"the most fundamental institution of civilisation"
Apparently condemning same sex couples to hell is just not enough for America's religious right. Now they have managed to talk Bush into supporting an amendment to the constitution that prevents US states from legalising same sex marriages.
You seriously have to wonder what people who so passionately oppose same sex marriages (to the extent that they want a constitutional amendment to ban it), spend their days doing. Whatever it is, it clearly isn't fulfilling enough. They seem to spend most of their time fixated on how other people choose to live their lives. What is it that people really fear so much about same sex marriage ? What great social breakdown do people really envisage happening? And finally, do these people really believe that civilised society so desperately depends on the traditional definition of marriage, or as Bush puts it, "the most fundamental institution of civilisation", that it requires a constitutional amendment to protect it. Given the fickle nature of the modern day marriage, I would be very worried indeed if societies fate relied soley on such an institution.
posted by macca at 9:35 AM
5 Comments:
I can't say I am surprised they've come up with this one. It's scary stuff. What's scarier still is that they probably think they're responding to the demand of their electorates...which, in some instances they probably are. I don't understand. I agree completely with you Chris - to try and impose rules banning two consenting adults who wish to have their union recognised is simply ridiculous. What year are we in again? I anticipate Dick Cheney would be particularly quiet on this issue (as he always is), given his daughter is a lesbian. Sad to say but I think the only way of getting George away from his pathetic stance would also be for someone close to him to disclose their gay identity. Things change miraculously when the issue becomes personalised.
6/06/2006 01:02:00 PM
...the fickle nature of the modern day marriage...
I hope you have a little faith in the institution, Chris, given recent events!
But yes, I get rather pissed off that one of the most powerful countries in the world act in such ways, calling it Christianity, whilst happily killing thousands of innocent people (let's not even start on their duties re the "guilty" ones).
6/06/2006 08:38:00 PM
It's pure politics. There is a significant fraction of the American electorate that thinks picking on gay people is the most important issue facing the country. And, while they're unlikely to vote Democrat, there is the possiiblity they may not vote at all in a country with voluntary voting.
The first thing to realise that there's no way the constitutional amendment will succeed. It's just an empty gesture. But it's one that gets their religious-fundy base excited and will get them to attend the polls.
Given that the Republicans are in deep poo-poo electorally, they desperately need their base turning out or they stand a reasonable chance of losing *both* houses of Congress in the elections due this year.
Yes, this is grubby politics, but it's not done out of any great emotional commitment by GWB to hating gays - by all reports, he personally has no issue with them. It's just that he's prepared to do whatever it takes to help his party retain control of Congress, and if that means stunts like this, he'll do them.
6/06/2006 10:12:00 PM
melt - ah yes, I openned myself up for that one. For the record, I do have faith in the institution, for me, but in no way do I believe it is a necessary step for everyone, nor do I believe it's definition is set in stone.
6/07/2006 08:49:00 AM
Rob - Oh yes, I am very aware of why the republicans depend on the religious right vote, and why dubbuya would support such an amendment. I guess I was talking more about the people who push for such things (doomed to failure though it maybe).
6/07/2006 08:54:00 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home