Thursday, July 15, 2004
To Have And To Hold - As Long As You're Not Gay (Not That There's Anything Wrong With It)
This is a sham, a fraud, a ploy or whatever other synonym you want to use. The Republicans knew that there was no chance of the gay marriage amendment passing the Senate but now they have ammunition. By pushing this vote forward in place of other more useful and legitimate legislation, the Republicans have forced their Democratic rivals to take a stand and define their position. Now they will use it against them. They won't tell the truth and say things like "He/She voted not to write discrimination into the Constitution," or "He/She voted to uphold the civil liberties of all Americans." No, they'll say things like "He/She voted against traditional family values," or "He/She voted to destroy the American family as we know it." Kind of like they distorted John Kerry's voting record in their newest commercial.
First of all, I want to talk about the government's role in marriage. I, for one, seem to recall something about the separation of church and state. If a marriage is something that is sanctified by God, how is it that our government can regulate it? Why do you have to purchase a marriage license, from the government, to join in a holy union. The line between church and state seems a little blurry here. If church and state are truly separated, as the founding fathers intended, the government has no role in marriage. In many other countries around the world, marriage isn't recognized by the government because of its association with the church. These countries require that a couple enter into a civil union in order to be recognized as a couple and entitled to inheritance and benefits. Two ceremonies, one for the government and one for the church. Now that's true separation.
Second on my list, why would we, as a nation, want to write discrimination into our Constitution? All twenty-seven amendments to our Constitution, with the exception of the eighteenth (prohibition) that was later repealed, were written to expand the rights of American citizens. An amendment banning gay marriage would restrict those rights. What's next, gays can't vote? Gays can be forced to serve as slaves? Who's next? The Jews? The French? Where does it stop? Whatever happened to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?" So much for land of the free.
I think what bugs me most about the situation is that our president is "disappointed" that the amendment didn't pass. So our president is truly for discrimination? When he took his oath of office he stated:
Was there some part of that oath that he didn't understand? It doesn't say "change to fit my homophobic views." It doesn't say "except for homosexuals." It says preserve, protect, and defend. How does this amendment preserve, protect, or defend? It doesn't. It shows the republicans ignorance. It exposes them as the homophobic bigots that they are.
Bush claims that he will pursue the gay union ban. I say go right ahead. It will continue to be defeated. I have to believe in my heart that we are the country we claim to be: equality for everyone, regardless of race, color, or creed. If that is true, this amendment will never pass and the Republicans and the amendment's supporters will simply be seen as the bigots they are.
First of all, I want to talk about the government's role in marriage. I, for one, seem to recall something about the separation of church and state. If a marriage is something that is sanctified by God, how is it that our government can regulate it? Why do you have to purchase a marriage license, from the government, to join in a holy union. The line between church and state seems a little blurry here. If church and state are truly separated, as the founding fathers intended, the government has no role in marriage. In many other countries around the world, marriage isn't recognized by the government because of its association with the church. These countries require that a couple enter into a civil union in order to be recognized as a couple and entitled to inheritance and benefits. Two ceremonies, one for the government and one for the church. Now that's true separation.
Second on my list, why would we, as a nation, want to write discrimination into our Constitution? All twenty-seven amendments to our Constitution, with the exception of the eighteenth (prohibition) that was later repealed, were written to expand the rights of American citizens. An amendment banning gay marriage would restrict those rights. What's next, gays can't vote? Gays can be forced to serve as slaves? Who's next? The Jews? The French? Where does it stop? Whatever happened to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?" So much for land of the free.
I think what bugs me most about the situation is that our president is "disappointed" that the amendment didn't pass. So our president is truly for discrimination? When he took his oath of office he stated:
- "I,George Walker Bush, do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the Office of the President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the constitution of the United States."
Was there some part of that oath that he didn't understand? It doesn't say "change to fit my homophobic views." It doesn't say "except for homosexuals." It says preserve, protect, and defend. How does this amendment preserve, protect, or defend? It doesn't. It shows the republicans ignorance. It exposes them as the homophobic bigots that they are.
Bush claims that he will pursue the gay union ban. I say go right ahead. It will continue to be defeated. I have to believe in my heart that we are the country we claim to be: equality for everyone, regardless of race, color, or creed. If that is true, this amendment will never pass and the Republicans and the amendment's supporters will simply be seen as the bigots they are.
