February 24, 2004
Outraged
“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 marriage as a union of a man and woman as husband and wife.”It’s not often that a politician pisses me off so much that it actually makes my Tourette’s ticks act up, but I’m twitching like crazy over here. I honestly do not understand how anyone can say that this is not an attempt to mix church and state in an unimaginable affront to the freedoms that America is supposed to provide her citizens!— President George W. Bush February 24, 2004
There simply are no valid secular arguments that support the idea that allowing gays to marry will cause anyone any harm. Saying that "society" defines marriage as the joining of a man and woman doesn't change the fact that the definition only exists because of the religious belief that homosexuality is an affront to one deity or another. There is simply no evidence that allowing gays to marry would have ANY effect at all on healthy heterosexual marriages.
If the conservative busybodies who are promoting this discriminatory - and unAmerican - agenda were truly concerned about the "sanctity" of marriage, they would be out there doing everything they could to eliminate the current causes of divorce.
Its kind of ironic that most of the people who wail about the "sanctity" of marriage being violated are the same people who seem to think it's good for society to have business trying to get every last minute of work it can out of its employees as cheaply as possible, without taking into account the toll that financial difficulties and/or working long hours can take on a marriage. How many marriages in America have been destroyed by one partner's effective absence because their company demanded that they work 60 hour work weeks or spend most of their time on the road, away from their families? How many have been destroyed by the financial upheaval that the last few years of constant job losses have created? I'll wager far more than have been destroyed by Vermont's civil unions law.
Adultery is another marriage killer that not only do the conservatives ignore as a legitimate social issue, but often engage in themselves. How often do we hear about one conservative leader or another who has engaged in extra-marital hanky panky, or who is on to a second, third or fourth wife? How many families in general have been destroyed because someone couldn't keep a promise they made - one typically made in a sacred ceremony?
And what's being done to combat other causes of marriage failures, such as alcoholism, drug abuse, gambling addictions or other compulsive behaviours? Anything? You'd think that those who are interested in preserving the alleged "sanctity" of marriage would have some interest in addressing those issues, but they don't. And domestic violence is another marriage killer (sometimes, sadly, in an all-too-literal sense) that they have little interest in combating.
The amount of sanctimonious bullshit that's being shoveled around on this issue is staggering. No one cares about preserving marriage, they just don't like gays and don't want to see any indication that gays actually have the same rights, needs, and desires that any of the rest of us do. Well, guys, here's the deal. You need to clean up your own houses before you tell someone how to maintain their own. If you want marriage to be sacred, get out there and start working to make business family-friendly, so that people are paid a fair wage and have adequate time to actually BE with their families. Work to make adultery socially unacceptable again. Work to help make sure that addicts and their family members can get the help they need to get the addiction under control before it breaks the family apart. Do everything you can to put an end to domestic abuse in this country. That's where the problems are - not in allowing gays to get married.
Posted by at February 24, 2004 06:32 PMThe weakness of the right’s arguments frustrates me to no end. They use cyclical arguments that don’t hold up. They say that it’s to protect children who might end up in same-sex households. Well, were it legal rather then ostrocized then children in same-sex households wouldn’t feel any wierder than those in mixed race households or mixed religion households. Why not ban those “non-traditional” marriages in the amendment, too? And what about all the children in single parent households? While the right claims children need a mom and a dad to best promote their development, isn’t two moms or two dads preferable to one parent? So why not ban divorce in this amendment, too?
Another argument they use is that marriage is for procreation of the species. Well then I guess we should ban marriages for couples who choose not to have children, those who are sterile, late in life marriages, etc.
They claim that gay couples will promote the gay lifestyle. Well, then by that argument how come the heterosexual marriage isn’t doing its job of promoting the straight lifestyle? And why should one who is so strongly opposed to same-sex marriage think that his/her children would be more influenced by some random couple than by their own parents, church, etc.
The fact of the matter is that as a secular institution administered by the government, there should be no differentiation among different types of law-abiding couples. There are no longer federal laws against homosexuality. Then let homosexuals marry. (by saying law-abiding, this deflects the whole “well then can people marry children, farm animals, multiple spouses, etc.” slippery slope argument often used as well by the right).
Posted by: blipsman at February 24, 2004 07:20 PM
hey blips:
We are talking about the same people who think that teaching kids about safe sex promotes sexual behavior….and that abstinence only will keep teens from having sex.
We are talking about a society where it is fine to get married to a stranger on tv for a million dollars, or get married after a short drunken affair in vegas by elvis….
