I had a whole heapin’ helpin’ of moral indignation and good old fashioned cussin’ and sputterin’ to do about BushCo(TM) and his tut-tutting of the recent decision by the Massachusetts courts deciding that gays should be allowed to marry because of that whole equal-in-the-eyes-of-the-law thing that the Constitution is supposed to ensure. Bush says he’d support a Constitutional amendment to stop the courts from doing their job of deciding what is and isn’t constitutional with regards to gay marriage. After all, you can’t argue it’s unconstitutional if it’s in the Constitution. So I was all ready to let loose, but unfortunately everyone else beat me to it.
People like Solonor:
There’s just one fly in the ointment (besides the fact that most Americans don’t want any such amendment): They have to make up their minds on whether marriage is a civil or a religious act.
If it’s a civil union, then it needs to be treated like any other contract or state-licensed activity, and your sexual preference should not have any bearing. Stripped of any mystical power, getting married is like forming a business partnership. Try “homosexuals are banned from owning their own business” or “gays can’t sign contracts” and see how far that flies.
If it’s a religious thing, then changing the constitution is the only way to go, because the one that I’m reading has this pesky spot in it that says, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Which specific religious tradition concerning marriage are we going to follow after we tear up the First Amendment? Probably ought to include that in the new one, don’t you think?
As an issue of civil unions, religion has no place in this decision. I don’t give a flying fuck if George thinks homosexuals are evil because his god hates fags. It’s stupid, but that’s his right to think that way. He should do so quietly, in the privacy of his own home, so as not to try to tell people how to live. Because George should be worried about saving his own soul, yo.
If there’s a church that won’t marry a gay couple, fuck ‘em. If there’s an afterlife, those assholes will surely burn in hell for it. I don’t particularly think it’s a great idea to force that kind of a church to marry a gay couple, because, really, why would you want to put yourself through that? You can have a traditional wedding and get married by your best friend that you’ve had ordained on the internet, and you’re married the same as someone who got married in a church.
And the always eloquent Natalie:
Bush has declared that the ruling in Massachusetts for same-sex marriages to be troubling. Do you know what I find troubling? The fact that it’s now 2004 and a chunk of our population is being treated as second-class citizens because of whom they fall in love with simply because Conservative America finds their sexual practices distasteful. “Abomination” is a word that’s thrown around, as is “deviant”.
You know what’s an abomination? Raping kids. I find necrophilia to be rather deviant. What I don’t find deviant, however, are two same-sex people doing the same damn things that straight people do to and with and for one another. I certainly don’t find the idea of said same-sex couples being married as a threat to the sanctity of my marriage. How could it be? Could someone please explain to me how my union between that man and this woman is in any way, shape or form threatened by the marriage of that woman and that woman? That man and that man? How? Take as many words as you want – explain it to me like I’m three because I am just on pins and needles here. I’m not threatened by the proposal of gay marriage but maybe I missed the memo with the earth-shattering reasons why I should be.
And they all pretty much said what I was gonna say. I kept nodding my head like a Rush Limbaugh groupie as I read their entries and saying to myself, “Yep, yep, yep.” So go read there stuff and tack a big fucking “YEAH! WHAT THEY SAID!!!” onto the end of them from me.