June 06, 2006
Mawwiage
from - smijer

You come from many backgrounds and faith traditions, yet united in this common belief: Marriage is the most fundamental institution of civilization...For ages, in every culture, human beings have understood that marriage is critical to the well-being of families. And because families pass along values and shape character, marriage is also critical to the health of society. Our policies should aim to strengthen families...
The words of someone supportive of the institution of marriage? Someone who is getting ready to make a move to strengthen families?
No, someone working to ban some marriages, and weaken some families.
Why?
"This national question requires a national solution. And on an issue of such profound importance, that solution should come not from the courts, but from the people of the United States."
Because the courthouse shouldn't have any say in marriage (tell that to Dolly Parton). It's true that "the people" should make most of the decisions regarding marriage... but when one is talking about who is or is not empowered to participate in this "most fundamental institution of civilization", it helps to remember that "the people" is not the same thing as "the majority". To give the power of exclusion to the majority of the people is to silence the minority, and remove that part of "the people" from the decision-making process. And, in this case that means that the very people who will be affected by the decision are the ones who have no part in making it. It happened once before, and the activist judges did the right thing. They gave back to the minorities being affected a voice in their own destiny. And today, as a result, there are many strong families living in America.
I suppose I treat this too seriously. The amendment won't pass. It's just an attempt to manipulate the conservative base prior to an election - gee when did this happen before? But I believe that we must remind people that they are undermining both democracy and families by attempting to institutionalize exclusion, so we can get past this - so that 50 years from now our nation will no longer be mired in this effort, no longer sullied by it. So that 50 years from now, no prominent politician will run on a platform of overturning the marriage rights being considered today, just as no prominent politician will run on a platform of overturning the marriage rights that were before the court in Loving v. Virginia. So that our same-sex neighbors will no longer appear to us as the bogeyman; instead, they will be a source of strength to our communities for which we will all (or most all) be grateful.
::Posted by smijer at June 6, 2006 07:57 AM
Thanks for the Supreme Court decision link. I hadn't realized that there'd been so much backwardness in my own lifetime in the U.S. with respect to race, made concrete in our laws. (There will always be prejudice.) I think your prediction about the future is spot on: anything we do now (or have done recently) to restrict gay marriage will have to be undone 50 years from now.
| Posted by RSA on June 6, 2006 10:52 AM Link to comment |
The most bizarre comment, and I wish I had a quote, was when the President was asked if this was a political move, and he answered in the negative, but then immediately went on to say something about it being brought up to help Republicans in November.
Did he not understand the question? Or is he trying to split hairs? Or, does he think we're that gullible?
| Posted by joe public on June 6, 2006 11:03 AM Link to comment |
Pure politics, pretty obviously, I think as well. Based on what I hear from conservative commentators in the news, no one seems to be fooled.
By the way, I just went to the text of Bush's speech, thinking that it might be fun to spoof it a bit, and found that the word "gay" does not appear once. That's pretty odd.
| Posted by RSA on June 6, 2006 11:11 AM Link to comment |
I must be more pessimistic than some. I think the amendment is likely to pass.
| Posted by h sofia on June 7, 2006 12:16 PM Link to comment |
I hope the optimists are right on this... However, state constitutions are getting amended left&right. Tennessee has a Democratic Governor who announced yesterday he would support a ban in the TN constitution if it came up this November. What reasons there are for optimism on the federal level are badly undermined at the state level.
| Posted by smijer on June 7, 2006 01:31 PM Link to comment |