« Is that so radical? | OK, back to home | Random Acts of Happiness
(formerly "Smile") »

Monday, July 12, 2004

Bull-bush

From our great and highly intelligent president:

A great deal is at stake in this matter. The union of a man and woman in marriage is the most enduring and important human institution, and the law can teach respect or disrespect for that institution. If our laws teach that marriage is the sacred commitment of a man and a woman, the basis of an orderly society, and the defining promise of a life, that strengthens the institution of marriage. If courts create their own arbitrary definition of marriage as a mere legal contract, and cut marriage off from its cultural, religious and natural roots, then the meaning of marriage is lost, and the institution is weakened. The Massachusetts court, for example, has called marriage “an evolving paradigm.” That sends a message to the next generation that marriage has no enduring meaning, and that ages of moral teaching and human experience have nothing to teach us about this institution.

Mr. President, tell the truth. What’s at stake here is not the holy institution of marriage, but your own miserable presidency. Like an 8-year-old playground bully who diverts attention from his own hare lip by picking on smaller kids, you are trying to make us forget your multiple, disgraceful failures by pushing around the only social group that can still be acceptably picked on.

It is a dirty, disgusting act of cowardice. There should be no need for gay people to defend themselves against such non-sensical, non-rational, thinly disguised bigotry.

Like every other aspect of your presidency, this push will fail, as well. Why? Because it’s a bunch of bull-Bush.

Posted by Aaron on July 12, 2004 12:40 PM

Comments:

Another great post! All GWB wants to do is divide the electorate along religious lines, just like the right wing used the southern race strategy after 1964.

Voters need to start voting for their economic interests because that is what is going to have a serious impact on families, not our being young gay men.

When the Log Cabin Republicans are against you, your time is running out :). If Michael Moore were to post here, he would have said something like that!

Mike
July 12, 2004 11:00 PM

Oh god this is on every blog today- I don’t know if my fingers can retype all of that I had to say. I know, I know I am totally crazy- but Bush is not without point; the courts (and especially not mayors) are not the way to handle this.
I just finished writing about this on Andy’s site (http://andymatic.com/archives/002223.html) so a lot of this is repeat but even though my degree in constitutional law seems to have made me completely unemployable at least this is an areas I know something about- there are some actual questions that gay marriage would bring up though- especially if a court decision is used to bring that about. If gay marriage (or a wider definition of marriage) is brought about through the courts than it would leave the federal government with very little recourse to outlaw other types of prohibited unions such as incest and polygamy, since both could be undertaken by consenting adults.
I would favor gay marriage coming about through the legislator- but the courts in this area make me a little jumpy, doctrinal limbs formed too quickly prove unstable and if I had to guess the supreme court wouldn’t accept gay marriage on an equal protection basis- just based on what they said in the Texas sodomy case Texas v. Laurence. In that case the court was split 6-3 but only 5 justices concurred in the reasoning of the court with O’Connor merely concurring in the judgment. So on a question of gay marriage I think it likely that O’Connor would flip and maybe one other justice… as what do I know, you can never tell how these things will go.
Just would wanna see it come about in the legislature- separation of powers and all that good stuff.
I guess what it all comes down to for me is that there are in fact reasons not to be for gay marriage coming about in this way and not be a hater.
Anyways the amendment is going to fail so don’t get all worked up about it- they are just using it as a way to force the issue on the Dems so that it can be pointed to as a way of showing that they are anti-traditional values when reelections time comes around, just politics.

Bingo
July 13, 2004 11:26 AM

A brief counterpoint to you, Bingo. I just posted this on your site, as well.

If the Supreme Court can't say that denying gays the right to marry is unconstitutional, how about its 1967 ruling in Loving v. Virginia that declared unconstitutional laws that banned interracial marriage? Was that a case of the Supreme Court overstepping its boundaries, as well?

Aaron
July 15, 2004 12:24 AM