George “Damn the History Books” Bush
Now that Bush has officially called for a constitutional amendment defining marriage as being between one man and one woman, perhaps it’s time to look at what that will mean. The New Republic has an article exposing how radical the FMA really is.
The biggest problem with the President’s address is that he assumes that since this is the way it’s always been, this is the way it should be. Not necessarily so. When he says that “[m]arriage cannot be severed from its cultural, religious and natural roots without weakening the good influence of society,” what does that even mean? There’s no severing going on here, and in this country the legal recognition of marriage has nothing whatsoever to do with religion. This is why people get a marriage license before the special day. Stable, long-term same-sex couples are already providing that good influence to society the President mentions. All they’re asking for now is an official recognition of that fact.
And then there’s the “marriage is for procreation” argument. Which, of course, logically invalidates the marriages of couples who cannot have children for any of a myriad of reasons. But that’s not why they were able to get married in the first place. They were able to get married because they were of opposite genders.
What it comes down to is that people don’t like what they’re not used to. It’s been mentioned all over the place that 94% of Americans were in favor of miscegenation laws nine years before they were overturned by the Supreme Court. Some people think civil unions are the answer, but what’s the difference between a civil union and a marriage? If there are substantive differences (e.g. hospital visitation rights, inheritance, child custody), I think many people would agree that this needs to be fixed. And if there aren’t any differences other than gender, then civil unions are exposed as a “seperate but equal” compromise that does nothing but stigmatize gay couples.
The funniest part of this whole thing is how reactionary the Conservatives are being. We are not the first nation to deal with this issue. I haven’t heard any reports of polygamy or incest being bolstered by extending recognition to gay and lesbian couples. To suggest so without evidence is conjecture, and intolerant conjecture at that.
The overreaction is mind boggling. Let’s hope people can see that soon before this bigotry is coded into our country’s most basic document.
andrew Said,
February 25, 2004 @ 19:03
something to think about... there are many people (of whom I feel Il Presidente is one) that still feel homosexualility, whether married or not, is fundamentally wrong. it’s one thing to say, “i’ll accept that there are homosexuals around” but now homosexuals are asking for more... to accept this new situation is to say more than just “i’ll accept homosexuals” that’s a step a lot of people cannot easily make. because in the end, they’ll have to actually accept homosexuals and not just say that they do, something i feel a lot of people have been trying their hardest not to do.
i’m not sure if it makes sense. feel free to email me if you think i’m full of crapski.
Nick Kocharhook Said,
February 25, 2004 @ 23:09
Oh, absolutely. You’re 100% correct.
What I can’t stand is people trying to pretend that this isn’t the reason they’re doing it. The President’s comments said nothing about his distaste for homosexuality, but that’s what it comes down to. I think it’s the only way to explain the hysteria on this topic.
It’s not PC to say “I think homosexuality is wrong” (and rightly so), so they need to rationalize or obfuscate their motives. I suppose it’s a step forward, but it’s depressing that people are swayed by the arguments presented when the ones they come up with are so transparent. Or maybe that’s your point: they aren’t swayed, they’re just starting from the same set of facts (fear of/distaste for homosexuality), so they come to the same conclusions. They’re open to the arguments because they want to rationalize their feelings too.
I’m waiting for the moment when, 50 or 100 years from now, we look back on this and laugh at what a big deal it was. (“Those Jim Crow laws... what WERE they thinking?!”) It’s coming, and nothing the Conservatives can do will stop it.
...Although, we HAVE successfully stymied the introduction of the metric system thus far, so I suppose anything’s possible. :-)
andrew Said,
February 27, 2004 @ 22:46
Another way to look at it.... it’s like rare collectibles. Homosexual marriage will put that many more marriages into circulation. That will lower the overall value of my marriage. So I want to stop these excessive marriages before they start. So ha!
Seriously, though, I think more than anything, something needs to be done to repair the general attitude concerning homosexuality. You hear so many arguments... “It’s not natural!” Well, herpes is natural, and nobody is off looking for that. “It’s not right... sex is for procreation..” okay, nobody REALLY says that. “The religious-text-of-my-choice says it’s wrong.” Well, the Bible says a lot of interesting things that are considered not so right anymore, and we ignore those. Go figure. Hell, I imagine there’s even an argument that makes sense, but in the end they’re all a little silly, aren’t they?
Either way, until the general opinion of homosexuality is... repaired, this will always be a unfortunate uphill battle. Which is too bad, really.
What confuses me is how there existed cultures that allowed for ... sexual behavior between members of the same gender that was not frowned upon. Granted, some of these cultures had very differing views on men and women and such, but I do not think I understand where the generally negative attitude towards homosexuality came from.
But, really... I kind of like the metric system.
andrew Said,
March 3, 2004 @ 21:59
okay, so i’m not trying to turn YOUR website into some sort of homosexual forum, but given that (at least) three states have officially issued same-sex marriage licenses, i find this issue to be quite the hot topic. apparently, all people were waiting for was somebody to stand up and say, “hey, i’m going to okay this and start getting people married quicker than you can say amendment.”
so say something witty and intelligent about the issue.