How fitting that the issue of Time
I was reading in the doctor's waiting room today was the issue in which Andrew Sullivan's essay about marriage
I'm disappointed in President Bush's decision today. Not that I expected him to do anything else other than support a ban, but it still angers me.
What I don't understand is this: why is marriage a religious issue? Isn't that expecting everyone to follow a certain religious standard? Then wouldn't it follow that making the law fit a religious definition of marriage denying us our freedom from
I got home from the doctor and immediately went to the computer and hit The Corner. I guess I like to get aggravated. I knew what I would find there.
Good old Derbyshire - well, he's so predictable
I am totally at a loss with this "gay marriage" business.
Can someone please tell me
(A) Which civil right homosexuals citizens currently do not have,
(B) Which civil right they currently have, that they will no longer have if the President's FMA proposal is enacted?
Thank you. Brief answers only, please.
It's not about a specific civil right, you simpleton.
That's my brief answer.
The long answer is this - It's about humanity.
That sounds short, but it's not. It involves so many things, including compassion, love, fairness, empathy and dignity. It's about treating every man and woman as equal, as members of the human race, not members of some sideshow in the circus.
If the constitution is amended, it should be done in plain, truthful language: All man are created equal but are not treated as such. We hereby deny gay people the right to have a legal union of love, care and respect. We, the people, hereby decree that gay people should be stigmatized and treated as a lower form of humanity; a lower form that will not be granted the right to legally come together as one in matrimony.
Your religion despises homosexuality? Great. Make an amendment to your church's constitution that your clergy won't marry gays. But where do you come off asking that all of America should act in the same accordance with your church? Oh yes, marriage is a sacrament that stems from religions. Fine. Then let the church keep the word marriage and let there be a secular term - say, union.
Ah, but that wouldn't matter. Because there would be some other grounds on which you would find the idea of two men who you don't even know joining together in a legal ceremony. Don't tell me it's about religion. Because deep down, it's about intolerance and bigotry. Those who wish to deny gay people their right to happiness - and for some, happiness will come with marriage and the sense of completion that marriage brings - are small minded.
The proposed amendment is about a word
. A single word.
The result is as devastating as if it were a hundred words painted on someone's heart with a twisting knife.
: Like Alex Knapp
, I'm wondering if Bush doesn't have better things to do than mess with the constitution. We're at war with Iraq, Iran is a bomb waiting to explode, and al Qaeda is still making threats. If Bush thinks that gay marriage is an issue which will bring his voters together, he's dead wrong. He forgot about the thousands of September 11th voters out there who think the number one priority in this country is winning the war on terror, not amending an historical document to fit the wants of the president's conservative base.