humidcityloki ([info]humidcityloki) wrote in [info]neworleans,
@ 2006-06-08 07:37:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
Remove Vitter NOW
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/06/06/same.sex.marriage/index.html
CNN.com - Senate set to reject gay marriage ban - Jun 6, 2006 “I don’t believe there’s any issue that’s more important than this one,” said Sen. David Vitter, a Louisiana Republican.

Okay, now you have gone too far. ( Thanks to Peter Dubuque for pointing this out in his comment on my Vitter’s Vitriol post) As we sit amidst the rubble hoping not to get blown to kingdom come by this years hurricane season our most pressing worry is certainly gay marriage!

I’m sorry but this is beyond the pale. The fact that I find him to be a jackass notwithstanding, that comment alone is cause for a recall. Are we really going to tolerate this sanctimonious and self impressed fool to continue to hold office? Category Five Levee Protection! Now! To hell with the homophobia, there won’t be anyone (straight or gay) around to argue it if we all get washed away!

Contact him, tell him what you think is important.

EDIT: Here is the text I just sent him through his website’s form:

Dear David,

your comments to CNN (http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/06/06/same.sex.marriage/index.html) “I don’t believe there’s any issue that’s more important than this one,” were absolutely out of bounds. When New Orleans and it’s environs are devastated you cannot think of anything more important than your own homophobia? You should either step down or seriously reconsider your priorities.

You shouldn’t have to be told this, you grew up here. I know, we graduated togetehr at De La Salle back in ‘85. To show the mammoth disdain for your home required in making that statement is indicative of a disdain for your constituency that is unconscionable.

You were under intelligent in High School, but you have become a fool of the greatest caliber as an adult.

Resign,
George “Loki” Williams

(Post a new comment)


[info]rantipole6
2006-06-08 01:00 pm UTC (link)
"Contact him"

Will do. What a douche.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]sockmonkeyjoe
2006-06-09 02:04 am UTC (link)
Apparently he is going to be in New Orleans speaking on hurricane preparedness. I would just like someone to go in there and yell out, "How dare you speak to us about being ready for the hurricane season when you and your conservative pals have been wating precious time condemning people for what's done behind the closed doors of their private homes instead of actually giving us the means and funds to be prepared for any storms."

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]sockmonkeyjoe
2006-06-09 02:05 am UTC (link)
*edit* "wasting"

(Reply to this) (Parent)
HA
[info]sephethus
2006-06-08 01:22 pm UTC (link)
Like contacting a senator is actually going to help anything, they seek power and control not solving problems.

Reply Quote Delete Edit

Gay people want to get married, other people don't want them to because they their personal preferences of bigotry and xenophobia makes them feel as though their culture is somehow being destroyed by it. Forcing the state to point guns at homosexuals if they get married makes them feel smug and self satisfied enough to smell their own farts and love it. Its kind of like Cartman, he gets a toy that no one else has, once someone else gets it he gets angry at them and decides that toy isn't really all that worth it anymore because he can't make them feel inadequate and less than human for not having that toy.

Despite the 50% divorce rate, somehow the "institution" of marraige is being destroyed when two people of the same sex get married. There are no two issues more similar than immigration and gay marriage, both stem from bigotry and collectivist thinking.

(Reply to this)


[info]the_automatik
2006-06-08 01:23 pm UTC (link)
When New Orleans and it’s environs are devastated you cannot think of anything more important than your own homophobia?

Very well-put! I also like that you included that you went to school together, too.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]the_automatik
2006-06-08 01:24 pm UTC (link)
And I like how I had to use "also" and "too" in the same sentence. Need coffee.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]bunnigurl
2006-06-08 02:19 pm UTC (link)
I just think that if we all removed the word "marriage" from this debate, people would cool off.

I look at it this way - the government has one role in "marriages" - keeping the records of what two people are joined together. To me that is not marriage per se, that is just something legal. And that goes for both heterosexual and homosexual couples.

"Marriage" is what you do and how you live your life. For some couples, that means going to a church and saying vows. For others, they just stay home and have a party with their friends.

So... frankly, I think the government should get out of the business of "marrying" people as far as justices of the peace... all government needs to do is provide some kind of "domestic partnership" license.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]lintmagnet
2006-06-08 02:35 pm UTC (link)
Of course, the ironic thing is that the people speaking out against gay marriage don't really address what, exactly, the government's role in marriage is (i.e. tax benefits, etc.), but point to religion to justify their bigotry.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]bunnigurl
2006-06-08 02:40 pm UTC (link)
Yeah... I mean there's no other reason for the government to even care who is married if it weren't for taxes, right? ;)

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]nolawitch
2006-06-08 02:48 pm UTC (link)
The role of government in marriage is to assert property rights. Marriage as a transfer of property predates Christianity. In fact, only wealthy Christians with property (the nobility) were formally married for centuries. Everyone else (the peasants) had common law marriages because they had no property for the government/clergy to be interested in.

