Here’s George Bush’s recent speech.
Here’s the same speech, with the following substitutions :
- “Marriage” becomes “whiteness“
- “the same gender” becomes “a brownish color“
- “the union of a man and a woman” or “the legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife” or “a union of a man and woman as husband and wife” becomes “racially superior“
- “a husband and wife” becomes “white people“
Please note upfront that I am about as far from being a racist as one can get, and I am astonished that anyone could think that gay marriages are in any way a bad thing, for anyone. Bigotry in any form is repulsive. This thing is meant to shine a light on Mr Bush and his puppeteers, and that’s all.
I hope this little search-and-replace exercise helps put things in a historical context for you, dear reader. It did for me.
BUSH: Good morning.
Eight years ago, Congress passed, and President Clinton signed, the Defense of whiteness Act, which defined whiteness for purposes of federal law as racially superior.
The act passed the House of Representatives by a vote of 342-67 and the Senate by a vote of 85-14.
Those congressional votes, and the passage of similar defense of whiteness laws in 38 states, express an overwhelming consensus in our country for protecting the institution of whiteness.
In recent months, however, some activist judges and local officials have made an aggressive attempt to redefine whiteness. In Massachusetts, four judges on the highest court have indicated they will order the issuance of whiteness licenses to applicants of a brownish color in May of this year.
In San Francisco, city officials have issued thousands of whiteness licenses to people of a brownish color, contrary to the California Family Code. That code, which clearly defines whiteness as racially superior, was approved overwhelmingly by the voters of California.
A county in New Mexico has also issued whiteness licenses to applicants of a brownish color.
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.
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.
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 whiteness from being changed forever, our nation must enact a constitutional amendment to protect whiteness in America. Decisive and democratic action is needed because attempts to redefine whiteness in a single state or city could have serious consequences throughout the country.
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.”
Those who want to change the meaning of whiteness will claim that this provision requires all states and cities to recognize same-sex whitenesss performed anywhere in America.
Congress attempted to address this problem in the Defense of whiteness Act by declaring that no state must accept another state’s definition of whiteness. My administration will vigorously defend this act of Congress.
Yet there is no assurance that the Defense of whiteness 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 whiteness.
Furthermore, even if the Defense of whiteness Act is upheld, the law does not protect whiteness within any state or city.
For all these reasons, the defense of whiteness requires a constitutional amendment.
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 whiteness rises to this level of national importance.
‘Racially superior’ 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 white people to love and to serve one another promotes the welfare of children and the stability of society.
Whiteness cannot be severed from its cultural, religious and natural roots without weakening the good influence of society.
Government, by recognizing and protecting whiteness, serves the interests of all.
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 whiteness as racially superior.
The amendment should fully protect whiteness, while leaving the state legislatures free to make their own choices in defining legal arrangements other than whiteness.
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.
Our government should respect every person and protect the institution of whiteness. There is no contradiction between these responsibilities.
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.
Thank you very much.
Eight years ago, Congress passed, and President Clinton signed, the Defense of whiteness Act, which defined whiteness for purposes of federal law as racially superior.
The act passed the House of Representatives by a vote of 342-67 and the Senate by a vote of 85-14.
Those congressional votes, and the passage of similar defense of whiteness laws in 38 states, express an overwhelming consensus in our country for protecting the institution of whiteness.
In recent months, however, some activist judges and local officials have made an aggressive attempt to redefine whiteness. In Massachusetts, four judges on the highest court have indicated they will order the issuance of whiteness licenses to applicants of a brownish color in May of this year.
In San Francisco, city officials have issued thousands of whiteness licenses to people of a brownish color, contrary to the California Family Code. That code, which clearly defines whiteness as racially superior, was approved overwhelmingly by the voters of California.
A county in New Mexico has also issued whiteness licenses to applicants of a brownish color.
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.
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.
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 whiteness from being changed forever, our nation must enact a constitutional amendment to protect whiteness in America. Decisive and democratic action is needed because attempts to redefine whiteness in a single state or city could have serious consequences throughout the country.
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.”
Those who want to change the meaning of whiteness will claim that this provision requires all states and cities to recognize same-sex whitenesss performed anywhere in America.
Congress attempted to address this problem in the Defense of whiteness Act by declaring that no state must accept another state’s definition of whiteness. My administration will vigorously defend this act of Congress.
Yet there is no assurance that the Defense of whiteness 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 whiteness.
Furthermore, even if the Defense of whiteness Act is upheld, the law does not protect whiteness within any state or city.
For all these reasons, the defense of whiteness requires a constitutional amendment.
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 whiteness rises to this level of national importance.
‘Racially superior’ 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 white people to love and to serve one another promotes the welfare of children and the stability of society.
Whiteness cannot be severed from its cultural, religious and natural roots without weakening the good influence of society.
