?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

A tragic week in review?

Well, according to Oregon State Legislature District 4 Republican Representative Dennis Richardson, under the headline "A Tragic Week in Review" it was:

This past week has been like no other. On Monday the world witnessed the tragedy at Virginia Tech in Blacksburg, Virginia. On Tuesday Oregon witnessed the passage of Domestic Benefits for same-sex couples (HB 2007) and Civil Rights based on sexual orientation.


So frankly, I'm a bit pissed that my daily domestic life is being compared to the worst school murder spree in American history, and not favorably.

Comments

( 14 comments — Leave a comment )
britgeekgrrl
Apr. 25th, 2007 10:35 pm (UTC)
Sweet baby Jesus.

Is there a particular focus for outrage about this rhetoric (ie, anywhere we can publicly censure this nimrod where the voters might pay attention) or am I just going to have to warm up a new voodoo doll?
kshandra
Apr. 25th, 2007 10:54 pm (UTC)
Sweet baby Jesus.

And two draft choices to be named later.
trystbat
Apr. 25th, 2007 10:48 pm (UTC)
Wtf? I thot the second item was going to be the Supreme Court ruling about the abortion ban (since I scanned over the "Republican Rep." too quickly). Bec. those were the tragedies last week. Passing a domestic benefits bill is a small positive note.

What a moron.
koshka_the_cat
Apr. 25th, 2007 11:31 pm (UTC)
Exactly how I read it too. Definitely moron...
denisen1
Apr. 25th, 2007 10:51 pm (UTC)
What a moron!
Some days, I just don't have the energy to come up with a pithy comment on someone else's idiocy. But he seems to transcend even my exhaustion today.

Am just going to count myself lucky that Oregon is cursed with Dennis Richardson as an official, and we're not. Poor Oregon. They seemed like such a nice place to live - who knew? Meanwhile, somewhere in the Northwest, the inhabitants of a small town are desperately searching for their lost village idiot. D'you suppose there's a reward for his return?
djmermaid
Apr. 25th, 2007 11:14 pm (UTC)
ugh!!!
that guy can just fuck right on off!

love equals murder. mmm-hmmm. and freedom is slavery! work makes free!

sheesh.
ladycelia
Apr. 25th, 2007 11:32 pm (UTC)
Good sweet Christ!
The abortion ban? That I could see as part of a miserable week. Same sex couple benefits? That's just the world trying to get out of the dark ages!
lisa_marli
Apr. 25th, 2007 11:40 pm (UTC)
Can we vote Richardson off the planet? *sigh*
May be a bunch of more progessive people need to move to Grants Pass and get rid of him?
At least other parts of Oregon are more progressive. The Bill was Passed!
theresamather
Apr. 25th, 2007 11:56 pm (UTC)
Urg....burble
I find it to be so ironic when the astoundingly corrupt and inept politicians that seem to be the order of the day attempt to grandstand on the issue of their narrowly defined "morality."

How about this.....they stop worrying about what consenting adults do in private and address the crippling debt, rampant corruption, lying, spreading poverty, misinformation campaigns , erosion of civil rights and the waging of wars for profit...when did such things cease to become morality issues?
(Deleted comment)
thirdworld
Apr. 26th, 2007 12:32 am (UTC)
Oh quit your whining! I mean they could have compared it to pedophilia! Oh wait, they do that too. Bleah! :P It pisses me off that those who use the word "morality" the most in the US are those who understand it least.
danjite
Apr. 26th, 2007 01:50 am (UTC)
Hmmm... I'd be tempted to call Bath the worst scholl murder spree in USia, but that is sheer pedantry.

The rep is a feotid asswad, no doubt about it.

Using genuine tragedies to further one's agenda like this are old hat, tho'. A not too old example:

"The causes of youth violence are working parents who put their kids into daycare, the teaching of evolution in the schools, and working mothers who take birth control pills." –Tom DeLay, on causes of the Columbine High School massacre, 1999"

I'd like to think that a vigorous letter writing campaign (starting with Dan Savage, he who caused the coinage of "santorum") and donating to any opposition candidate is both in order and viable.

In fact, I shall write to Mr. Savage right now and request that Richardson get Santorum'd. I shall post it to my blog. Join me?

boywhocantsayno
Apr. 26th, 2007 02:25 am (UTC)
Warning, I'm about to rant to the choir. :)

Jesus H. Christ on a tomato stake.

What really got me (sad to say, I'm used to seeing most of the crap he spewed from conservatives) is that he complains that the definition of sexual orientation in the bill is vague. Well, the definitions of race and religion are vague, too - but that doesn't stop legislatures from passing laws to protect people from discrimination on those bases. He's reaching because he doesn't like us, but he knows that he can't just come out and say that he thinks it's creepy for two men or two women to get married.

As for this:

In the years ahead, I believe SB 2 will result in a small minority of gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender (GLBT) activists imposing their lifestyles and views of behavior on an unwilling majority in Oregon’s schools, work places, and eventually in all aspects of our society.


... unlike, say, religions? Oops!

I'm surprised he didn't pull out the old polygamy card.

Oh, and I'm also sick and tired of people saying, "What about other same-sex people who live together?" Marriage carries the connotation of a loving and conjugal relationship. Unless you're screwing your same-sex sibling - and unless your name is Winchester, I don't want to hear about it - then this doesn't apply. Opening up marriage to people who didn't previously have access to it doesn't mean opening it up to everyone, and that's okay - there are good reasons to discourage siblings from hooking up, or minors.
idea_fairy
Apr. 26th, 2007 10:58 am (UTC)
Marriage carries the connotation of a loving and conjugal relationship.

There's also the position that the State should concern itself ONLY with domestic partnerships, without any assumptions about what the partners are or are not doing sexually. If, for example, siblings, or parents and their adult children, etc., want to form a joint household for whatever reasons, let them.

Then leave the word "marriage" unregulated, to be dealt with privately by whatever religion (including atheism as a "religion" for this purpose) the partners choose to follow.

The State also may have a valid interest in deciding whether a household is a suitable home for minor children, but again that need not require any assumption about who the adult partners are or are not having sex with, as long as they're not doing it in front of the kids.
( 14 comments — Leave a comment )