In order to standardize language to conform to the party line, the National Socialist leadership made extensive, repetitious use of acronyms, euphemisms, and other impersonal terminology. In this carefully-crafted work, Klemperer analyzes how such language can hide the motives and intentions of its creators. For instance, the term Sonderbehandlung [special treatment] refers to murder, and the term Endlösung [final solution] is a clandestine reference to the systematic slaughter and annihilation of the Jewish people.
With abstracted language permeating daily life in the Third Reich, perpetrators, bystanders, and victims subconsciously began to communicate through the mandated code. As Klemperer puts it, everything \"swam in the same brown sauce\" and \"supporters and opponents, beneficiaries and victims all conformed to the same models.\"

I still wonder about PhillyFan, Wm1865, MIB and the rest of the MIA's on this thread.

fantomas:
I'm not saying that Rove is a Nazi...

For forty years the Republican Party has preached the gospel of federalism and states' rights. Democrats and cynics have said that Republicans did this primarily because federalism and states' rights are useful tools for keeping African-Americans' noses in the mud. Republicans have protested that that is not the case, that their commitment to federalism and states' rights is a deep attachment to constitutional principle.

Now comes the Federal Marriage Amendment, and Republican commitment to federalism and states' rights is out the window faster than you can say \"secure the right-wing base.\"

A deep attachment to constitutional principle indeed!

As Nick Confessore writes, \"On the 2000 campaign trail, Bush told Larry King he believed states \"can do what they want to do\" on gay marriage, a position Vice President Dick Cheney is also on record as supporting.\" And the White House press corps, for once, picks up the scent. Scott McClellan responds by saying that Oceania has always been at war with Eurasia

In fact, we pity the poor fool at the RNC who has the unhappy task of digging up some gay Republicans to appear on the podium alongside the black Republicans

By the way, if this does pass, I think it's time to seriously consider leaving this country.

Jim Allen:
And I like this bit in one of his links: Buwahaha! There's some people here who would be honored, I'm sure!

That would be like the entire population of California leaving the United States!

eftergivende:
So Bush supports Brittany Spears-type marriages but not gay ones? And how could the worst of us hurt a marriage like Brittany's?

Valentine's Day, that great state holiday
By Bill Maher, 2/14/2004

NEW RULE: You can't claim you're the party of smaller government, and then clamor to make laws about love. If there's one area I don't want the US government to add to its list of screw-ups, it's love.

But at least the right wing aren't hypocrites on this issue -- they really believe that homosexuality, because it says so in the Bible, is an \"abomination\" and a \"dysfunction\" that's \"curable\": they believe that if a gay man just devotes his life to Jesus, he'll stop being gay -- because the theory worked out so well with the Catholic priests.

But the greater shame in this story goes to the Democrats, because they don't believe homosexuality is an \"abomination,\" and therefore their refusal to endorse gay marriage is a hypocrisy. The right are true believers, but the Democrats are merely pretending that they believe gays are not entitled to the same state-sanctioned misery as the rest of us.

The Democrats' position doesn't come from the Bible, it's ripped right from the latest poll, which says that most Americans are against gay marriage.

But that aside, the law in this country should reflect that some people are just born 100 percent outrageously, fabulously, undeniably Fire Island gay, and that they don't need re-programming. They need a man with a slow hand.

Happy Valentine's Day everybody!

Bill Maher is host of \"Real Time with Bill Maher.\"

HulaBoy:
Bill Maher's Boston Globe OpEd piece:

gamecock:
both Chad (Allen) and Gavin Newsom were INCREDIBLE on Larry King last night!....as was Larry himself, for that matter

KING: But Congresswoman, hasn't it been true in the past -- there's only two ways to change a law, legislatively or breaking it and then having a judge deciding or a constitutional Supreme Court deciding? Martin Luther King broke many laws on the way to justice. So what is open to someone other than to challenge a law, if the legislature doesn't change it, than to challenge it legally?

MUSGRAVE: Well, what is open to them is the legislative deliberative process. If we're ever to change the definition of marriage in this country, it should be done by the American people and their elected representatives. And they've had every opportunity to go that route but have chosen not to do that because the American people overwhelmingly support the traditional definition of marriage...

KING: But states...

MUSGRAVE: ... a union between one man and one woman.

KING: States in the South historically supported a separation of color in the South, and Martin Luther King challenged that. Many states held to it. A black couldn't marry a white in the Southern states. This is 20 years ago that couldn't happen.