There are many reasons for the government to be involved today. Marriage is a social contract which involves not only property, but responsibility for children, if any, and a lot of other legal privileges. A spouse does not have to testify in court against the other. Stuff like that.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]bunnigurl
2006-06-08 03:14 pm UTC (link)
That's what I mean... so have a legal contract with the government. All the "marriage" stuff - and any religious practices that go along with it - are up to the individual, as it is now.

And I think, if it's going to make some people cool off about this, none of the government contracts should have the word "marriage" on them at all. I think the debate is set off because of that word more than anything else.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]the_automatik
2006-06-08 04:09 pm UTC (link)
I think you're right.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]lintmagnet
2006-06-08 05:11 pm UTC (link)
I don't mean to imply that. One could argue that one purpose of marriage is to foster/subsidize a family unit for the purpose of procreation (making the assumption, of course, that a family is the best way). If you agree with this, it will be hard to convince you otherwise. Of course, it could then be pointed out that there are many couples receiving marriage benefits who choose, for various reasons, not to procreate. But anyway, I agree with what you said below.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]debunkshy
2006-06-09 01:22 am UTC (link)
Just to be devil's advocate...how 'bout infertile couples? Do we have to pass some sort of test for that too? Or older couples?

(But then, with all the babies that'll be appearing because abortion will be outlawed....as long as they weren't conceived by science)

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]lintmagnet
2006-06-09 03:29 pm UTC (link)
I agree. I wasn't advocating that viewpoint, I was just saying that the argument could be made. That's how someone I knew who was against gay marriage tried to frame it without resorting straight to religious doctrine (though, incidentally, he is a devout Catholic).

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]jane_doe_
2006-06-08 02:44 pm UTC (link)
that's because conservative dumbasses don't think with their brains, they think with their slimy, fetid black hearts. if you notice, there's usually no logic to their arguments...it revolves around what's "evil" or "wrong in the eyes of god."

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]kurtamacker
2006-06-08 02:55 pm UTC (link)
Well, look, I sort of consider myself an old-school, libertarian-style conservative, if my beliefs can even be labeled. I like guns, low taxes, and self-sufficiency. I'm pro-life. I don't particularly care for the Bush administration, so unknot your panties and get your foot off the soapbox.

And, this is by far the fucking dumbest thing I've ever heard. I mean Vitter's remarks, not yours. No matter how conservative I've ever been -- even when I was a registered Republican -- I've never seen any good sense behind the gay bashing platform.

Republicans control the House, the Senate, the Presidency, and they're on their way to controlling the Supreme Court. But, they still pull out issues like gay marriage to make themselves look like an embattled minority. It reminds me of the Stalin versus Trotsky thing in the early days of the Soviet Union. Like, "Watch out, there could be GAY PEOPLE lurking at any corner, wanting to get married, convert your children, destroy Christianity, and turn America into a Godless bath house! Booga booga!"

This is so retarded it makes the short bus look like Mensa.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]jane_doe_
2006-06-08 02:59 pm UTC (link)
ooooooh, you pwned me!

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]the_automatik
2006-06-08 03:07 pm UTC (link)
Haha, nice.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]bunnigurl
2006-06-08 03:08 pm UTC (link)
Well, I know for a fact it's tough to be logical about something I myself find "wrong in the eyes of God" (i.e. that *other* debate we had!)

But, you know, I say live and let live.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]debunkshy
2006-06-09 01:43 am UTC (link)
Actually, the word 'marriage' HAS to be in there. We can't have a 'seperate but equal' distinction here of marriage/domestic partnership. Remember all the justices being queried on Brown? It's an all or nothing matter, especially when it comes to taxes, inheritance, property...the right to hold your loved one's hand as they die.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]bunnigurl
2006-06-09 01:47 am UTC (link)
I don't think you read my other comments - I mean *everyone* should have a domestic partnership license, whether homosexual or not. Marriage would then be based on religious practices or otherwise.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]debunkshy
2006-06-09 03:40 am UTC (link)
Yes, of course. But then you're still facing that uphill battle of defining 'marriage'. People are just old-fashioned and engrained on certain concepts/paradigms...which way do you approach it?

Actually, from many fronts.

I'm concerned about this because I'm a bi poly pagan geek. It has many ramifications for me.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]bunnigurl
2006-06-09 04:06 am UTC (link)
Well, I'm a Christian straighty so it's got ramifications for me too. ;) There's something in this issue for everyone I think.

I don't even see why the government should have to define marriage... all the regular rules pertaining to government-defined 'marriage' (property, taxes, insurance, etc.) should roll over into the new 'domestic partnership' category.

And then, whether you want to have a wedding or whatever you want to do, that is your marriage. The spiritual / religious part should be totally separate from the government part. And hell, I'd even say that if two people just want to form a partnership barring the romance part of it (like what I've been hearing about with elderly widowers living together for support), people should be able to take advantage of the domestic partnership there too.

Now, there'd of course have to be rules pertaining to children brought forth by the relationship... I don't know anything about marriage law but I'm sure there's something in there about responsibility to children and so forth.