Government, by recognizing and protecting whiteness, serves the interests of all.
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 whiteness as racially superior.
The amendment should fully protect whiteness, while leaving the state legislatures free to make their own choices in defining legal arrangements other than whiteness.
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.
Our government should respect every person and protect the institution of whiteness. There is no contradiction between these responsibilities.
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.
Thank you very much.
[Credit where due : I stole this idea from half of these people here (but I’m not going to tell you which half – ha!), via a certain not-to-be-mentioned kitty-loving community website, but I think I improved on it a bit.]
[Update : There are those who would protest (even though I’m not seriously equating them) that racial and sexual-orientation discrimination are apples and oranges. Perhaps, but they are more interrelated in American law than I had thought.
There is patently no legitimate overriding purpose independent of invidious racial discrimination which justifies this classification. The fact that Virginia prohibits only interracial marriages involving white persons demonstrates that the racial classifications must stand on their own justification, as measures designed to maintain White Supremacy. We have consistently denied the constitutionality of measures which restrict the rights of citizens on account of race. There can be no doubt that restricting the freedom to marry solely because of racial classifications violates the central meaning of the Equal Protection Clause.
…
Marriage is one of the “basic civil rights of man,” fundamental to our very existence and survival. To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State’s citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.
[via Atrios]
…
Marriage is one of the “basic civil rights of man,” fundamental to our very existence and survival. To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State’s citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.
[via Atrios]
Category:
Politics Chafe My Scrote
Regardless of right or wrong, what the hell is the state doing telling people who they can marry?
Soon, they’ll be talking about what books to read… movies to censor… hey there are all sorts of things out there!
the most fundamental institution of civilization.
Shoot, I didn’t know that! Is that what people really think? most fundamental????
America’s a free society which limits the role of government in the lives of our citizens.
So that’s why they’re going around fiddling with the constitution…
I tried to explain to a more conservative coworker that what you did here demonstrates the same pattern of intolerance as with racism. He couldn’t see it; he couldn’t understand the analogy. I figure that he’s not going to be the only one. Why is it that every single issue always seems to be split 50/50 between sides?
EmptyBottle.org: Compare and Contrast: Here’s
EmptyBottle.org: Compare and Contrast: Here’s George Bush’s recent speech. Here’s the same speech, with the following substitutions : “Marriage” becomes…
Brilliant!
And you somehow managed to write this without going to a fancy conference?
Amazing 🙂
Gay Marriage: The New Battle for Civil Rights
Many people are beginning to compare the current struggle for gay couples to past struggles of African Americans and other minorities. While some may pretend that it has nothing to do with prejudice, EmptyBottle.org makes sure that you at least…
You should ammend your little dumbass article to say rich whiteness, instead of just whiteness. Then it should be everybody else instead of brown people.If in fact you believe being white is a free meal ticket you need to go south and look in the appalachians and other such depressed areas and realize that the rich bastards that make things happen in this country simply improve things they happen to like or see financial potential in helping.Your fine little edit is half-sighted at best and needs more work if youre going to comment on the haves and have-nots in this country.Finally, if you dont like it,try doing something besides creating obscure and very ignorant editing of somebody elses words as that doesnt accomplish anything except maybe garnering praise from your friends and a laugh from the rest of us that deal with other prejudices other than skin color.
Gosh, I’ll just rush right off and do that…er that other thing, you know, that you suggested…
Nah, fuck it. I’ll keep doing exactly what I’ve been doing, and you, my semi-literate friend, can blow me.
How ya like them apples?
I see your point. I’ll even say that there is cleverness in it. I do fault you though for being racist and for dredging up racial tensions just to cleverly make a point. I also fault you for being an elitist. You clearly seem to think that your ideas and beliefs are somehow more correct than others.
You see, the people who are at odds with homosexual marriage are making a stink about it because they feel that it is wrong. That is about the same feeling you have concerning their desire to make the law prohibiting homosexual marriage stronger.
You take the fun and easy way out when you do things like this, and I imagine that I understand your motivations for doing this, but I want to suggest that you look more deeply into this issue and others. The people who are opposing homosexual marriage believe in certain things that they hold just as dearly as you hold to your beliefs that bigotry and discrimination are wrong.
Right now, both of these things are illegal. Discrimination and homosexual marriage are both illegal. They are also both based on firmly held beliefs.
For you to hold fast to your beliefs and make a mockery of people who believe in something different than you is exactly the bigotry that you initially claimed to be repulisive in any form.
Finally, I want to point out that you are far from being perfect in your own desire to keep bigotry at bay. Look at your comment to schism… you call him semi-literate and you say he can blow you. That is bigotry and sexual harrassment… not to mention immaturity.
