Telling the story from our point of view

Blog Archive

October 12, 2005

Alamo Revisited

Good news to report.
Being that I am a native Texan, Im happy to see my fellow marriage minded (that's uh biological male/female, mind you) Texans about to step up to the plate and tell homosexual activists to go back to Massachusetts. Thankfully, Black Texas Christians are leading the way.
Texas is gearing up for an Alamo sized homosexual marriage battle and Im casting my Davy Crocketts for traditional marriage. I'm encouraging all my inlaws and exlaws who live in Texas to prepare to make a stand.

Proposition 2: House Joint Resolution 6 would provide that marriage in Texas is solely the union of a man and woman, and that the state and its political subdivisions could not create or recognize any legal status identical to or similar to marriage, including such legal status relationships created outside of Texas.
They may let that mess go on in Massachusetts, but

Related: Texans FOR Marriage

7 comments:

Anonymous said...

It's bigotry, plain and simple. Yee-ha!

DirtyHarryY2K said...

Good post!

A friend from Texas..

Fight The Good Fight!

DL Foster said...

anonymous, my suggestion to you is to look up the definition of bigotry --not the socially/politically correct one-- and then make it applicable to all people. Not just the ones you happen to disagree with. You might find you own face in the definition. Yee-ha!

Anonymous said...

Why would gays WANT to live in Tex-ass anyway?

DL Foster said...

Why would gays WANT to live in Tex-ass anyway?


Maybe you should pose such an intelligent question to the Texas homosexual lobby. Here's their contact info:

Lesbian Gay Rights Lobby of Texas
P.O. BOX 2340
Austin, TX 78768
(512) 474-5475 phone
(512) 474-6297 fax
info@lgrl.org

Anonymous said...

Nice try DL, but that's a rather facile argument. Here is the definition of a bigot: "a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices."

And here is the proposition you are apparently so enthused about for whatever reason: "...marriage in Texas is solely the union of a man and woman, and that the state and its political subdivisions could not create or recognize any legal status identical to or similar to marriage, including such legal status relationships created outside of Texas."

I think the correlation here is direct and evident. The proposition enshrines the principle of intolerance by not only forbidding same-sex marriage, but goes way beyond that by seeking to outlaw anything that might even be considered similar to the institution of traditional marriage. In other words, it's completely exclusionary in nature. This would rule out civil unions, for example. The intent of this proposition is not only to defend traditional marriage but to deprive others of equitable treatment under the law should they choose to enter into any sort of alternative arrangement.

It's bigotry, plain and simple. Period. Stop.

And if you want to carry on this silly argument, perhaps you might first want to consider your position in a racial context, or as you put it, "the socially/politically correct one" in which case, then MLK and many other civil rights activists could also be described as "bigots." So, yes, I would be glad to include myself amonst that group of bigots.

But you knew exactly what I meant in the first instance and decided instead to toss it off with some frivolous word play.

DL Foster said...

"But you knew exactly what I meant in the first instance and decided instead to toss it off with some frivolous word play."


You forgot your little juvenile "yee-ha!" LOL, now you want to be all mature. LOL, whatever. Have fun, yee-ha!