(no subject)
I got this out of a really awesome book. The book is called The President of Good and Evil: Questioning the Ethics of George W. Bush. I was flipping through the preface looking for something on gay marriage and behold! I found one. Anyway, I though that I would post it; a little break from the argument monotony. I might talk about this a little bit at meeting as well. I know that we have to talk about who's bringing what to the movie night, but we might have time to talk about this a little bit. So, here it is.
Gay Marriage
When Larry King asked Texas govenor and presidential candidate George W. Bush for his views on gay marraige, Bush replied: "The states can do what they want. Don't try to trap me in this states' issue." But Bush took a very different view when, on February 3, 2004, the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled that preventing same-sex couples from marrying violated the equal protection and due process clauses of the state constitution. "Marriage is a sacred institution between a man and a woman," Bush said two days latter. "We must do what is legally necessary to defend the sanctity of marriage." Soon afterward, Bush called on Congress to pass and send to the states for ratification a constitutional amendment "defining and protecting marriage as a union of man and woman as husband and wife."
In making his call for a constitution amendment Bush appeared to be aware of the need to defend himself against the criticism that he has gone back on his earlier position on states' rights. He argued that a constitution amendment is needed because the Constitution says that each state must give "full faith and credit" to the public acts of each other state. This could be interpreted as meaning that if same-sex marriage is permitted in one state, every state will have to recognize it. Bush acknowledged that Congress has already addressed this problem by passing the Defence of Marriage Act, which declares that no state must accept another state's definition of marriage. But, he said, is is possible that this act too could be held to be unconstitutional. Hence, an amendment is required.
Even for someone who accepts this argument for consitutional change, however, there is an obvious remedy that stops short of Bush's proposal for an amendment defining marriage asd the union of a man and a woman. If Bush were serious about protecting the rights of states, and his only worry was that states could be forced into accepting marriages that they did not wish to accept, he could seek a consitutional amendment that puts the language of the Defence of Marriage Act into the Constitution. It would simply say that the "full faith and credit" clause of the Consitution does not require any state to recognize a marriage carried out in other states that does not accord with its own preferred definition of marriage. Such an amendment would allow each state to define marriage as it sees fit, and no doubt, in time, some states would allow same-sex marriages and others would not. The fact that Bush instead opted for an amendment that prevents states from allowing same-sex marriage, no matter what their views on this issue may be, provides further proof for the conclusion reached in Chapter 4, which is based on Bush's response to the legalization of physician-assisted suicide in Oregon and medical use of marijuana in several states. It is clear that he supports the rights of states to reach their own decisions only when those decisions agree with his own moral views.
In saying that marriage is a "sacred" instutiontion and speaking of the need to protect the "sanctity" of marriage, Bush is using his religious beliefs to support his public policy. He made clear when he said: "Marriage cannot be severed from its cultural, religious and natural roots without weakening the good influence of society." The implication is that a continuing religious connection with the institution of marriage is an essential part of a good life. But in societites that recognize the separation of "church" and the state, people can get married without the blessing of any religion. They may well consider marriage to be a social insititution that we are free to reform as we think best, rather than something sacred that because of its religious roots, must be preserved in its traditional form. Marriage has been changed in may ways over the centuries (especially by the ready availibility of divorce). For some, the definition of marriage as a union of a man and a woman excludes that from the social insitution of marriage. It also cannot be said, as some argue, that marriage is necessarily about procreation. If that were the case, people known to be infertile-including all women past menopause- would not be allowed to marry. The real reason for limiting marriage to the union of a man and a woman is therefore religious, and Bush's statements on this question,in addition to contradicting his own previously expressed views on states' rights, also cross, more blantantly than any other social policy decision in his presidency, the line separating religion and the state. (This line, and the way in which Bush had already been blurring it, is the subject of Chapter 5.)