MUSGRAVE: What we're talking about...

KING: The legislature didn't change it.

MUSGRAVE: ... here, Larry, is the definition of marriage, changing the definition of marriage. And again, if that's to be done, it should be done by the American people and their elected representatives.

KING: OK. Mayor, what's wrong with that? What's wrong with letting the people decide?

NEWSOM: Yes, Larry, I feel, I must say, when I'm listening to the congresswoman -- and I say this with respect -- that if we wait for popularity in the polls and the people, we still would be talking about interracial marriages in this country. The year I was born, finally, it was some activist judges in Loving versus the State of Virginia that finally recognized that 16 states were being discriminatory in not affording the rights of blacks to marry whites, whites to marry Asians, et cetera. The point is, there's certain principles you stand on and those principles of non-discrimination.

The B Man:
And my message to Dreier, who was also quoted in the same MSNBC article (you can send one by going here - http://dreier.house.gov/dreierform/talkto.htm ):

THANK YOU for your leadership, Congressman Dreier, regarding the absurd proposal to amend the constitution. I read your comments online at MSNBC. I say this without hyperbole: if I weren't already living in NJ, I would move to California. I need to know the elected leaders of this nation, and those who serve me directly, integrate the ideals of empathy, equity, and respect into their political leadership. PLEASE continue to demonstrate the leadership your party needs right now. Your voice on this issue is important to me, especially as a man with gay family members. I want the best for them, and I simply cannot imagine how government legitimized institutional discrimination is in anyone's best interests. THANK YOU.

wade n atlanta:
Thank God that someone else is comparing this to the civil rights of the 50's and 60's, and using the actions of Dr. martin Luther King,Jr. as evidence. I feel like I have been beating my head against a wall and no-one else believed the same way. I encourage all of you to look up the speeches of Dr. King and see how relavent they are to the issue of gay rights. Some of the biggest supporters in Washington now are the Black Senators and Representatives that have been through the struggles of oppression. I have traded e-mails and letters with Senator John Lewis (D) GA, and he is firmly behind the cause, and is vehemently against the amendment proposed by shrub.
I don't know if shrub has a personal thing against homosexuality, but I certainly do think this is an election issue. That doesn't make it better; playing politics with somones life is as low down as it gets. Changing the constitution to incorporate bigotry and discrimination will only hurt his cause and not help, and he needs all the help he can get, poor thing. Maybe next year, he can get a job in the southern baptist convention.

Democrats should look in the mirror first, because their own party's position on this issue -- while it happens to be more favorable to GLBT interests -- is driven by exactly the same pragmatic political considerations.

Mr. Bush,

I want to thank you for finally speaking out on the subject of gay marriage, and for supporting the Federal Marriage Amendment. The country can now clearly see the depth of your moral character and ethical nature - namely, that you have neither. Finally, the myth of your \"compassionate conservatism\" has been shattered and you have been revealed for the cynical politico that you are - a bigot who is willing to sacrifice millions of his fellow Americans for mere political expediency. History will now have even more evidence to brand you one of the worst, if not the very worst, leader this country has ever known.

But you have not gone far enough - after all, Mr. Bush, if myself and people like me represent a threat to the very foundations of society - if we faggots and dykes will damage marriage were the government to recognize our value, our worth and the importance of our relationships - then you must do more. After all, this Amendment, although it would enshrine some of the most vicious and violent prejudice in the very founding documents of MY country, only blocks legal recognition of our relationships - it merely makes our lives a little harder.

But Mr. Bush we are still out there - every day going to work, paying our takes (personally, I've paid more than 26,000 dollars in federal tax in the last 2 years alone), buying homes, raising children, and being married in the eyes of our friends, churches and God himself (someone you clearly need to be introduced to). If our lives are damaging, if our very existence is a threat to the nation, then the absence of mere legal recognition of our relationships cannot do much to stop the damage. Even without gay marriage, our friends, family members, co-workers and neighbors are learning every day that we are human beings, that we can have positive lives, that we are in reality no different than any other person. Every day gay teens are learning they don't have to accept your bigotry and harassment, that they can have wonderful, fulfilled lives as openly gay people, that they don't have to hide in the shadows in deference to hatemongers like you. These are the \"subversive\" actions that we carry - that you believe must be stopped by writing discrimination into the Constitution.

