Choice Idle Quotes

(Note: It was not my intention to post today, but then my daily round of news foraging made me stumble upon some choice quotes which fueled in my being an irresistible urge to comment upon.) (Updated below)

Oh, U.S.A.!
First, there is this New York Times article by Maria Newman, which concerns the so-called constitutional amendment on the definition of marriage that is set for debate by the U.S. Senate. For those of you who do not know much about these developments, President George W. Bush has decided - like the great Decider that he is - to call upon both Houses of the Congress to pass said amendment so that same-sex marriage would become constitutionally illegal. Now, practically every newspaper, blog, radio show and news show out there has been reporting/commenting in the last few days on this second and disingenuously-timed attempt by the Decider to push for a ban on same-sex marriage. However, what caught my attention in the NYT article in question was what one Senator Sam Brownback (Republican; Kansas) was quoted as saying in response to the charges that such an amendment smacks of bigotry:

'Another Republican, Senator Sam Brownback of Kansas, said that he would support the amendment, and that he was disturbed that some critics of it said the measure amounted to bigotry against one group in society.

"What people are trying to do here is make fundamental policy for the country on a fundamental issue, and that's marriage," he said. "It is not bigotry to define marriage as between a man and a woman."

If that were the case, Mr. Brownback said, then people would have to conclude that people in the states that have banned gay marriage, as well as the many religious leaders who backed them, were bigots.'

(bold-emphasized lines are mine).

Not bigotry, Senator Brownback? Really? Well, I must admit that my understanding of the English language might be imperfect. After all, as a French-Canadian, a Québecois, it is Molière's langue which is my first spoken, written and read language - and consequently, not Shakespeare's own. Therefore, allow me to verify this with the help of my trusty online pocket dictionary:

Bigot: A prejudiced person who is intolerant of opinions, lifestyles or identities differing from his or her own. (...) Bigot is often used as a pejorative term against a person who is obstinately devoted to his or her prejudices even when these views are challenged or proven to be false. Forms of bigotry may have a related ideology or world views. (...) See also: ageism, chauvinism, discrimination, fascism, feminazi, hate group, homophobia, nazism, racism, religious persecution, sexism.

Well, Senator Brownback, could you have been off-base here? No - surely, this has to be some sort of terrible misunderstanding. It is simply inconcievable that an esteemed U.S. Senator would not know the definition of commonly used words from his very own language! Why, such a thing would be preposterous, wouldn't you agree Senator? Let me then perform one further verification on your behalf, sir:

Discrimination: To discriminate, to make a distinction between people on the basis of class or category without regard to individual merit. Examples include racial, religious, sexual, disability, ethnic, height-related and age-related discrimination. Distinctions between people which are based just on individual merit (such as personal achievement, skill or ability) are not discriminatory.

Oops? It would seem, Senator Brownback, that you are indeed dead wrong. How do you respond to this?

"(We)'re not bigoted individuals," he said. "(We)'re simply seeking good public policy. Let's watch our language here."

Indeed, Senator - and quite right you are. I apologize for even thinking of the word bigot as a definition for people like you, and like all those others who have pushed, are pushing, have voted, or will vote, for a ban of same-sex marriage. I am sincerely sorry for this sad situation, sir. Henceforth, I shall endeavor to call all of you "good and decent folks" what you really are: heterosexists.

(Oh, and Senator Brownback? Perhaps it would be best that you urgently do something about the advanced case of intellectual sloth that you are guilty of, as evidenced from your nonsensical arguments reported in the above-mentioned NYT article. Have a good day.)

And now, onward to a related subject ...

Oh, Canada!
Almost a year after the debating and voting in the House of Commons, and subsequent ratification by the Senate, of the Civil Marriage Act which legalized same-sex marriage, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper announced last week that he will introduce another voting resolution this fall in the House of Commons to annul this law of the land. Talk about déjà vu, eh? And what about the timing of this announcement, considering what is now going on (again) in the U.S.? Purely coincidental, of this I am ... not convinced at all.

Here's a quote from a dispatch of The Canadian Press:

'Prime Minister Stephen Harper said Friday a free vote on same-sex marriage will be held in the Commons this fall.

Harper said the vote was a promise he made during the election campaign that led to his party forming the government.

"A vote will be in the fall," Harper told reporters after a speech to the Federation of Canadian Municipalities. "It will be a free vote. We committed to that in our platform."

He said no date has been set.

Harper wouldn't comment when asked about a number of Conservative MPs who say they don't want to revisit the controversial issue.

On a related matter, the prime minister said he's not sure whether he will accept an invitation to attend this summer's World Outgames, which will bring thousands of gay athletes to Montreal.'

(again, bold-emphasized lines are mine).

I wonder if double déjà vu equals déjà vu-squarred or déjà vu-to-the-4th-power?

Now, the confident heterosexual that I am has no issue whatsoever with regards to same-sex marriage - it is, simply put, a right for two consenting adults to formalize a civil union, regardless of sexual orientation, period. End of discussion. However, no one has the right of being a bigot - oops, apologies again, Senator Brownback! - I mean, a heterosexist.

(And speaking of civil rights: I hope this little discussion on mine herein will have been of help to you, Mr. U.S. White House Press Secretary Tony Snow, to understand and define what are civil rights. But I digress.)

One would think that instead of acting like a President of the U.S.A. by throwing "God Bless Canada" here and there, Prime Minister Harper would actually endeavor in carrying out the right honorable tradition of representing all Canadians, as is the sworn duty of a Prime Minister deserving of the title ... Especially when said PM happens to be heading a minority government, instead of a clear mandate normally supported by having won a definite majority of seats! And what is this about insisting that this fall's vote will be a free vote - is this meant somehow as a clear distinction to ... the free vote that took place in the Commons the last time?

I think it is now official: truthiness has crossed the border to invade Canada!

More than ever, I find myself in agreement with the growing opinion that P.M. Harper is using the same old, worn and defective playbook as that of the U.S. neocons, even going as far as shadowing the Decider himself. A good number of convincing articles to this effect can be found here, especially with regards to the Kyoto Protocol, fixed-date elections, fighting with the media, and so on.

Ah, Monsieur le Premier Ministre? It would seem that your evident lack of imagination and novelty of ideas has reached a critical threshold, sir. Could we Canadians please have our good old Progressist Conservative Party back, in lieu of the neocon G.O.P. franchise that this Alliance Reform-Conservative Party of yours is now?

(Oh, and while I have your ear - you might also want to do something about this chronic bout of intellectual sloth that you are guilty of. Best regards.)

****************************************

UPDATE June 7 2006: the U.S. Senate voted against actually having to vote on the definition of marriage amendment. I guess it is back to the drawing board for all those bi- ... ah ... heterosexists out there.

(entry posted originally 05/06/06)


(Google caches of the original posts - in English and in French)