Get a grip on your emotions. Realize that we are all trying to figure out what is right and wrong in this world. We all have different notions and opinions and they vary in terms of validity, but usually not in terms of emotional attachment to them. Attack ideas that are different from yours with some care for the people around you.
Now I anticipate that you’ll be directing some of that my way.
That is bigotry and sexual harrassment… not to mention immaturity.
Ah-hahahahah. See, you made a funny there, too!
What, that wasn’t supposed to be funny? Oh dear.
You clearly seem to think that your ideas and beliefs are somehow more correct than others.
Hardly. Well OK, a little. But when someone calls me a ‘dumbass’ in my own house, and clearly has some trouble stringing together coherent sentences, I’ll tell him to a) to fuck off and b) that he’s semi-literate, every time. I don’t see anything untoward about that. You do? Fine. But I have no obligation to answer to you for calling it as I see it.
As far as me being a racist goes, you’re talking out your ass, son. My cut-and-paste certainly did create a racist screed, but that doesn’t make me racist. See also : satire. It shows me willing to use language that might upset some fluttering aesthete’s idea of what is nice, safe speech in the service of trying to make a point about what’s right and what’s evil.
For you to hold fast to your beliefs and make a mockery of people who believe in something different than you is exactly the bigotry that you initially claimed to be repulisive in any form.
Golly, ya reckon? So let me get this straight. If I mock someone who insults me rather than address anything I’ve said in a substantive way, I’m not simply using (possibly heavy-handed, depending on my mood, of course) rhetorical tools to get my point across and slap the dimwit down, I’m being bigoted?
Right. Got it.
Now get down there and start blowing, pal.
Certainly your cut and paste satire created a racist screed as you say, but surely you have realized that many people are paranoid about Dubya and others actually thinking that way. These paranoid people are in a sense racist, because they believe that a great number of white people want to keep non-whites down. Your satire perpetuates that racist (paranoid & anti-white) thought-line.
Your point about him insulting you in your own house was a great one, so I stand corrected.
I do think that it is a form of bigotry to make a mockery of other’s beliefs though. I recognize that it is a tool of an artist (no one has ever said that artists aren’t bigots,) but I still think that your portayal of Bush is disrespectful and condescending — even though I will grant you that it is poignant and instructive. I just want to point out that there is irony in your work, because you are like the Bush that you portay in that you too seem to think that your way of living and your ideas about life are better than someone else’s.
Your disrespect shows this too. You wouldn’t write the things you write if you didn’t think that you were better than the people you address. I believe that if you truly saw yourself as an equal to all men and women you’d treat them with respect even when they are less able wordsmiths or even insulting to you.
Two fundamental differences, David :
1) I do not attempt to impose my beliefs on anyone else. I merely say what I believe to be true. I believe what I have come to believe over many years of wandering and thinking (and drinking, of course), and I am unafraid to speak what I believe to be the truth (situational and temporal as that often is), and am willing to defend it. If I am wrong, I am also willing to admit that.
2) I do not see myself as equal to others, you’re right. Neither do I see myself as superior. Some are better, some are worse. When we speak of humans, there is no such thing as ‘equal’, except when it’s ‘before the law’. I do not say what I believe for any kind of gain or self-aggrandizement or furthering of a personal agenda (unlike those who would legislate to deprive others of equality before the law), I say it merely because I despise lies and avarice and politicking. Although I do not think it is possible in any way that makes sense to say that individuals are in any way that makes sense equal, it is vital that we preserve the idea that groups of individuals are, and that this is enshrined in the fundamental ways that we order our civilizations.
Find and replace
This is a great post. Some George W find and replace maddress on his ‘why only straight people can get married’ speech.
Your first point is interesting. I’ve heard it before too. It seems to be this strong base point in modern secular morality. It is one that I still don’t seem to remember all the time.
I can see the wisdom in having the pushing of beliefs onto others be a negative thing. It works well in diverse, secularly governed societies.
It can also be a double-edged sword. What morality really matteres if no one is willing to impose their beliefs onto others?
You’re a smart guy, and I like that you are open with yourself and honest with me and everyone else. I find the vulgarity to be untasteful though, and though I realize that I was trying to impose my beliefs concerning it on you… I think that doing so in conversation is acceptable whereas doing so with laws/legislation is not. Is that the case in point #1?
#2. This is all true (or seems to be in the case of your personal claims) and the end of the paragraph is full of great points.
Though you definately seemed to be annoyed with my comments at first, I think that it was constructive (if only for me) to make these comments and have your intents and my thoughts made clear and straightened out. Hopefully, you feel the same way. I hope this because I blog and read blogs to effect and record personal growth of all kinds, so I might come back and comment again.
speeched
Here. The dyslexic Texan’s now middlingly famous speech opposing gay marriages has been turned into a racist joke by using a text editor to search for & replace certain phrases: Eight years ago, Congress passed [a law] which defined whiteness…