive and democratic action is needed because attempts to redefine marriage in a single state or city could have serious consequences throughout the country.

Um, George, the meaning of marriage has changed radically through the ages. It wasn't long ago when the institution of marriage treated women as property, not individuals.

The Constitution says that "full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts and records and judicial proceedings of every other state."

That's right!

Those who want to change the meaning of marriage will claim that this provision requires all states and cities to recognize same-sex marriages performed anywhere in America.

Well, DUH! That's the goal, George.

Congress attempted to address this problem in the Defense of Marriage Act by declaring that no state must accept another state's definition of marriage. My administration will vigorously defend this act of Congress.

Yet there is no assurance that the Defense of Marriage Act will not itself be struck down by activist courts. In that event, every state would be forced to recognize any relationship that judges in Boston or officials in San Francisco choose to call a marriage.

First, the Defense of Marriage Act will be struck down because it is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Got that, George? You know yourself it is -- it all goes back to that full faith and credit clause in the Constitution.

Second, don't try to frame the issue through semantics, such as "any relationship that judges in Boston or officials in San Francisco choose to call a marriage." That relationship is a MARRIAGE. You can claim that your own marriage is a relationship that judges in a certain part of the country choose to call a marriage.

Third, what you're not admitting here is that you believe that certain Americans don't have the same rights as others. Why bother to hide behind a speech that someone else has written for you. Just pull off the mask and admit the truth: You are a bigot, and you believe that gay men and lesbians are second-class citizens in this country and should have second-hand rights.

Furthermore, even if the Defense of Marriage Act is upheld, the law does not protect marriage within any state or city.

Uh, what?

For all these reasons, the defense of marriage requires a constitutional amendment.

No, it doesn't.

An amendment to the Constitution is never to be undertaken lightly. The amendment process has addressed many serious matters of national concern, and the preservation of marriage rises to this level of national importance.

Once again, this has NOTHING to do with the preservation of marriage. It's about denying equal rights to gay men and lesbians. Quit with the fancy semantics, George -- we can see through your rhetoric.

The union of a man and woman is the most enduring human institution, honored and encouraged in all cultures and by every religious faith. Ages of experience have taught humanity that the commitment of a husband and wife to love and to serve one another promotes the welfare of children and the stability of society.

First off, let's face facts: heterosexuals aren't doing such a great job taking care of the institution of marriage. Have you seen the latest figures on divorce and adultery?

Second, consider some of the other institutions that have been honored and encouraged throughout time: slavery, segregation, castes, imperialization. Lots of civilizations embraced monarchy, but that doesn't mean that we should adopt a constitutional amendment that creates an American royal family.

Marriage cannot be severed from its cultural, religious and natural roots without weakening the good influence of society.

Once again, George, you need to take a trip to the library. Lots of history books there for you to read.

Government, by recognizing and protecting marriage, serves the interests of all.

No, it serves the interest of spineless politicians trying to drum up votes from antigay bigots.

Today, I call upon the Congress to promptly pass and to send to the states for ratification an amendment to our Constitution defining and protecting marriage as a union of a man and woman as husband and wife.

You are a fucking moron and I hate you.

The amendment should fully protect marriage, while leaving the state legislatures free to make their own choices in defining legal arrangements other than marriage.

Oh good -- separate but equal status! That's worked well in the past.

America's a free society which limits the role of government in the lives of our citizens. This commitment of freedom, however, does not require the redefinition of one of our most basic social institutions.

No one is redefining a social institution, George. People are just demanding equality.

Our government should respect every person and protect the institution of marriage. There is no contradiction between these responsibilities.

Double-plus good.

We should also conduct this difficult debate in a matter worthy of our country, without bitterness or anger. In all that lies ahead, let us match strong convictions with kindness and good will and decency.

Do you want a debate or a Constitutional amendment, George? Because, based on everything you've said up until this point, you've made it very clear that you want an amendment and you want it yesterday. I think you and your cronies are afraid of an honest debate on this issue, because you know you would lose. You're not right. You are driven by biases, not truth.

Thank you very much.

Fuck you.