Those actions will continue, Mr. Bush - if anything you have made them more likely. And if those actions are really \"subversive,\" if gay people coming together in loving relationships is a threat to the nation, then you have not stopped us. You may block legal marriage, but you cannot stop marriage of the heart, of the soul. Those marriages will continue.

So, I fully expect you to respond to our overall threat -first you must dump that dyke daughter of Cheney from your re-election campaign - and never allow her disgusting form to darken the White House doorstep again (I mean, what if she got to those drunks you bore with Laura - they might turn gay just from being in the same room with her, right?). Then you must fire every single gay employee of the federal government, including the at least 20% of the military that comprises fags and dykes. Sure the government and the military would stop functioning, but if we are that big a threat to the nation, what other choice do you have?

Then, of course, the next step is to create the concentration camps to lock us up and ensure our \"subversive\" nature is not exposed to \"normal\" Americans - the straight ones you think are so important. After that, of course, there is only one option - the one explicitly required by the perversion of a \"bible\" you believe in - we must be executed Mr. Bush. If you really want your bigotry and prejudice to last for all eternity, you must kill us all - remember, it was only 8 years between the first Nuremburg laws in Nazi Germany and the Final Solution - how long will you and your \"Christian\" supporters wait until you start demanding the same thing for us?

You cannot prevent the tide of history, Mr. Bush, with any actions short of this. We will continue to come out, we will continue to demonstrate that your attitudes, your hatred, your disgusting attacks on us, are all based on lies, myths and stereotypes. You cannot prevent us from undermining your sick and twisted vision for this country unless you eliminate us totally.

This is the path you have chosen - and may God have mercy on your soul. The sins you are committing against gay people are so atrocious, so completely counter to any concept of Christianity, that you risk allowing hate to be the basis of your life. You disgust me, Mr. Bush, and certainly know that I will be working against your election in the fall.

CPT_Doom:
I have sent the following email to Mr. Bush...I don't for one minute believe he will read this, or if he ever sees it, will be affected by it - but perhaps his staff will.

HulaBoy:
It's pretty simple, and I thought Bill Maher hit the nail on the head in a rather humorous way.

I still wonder about PhillyFan, Wm1865, MIB and the rest of the MIA's on this thread.

CPT_Doom
... You disgust me, Mr. Bush,...

Stephen:
Gosh - I haven't posted here in ages. But I just wanted to point out that it appears very unlikely that any such amendment would get through Congress. The disgusting Tom DeLay, of all people, has already voiced his doubts about the wisdom of a constitutional amendment, and lots of people say it wouldn't pass in the Senate, given the number of Republicans who don't like tinkering with the Constitution.

I am writing to ask you NOT to support the FMA as President Bush recently urged. Our constitution is too sacred a document to write discrimination into. When the President refers to \"Traditional Marriage\" or the \"Sanctity of Marriage\" does he or anyone realize what the true history of marriage is?

Anyone who has studied history can tell you that until very modern times, marriage was more of a business arrangement; more to ensure property and inheritance rights than it was a love affair. Even as recently as the 19th and early 20th centuries women had very little rights or choices in marriage, and the man was the “king of the castle”. Is this a traditional form of marriage we should return to?

Gay marriage is not about religion it is about equal rights. For my partner and I to get just half of the rights that married couples get for a $50 license it costs us $2000-3000 in legal fees to attain (wills, power of attorney, and so on). This cost difference alone makes it discriminatory. I do feel that Civil Unions might be a \"Seprarate but Equal\" alternative, but that would only be true if they carried the same Federal rights not just the state level rights. For example, I cannot claim my partners Social Security or his 401k upon his death.

I would also like to note that much of the same arguments being used for this amendment were used when interractial marriage was the issue just 40 years ago. The courts struck those laws down even when the current polls showed Americans did not agree with interracial marriage. Over time we have discovered that the majority was wrong and that it was a terrible injustice to those couples. Don't let this happen to me. I don't want to force any church to marry my partner and I, I simply want to know that if I die or am incompacitated, he will be the one to make descisions on my behalf. It is my choice who I entrust this to, and the government should recognize this choice by not forcing me to pay more simply because I choose a man and not a woman. I truly hope you will have the wisdom to speak against this blatant attempt to dammage our most sacred constitution.

Thank You for your time.

Thom:
First to Ms de Blazer I hope you will forgive me for taking the liberty of using your points on another message board. I am simply amazed that less than 40 years ago most people were against interracial marriage.

HulaBoy:
I know I'd better duck for cover before saying this, but Bush didn't say what he said yesterday because he hates gay people.