Tuesday 24 February 2004 - Filed under Essays
So our President has finally made it official — he now endorses an amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America that defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman. First of all let me say that this is the right way to approach the problem. The Right is now notorious for using the idiotic phrase “judicial activism” — they have decided that if they disagree with the courts then the courts must be biased liberals who have no integrity and are hell bent on solely pursuing their own political agenda in spite of years of dedicated and proven service to this country. This is shameful. No matter who you are, the courts are going to disagree with you sometimes and it is pretty lame to assume that the court has traded integrity for political activism, especially when your man, the Right-Wing George W. Bush, was placed on the throne by the courts in a decision widely criticized. I’m going to say here and now, and I’m a raging liberal, that the act of the Supreme Court handing Bush the presidency does not in and of itself cause me to question its integrity. I disagree but I will not claim it was judicial activism. Karl Rove, next time you program our president to speak, delete this subroutine that constantly calls the courts “judicial activism”. It is insulting, it represents a hostile power struggle between the branches of government and it is unbecoming of the President of the United States.
So I agree — if you don’t like how the courts have interpreted the Constitution, the correct course of action is to change the Constitution. This may be the only time you’ll ever hear me say that Bush is doing the right thing.
Given his views. Which I strongly disagree with. I believe this Constitutional amendment is about the stupidest thing I have ever heard.
The polls are pretty unambiguous — most Americans do not support gay marriage. This is not a referendum on marriage, though — most Americans just plain don’t like homosexuality. The question they are answering, whether they are asked it or not, is do you support homosexuals and their answer is no. There are many an estranged father and son because of this issue — people who will literally disown their children because they don’t like homosexuality. Almost, if not all of these people, are also religious. They think the Bible says homosexuality is a sin. Nevermind all the other sins they gladly participate in, this one needs a Constitutional amendment. Fucking A.
One of my only criticisms of John Kerry is that he is wishy-washy on this issue because he, too, knows what the polls say. He is still saying the right thing, which is that the state is not and should not be involved in religious rituals and what we call marriage at the state level would be more appropriately called civil union. This is a legal matter as far as the state is concerned. John Kerry should have the balls to say that as president he will not support this amendment and that he supports gay marriage.
Which brings me to my final point. Bookmark this page and come back here and give me shit if I am wrong. I hereby predict that there is no way, none at all, zero percent chance that a Constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman will ever pass. That is one reason I encourage them to try — this issue will end political careers because it is completely against more than one aspect of the Constitution. First of all, we’re supposed to have a separation of church and state, so when Bush talks about the sanctity of marriage, he is violating that. Second, we afford equal rights to all people. Read that sentence again. It is nonsense to even be talking about this. Same-sex marriage is a done deal, for sure, gonna happen, no question about it. What you can do is quietly and insistently support it to those people around you who don’t. They’ll come around.
2004-02-24 » lolife