It's a crazy idea, but I never said it was actually gonna happen.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]elpajaronegro
2006-06-08 05:15 pm UTC (link)
Contacting him might not do any good. My friend sent him a letter that was very obviously AGAINST the Federal Marriage Admendment, but when my friend received a canned reply from Vitter's office, it said "Thank you for your letter IN SUPPORT of the FMA", which shows either they didn't even read his letter or someone who's working there in the mail department is a total dumbass...I'm guessing both, actually.

(Reply to this)


[info]baddeviantmojo
2006-06-08 06:04 pm UTC (link)
"You were under intelligent in High School, but you have become a fool of the greatest caliber as an adult."

Typically true of many politicians.

(Reply to this)

Crossposted from HumidCity.Com
[info]humidcityloki
2006-06-08 10:29 pm UTC (link)
Dear Mr. Williams,

Thank you for contacting me in support of a Federal Marriage Amendment. I share your concern on this issue, and I agree with you 100 percent.

You may be pleased to know that I am an original cosponsor of a Senate resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to marriage. The amendment prohibits the Constitution or any state constitution from being construed to require that marital status or its legal incidents be conferred upon any union other than that of a man and a woman.

During my tenure in the U.S. House of Representatives I cosponsored and voted for a proposed constitutional amendment to define marriage as a union between a man and woman. Sadly the bill did not get the two-thirds votes needed for passage. I am now working in the Senate to protect the institution of marriage. Like you I feel this is essential to the future of our country, and I recognize the importance marriage plays in the lives of our children.

I believe marriage to be a union between a man and a woman. This definition should be held not to enforce discriminatory acts, but to uphold the sanctity of marriage. The Federal Marriage Amendment removes the debate regarding the definition of marriage from the hands of the courts and returns this decision to the American people, where it belongs. In fact, no state legislature and no popular referendum has passed in any state allowing any other definition of marriage except as between a man and a woman. In addition over 38 states have passed legislation protecting traditional marriage. In Louisiana , our statewide referendum passed with nearly 80 percent of the vote.

Thank you again for contacting me in support of traditional families and in defense of marriage. Rest assured I will continue to fight to protect our shared Louisiana values. Once again, thank you for contacting me to share your thoughts on this issue. Please feel free to contact me in the future about issues important to you and your family.

Sincerely,
Senator David Vitter
United States Senator

Okay David, you obviously do not read the mail nor does your staff. Really makes you wonder what the real public opinion is (on anything). You sorry piece of detritus. (Sorry that word may be a bit obscure for you, try piece of sh*t it sorts better with the vocabulary you had when we knew each other).

I am going to lay another gem on Mr. Vitter, I have just agreed to do a regular column for Powers and Morrison and he is going to get a spotlight thrown on his homophobic, primitive, and ignorant behind. I am fed up to the teeth with the neocon disregard for the will of the people. The fact that I know this one makes it almost too much to bear.

Please add a comment (on the original post here:http://humidcity.com/2006/06/08/vitter-agrees-with-me-100/) with any documented dirt you have on my dear former classmate as I am getting my keyboard warmed up to begin serving him up a hearty helping of toxic gumbo.

For shame David, do you think the Christian Brothers at De La Salle would be proud of your disregard for your constituents and their opinions?

(Reply to this) (Thread)
Re: Crossposted from HumidCity.Com
[info]malakhgabriel
2006-06-09 12:10 am UTC (link)
Mostly reposted on my livejournal. Hope that's okay.

What a fucking idiot.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
Re: Crossposted from HumidCity.Com
[info]humidcityloki
2006-06-09 12:19 am UTC (link)
Keep the links intact and go for it! Humid City is about NOLA info propogating virally, you may always mirror or link to HC stuff. Just please include a link to http://humidcity.com when you do. Look up our community here on LJ, I'm trying to get it going....

(Reply to this) (Parent)
Re: Crossposted from HumidCity.Com
[info]debunkshy
2006-06-09 01:35 am UTC (link)
You posted through his site, right? You had to click one of the boxes of his preselected topics to actually send the email, right? It still gets an auto-reply. Don't forget, my district Rep is Hastert. I've sent plenty of email, and get the canned replies. My typed and mailed ones used to get a response, written by an intern, albeit, but still tied to the topics I raised. Now...I get nothing from him. (I think the multiple impeachment letters are now just being forwarded to the FBI.)

Still, it makes even more clear that he really thinks this a topic that will garner him more votes. How wrong.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
Re: Crossposted from HumidCity.Com
[info]selphish
2006-06-09 12:43 pm UTC (link)
I got the same reply and contacted him directly via his e-mail address.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
Re: Crossposted from HumidCity.Com
[info]debunkshy
2006-06-09 04:24 pm UTC (link)
I haven't been to his site, but I know that my Illinois reps & senators have a check box for whatever topic it is you're writing about. They just sort it that way rather than actually reading anything. Although, I actually do get personal replies from Barack, so things aren't all bad for me.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
Re: Crossposted from HumidCity.Com
[info]humidcityloki
2006-06-09 04:27 pm UTC (link)
valerie_mccoy@vitter.senate.gov might get more results.
(Thanks to [info]drunah for porsting it on
http://community.livejournal.com/neworleans/2221844.html?style=mine

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…