There are no laws banning adultery or divorce, and the rates of those events are over 50%…
yes…..outrage is appropriate…not only because the right want to deny gays equal rights (which they claim it is not about) but because the definition of marriage is so skewed and broken by heterosexuals.
Posted by: rob at February 24, 2004 07:39 PM“ditto!”
I shuddered involuntarily at the word.
Posted by: Gaelen Burns at February 24, 2004 10:07 PMThis is crazy. Another fight for civil liberties. I saw a good comment on www.povertybarn.com check it out.
Posted by: catherine at February 24, 2004 11:10 PMI’ve been watching with interest what’s happening in Massachusetts and San Francisco with regard to gay marriages. And I’ve been doing it analytically, rationally. I cannot imagine what gay and lesbian couples, or singles for that matter, must be feeling right now. Outrage doesn’t seem to do it justice (btw, the name of my blog is outrage.com) This New York Times editorial put it succinctly: “President Bush’s amendment would be the first adopted to stigmatize and exclude a group of Americans.”
My husband’s no help. As far as he’s concerned of course gay marriage is okay. “Why should only straights suffer?” He’s a barrel of laughs, believe me. But what I can’t figure out, and I appreciated seeing addressed here, is how EXACTLY does gay marriage threaten or harm the institution of marriage. If more people are getting married and staying married, doesn’t that improve the state of marriage? Speaking of states, boy oh boy is this a conservative Catch-22 if there ever was one — so which is worse, gay marriages or having the big, bad federal government involved in one of the most intimate and personal decisions a human being can make? Let the squirming begin.
Or even worse. Every one of the SOBs behind this amendment knows it isn’t going anywhere. Bush’s speech hits all the right buttons (pun intended) and makes all the homophobic fascists happy — without any intention or expectation that this becomes reality. Then when it fails they can blame it on those crazy liberals. Everybody wins. Or is that just way too cynical?
I have three words for you — E - R - A. Remember that one? Everyone’s still into 70’s nostalgia. Can’t some forward thinking Democratic resurrect that puppy? Now that’s an amendment whose time has come. Just be sure it covers everyone - regardless of their choice of a soulmate.
E-R-A ? Wasn’t that a Panther slogan, Everyone Reach for Arms? Getting foggy in my 50’s. Great comment 9thwave.
thorswitch,
It’s not often that a politician pisses me off so much that it actually makes my Tourette’s ticks act up, but I’m twitching like crazy over here.
Now this is funny material. I couldn’t stop laughing. Thanks.
Posted by: David R. Remer at February 25, 2004 06:09 AMThis is political pandering at its most blatant. Bush is worried that the evangelicals are going to saty home this November, so he’s tossing them a bone.
Never mind that in doing so he is ticking off another group of what used to be the Republican party, those that believe in less government interference in people’s personal lives. It’s things like this that make me glad that I left the Republicans.
Personally, I think this one of those things that shoul be left up to each individual state to decide, so if citizens of Vermont California, Hawaii, etc choose to have gay marriage, so be it, and if states like Alabama, New Hampshire, and Virginia choose the opposite, then that’s fine as well.
As a single guy in my twenties, (who thinks marriage is kind of outdated any way), I may be looking at this myopically, but why should I care what personal decision two people in another state make?
Here, here, here…try as I might, I can find no rational reason the deny Gays the right to marry. The Institution of marriage in the U.S. has been on the wane for quite some time with no real effort by the right to creditably stop it. While they were wringing their hands over abortion, priests have been ravaging our children. And even now, most Catholics still tow the party line; but I digress.
Your points were right on; thank you for making them. And I share your outrage!
Obviously, if two gay guys get married it’s a tremendous threat to my own marriage of thirty years’ standing.
Posted by: John W. Durham at February 25, 2004 01:00 PM“Obviously, if two gay guys get married it’s a tremendous threat to my own marriage of thirty years’ standing.”
I hope that your being sarcastic to further the point, but if not. If a couple’s marriage can be threatened by the action of a third party in some cases thousands of miles a way, how strong is the marriage?
Posted by: Nate Daniel at February 25, 2004 03:15 PMI guess if marriage is such a failure I fail to see why Gays would want to become part of such an outdated method of a man-woman relationship. Wouldn’t Civil union with EQUAL rights work ….PROBLEM SOLVED. No need to attack the church Republicans ect…..Then maybe the courts wouldn’t need to rehash this issue through activist judges around the country..justa thought…
Posted by: Rock at February 26, 2004 09:12 PM
