(Untitled)
"'After more than two centuries of American jurisprudence and millennia of human experience, a few judges and local authorities are presuming to change the most fundamental institution of civilization. Their action has created confusion on an issue that requires clarity
( Read more... )
1.) Dude! I was farthest left in the class too-- Henderson, right? The really scary thing about it was that, well, I was still more or less in the middle of the eastern hemisphere-- around, say, kazbekistan--and there was like an inch between me and everyone else. And they say no man is an island.
2.) I should probably comment on this elsewhere, but the Holy Grail of Lingerie???? Iesu Xhristos.
3.) "Well you gay folks can't get married like the rest of normal Americans . . . but here's a little something you can do!!"
This is an unreasonably hilarious sentence. As for the actual issue, well, I must say the idea of a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage is ... distasteful, to say the least. Another scary rallying cry for America that disenfranchises tolerance completely. You'd think a guy who can't write much more than his own name wouldn't be able to cause so much trouble, but apparently this is not so. I can't see that ridiculous thing actually going through... but there have been a lot of scary political bandwagons plowing through the Constitution recently, and I can't say what this country will and won't do anymore.
Basically, whether "marriage is love" or not is exactly the question-- and personally I am cackling my liberal little ass off that Mr. I-want-to-solidify-the-institution-with-your-tax-dollars is now faced with the problem of dissolving unions. Marriage has only recently been frosted over with the sentimental idea that you get to marry who you love, no ifs, ands, or buts . . . but as long as we're renovating it like that, why exclude more evolution? If Bush is forced to say gay marriage is wrong, he's got to say it's because either a.) gay people don't love each other, or b.) love isn't what it's about. Between a rock and the Dark Ages, so to speak-- the only case he's got is "tradition", and that ain't real firm ground, as I'm not signing on to be anybody's chattel anytime soon. Civil unions, pacifistic as they may be, are dodging a question that's going to have to get answered by our culture, not just for gays, but for the masses.
Incidentally, this is the very issue that Mr. President brought up with his charming appeal to lessen the divorce rate. What is marriage? Is it a formalization of love and committment, in which case it is open to those who love and are committed? Is it eternal, i.e., essentially religious, in which case, the government has no business interfering in who can and cannot marry (Hello polygamy! Provo, here we come!) and must accept what Bob's Church of the Right Backatcha says? Is it a contract, dissolvable at will, a social partnership recognized by the government? --in which case it is obviously unfair to deny contract rights to some applicants based on gender. Under none of these definitions can the right to marry be denied gays. Or are we _going_ to try to argue that marriage is nothing more than a tradition? If we're going to fight fair, I doubt mere habit is going to be a good enough argument. But personally I can't think of any better ones, other than "You're going to give all the nice heterosexuals the willies!"
The funny thing is, this isn't a particularly pressing issue to me at the moment. Like the big-name gay rights groups, I'm much more worried about the rest of the chaos being caused by GB Jr. and Co, Ltd. But really, with the amount of war, destruction, havoc, etc. going around, this is a nice death-free issue to think about.
4.) The word "otherize" is a festering boil on the fair face of the English language btw. Other thoughts on this later, in person perhaps.
I've just remembered the adage that you shouldn't post anything online you don't want to see on the front page of the New York Times-- and thus I think I've just ended my political career. Sorry, offensetakers. I didn't know what I was doing.
Reply
Leave a comment