Just thought that I would share it. I found it terribly interesting. Hopefully others do as well. Comments on this passage are welcomed with open arms. Arguments that defend Bush's views and the way he went about all of this are welcomed with open arms and a cookie. I'm dying to hear ethical arguments against gay marriage so that I can converse with whoever posted the comment.
Gay Marriage
When Larry King asked Texas govenor and presidential candidate George W. Bush for his views on gay marraige, Bush replied: "The states can do what they want. Don't try to trap me in this states' issue." But Bush took a very different view when, on February 3, 2004, the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled that preventing same-sex couples from marrying violated the equal protection and due process clauses of the state constitution. "Marriage is a sacred institution between a man and a woman," Bush said two days latter. "We must do what is legally necessary to defend the sanctity of marriage." Soon afterward, Bush called on Congress to pass and send to the states for ratification a constitutional amendment "defining and protecting marriage as a union of man and woman as husband and wife."
In making his call for a constitution amendment Bush appeared to be aware of the need to defend himself against the criticism that he has gone back on his earlier position on states' rights. He argued that a constitution amendment is needed because the Constitution says that each state must give "full faith and credit" to the public acts of each other state. This could be interpreted as meaning that if same-sex marriage is permitted in one state, every state will have to recognize it. Bush acknowledged that Congress has already addressed this problem by passing the Defence of Marriage Act, which declares that no state must accept another state's definition of marriage. But, he said, is is possible that this act too could be held to be unconstitutional. Hence, an amendment is required.
Even for someone who accepts this argument for consitutional change, however, there is an obvious remedy that stops short of Bush's proposal for an amendment defining marriage asd the union of a man and a woman. If Bush were serious about protecting the rights of states, and his only worry was that states could be forced into accepting marriages that they did not wish to accept, he could seek a consitutional amendment that puts the language of the Defence of Marriage Act into the Constitution. It would simply say that the "full faith and credit" clause of the Consitution does not require any state to recognize a marriage carried out in other states that does not accord with its own preferred definition of marriage. Such an amendment would allow each state to define marriage as it sees fit, and no doubt, in time, some states would allow same-sex marriages and others would not. The fact that Bush instead opted for an amendment that prevents states from allowing same-sex marriage, no matter what their views on this issue may be, provides further proof for the conclusion reached in Chapter 4, which is based on Bush's response to the legalization of physician-assisted suicide in Oregon and medical use of marijuana in several states. It is clear that he supports the rights of states to reach their own decisions only when those decisions agree with his own moral views.
In saying that marriage is a "sacred" instutiontion and speaking of the need to protect the "sanctity" of marriage, Bush is using his religious beliefs to support his public policy. He made clear when he said: "Marriage cannot be severed from its cultural, religious and natural roots without weakening the good influence of society." The implication is that a continuing religious connection with the institution of marriage is an essential part of a good life. But in societites that recognize the separation of "church" and the state, people can get married without the blessing of any religion. They may well consider marriage to be a social insititution that we are free to reform as we think best, rather than something sacred that because of its religious roots, must be preserved in its traditional form. Marriage has been changed in may ways over the centuries (especially by the ready availibility of divorce). For some, the definition of marriage as a union of a man and a woman excludes that from the social insitution of marriage. It also cannot be said, as some argue, that marriage is necessarily about procreation. If that were the case, people known to be infertile-including all women past menopause- would not be allowed to marry. The real reason for limiting marriage to the union of a man and a woman is therefore religious, and Bush's statements on this question,in addition to contradicting his own previously expressed views on states' rights, also cross, more blantantly than any other social policy decision in his presidency, the line separating religion and the state. (This line, and the way in which Bush had already been blurring it, is the subject of Chapter 5.)
Just thought that I would share it. I found it terribly interesting. Hopefully others do as well. Comments on this passage are welcomed with open arms. Arguments that defend Bush's views and the way he went about all of this are welcomed with open arms and a cookie. I'm dying to hear ethical arguments against gay marriage so that I can converse with whoever posted the comment.