Your Logo Here

This is the greatest and most powerful blog in the history of the universe. Solid.

Tuesday, February 24, 2004

Let's see....millions of jobs lost, few new jobs being created, Iraq is on the verge of civil war, Afghanistan is in total chaos and the Taliban is making a comeback, North Korea is a wild card, the Palestinians and Israelis still can't go five days without killing each other, the dollar's value is sinking, homelessness is increasing as well as poverty and the number of people without healthcare.....I know! Let's focus on gay marriage!!! gay marriage is supposed to be a "threat" to the institution of marriage, and Shrub has now announced his support for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage Why? Marriage, according to Bush, is a "sacred" institution "between one man and one woman" (except for his brother Neil). To begin with, this justification violates the clause separating church and state. He also says that "activist judges" are changing the meaning of marriage. But what could be more activist than amending the Constitution?
I'm still a little confused on this idea of gay marriage being a "threat." I'm married, and I don't exactly feel threatened. My parents divorced, but I don't think that it had anything to do with Siegfried and Roy wanting to tie the knot. Fifty percent of heterosexual marriages end in divorce, but the majority of those people end up remarrying, so the institution of marriage seems to be fairly strong. I'd think that poverty is the greater threat to marriage given that the poor are more likely to divorce than the wealthy. So if we want to protect marriage, wouldn't a constitutional amendment banning poverty be the better bet? And do we really want to get in the business of denying people equal treatment via Constitutional amendments?
The other thing that strikes me is that I always thought that it was Republicans who argued that government is too big and that it needs to stay out of people's business. Except, I guess, when it comes to what you and your partner like to do in the bedroom or on the front lawn.

But here's the crux of the issue. For a Constitutional amendment to pass, it must get a two-thirds majority in both houses of Congress and be ratified by three-quarters of all states. Is this likely to happen before the November elections? Absolutely not. Is it likely to ever happen? Maybe, maybe not. Is it a bad idea? Sure. But clearly the Bushies don't feel that they can win this election without trying to manufacture wedge issues like this one.

If anybody is making a mockery of marriage, it's Britney Spears, J-Lo, Michael Jackson, and David Gest.

Weblog Commenting and Trackback by