|
Seems to me that drunks are a big threat to the "sanctity of marriage." Bush would never have been able to marry Laura until he got his act together. Wonder what he'd think of that plan.
And furthermore, isn't marriage, at it's core, a religious ceremony?
I think of marriage as a civil ceremony. The religious ministers need to have that "power vested in me by the state" in order to make the marriages that they perform be legal and recognized. OTOH, no one absolutely must be married in a place of worship for their marriage to be legal. The local courthouse works just fine.
Bush wants to protect the sanctity of marriage by keeping two people who love each other from getting married? Doesn't make much sense to me.
That's the problem. Bush assumes some sort of "sanctity" for marriage. I wonder how he would define that "sanctity." The commitment in a marriage comes from the couple. That's what gives marriage its legal status and importance... the fact that a couple intends to form a permanent, new household. Is Bush defending the "sanctity" of Brittney Spears' marriage?
Bush wants to protect the sanctity of marriage by keeping two people who love each other from getting married? Doesn't make much sense to me.
Nor to me, but we are dealing with centuries of a stereotype of marriage that, while it is mostly a cultural stereotype, is deeply rooted in cultural beliefs. Not every culture views a marriage in the same way that most Americans view it, especially with all the religious overtones. In some cultures, it's more like a property transaction in which a man buys the services of a wife, or two or three of them. In other cultures, the women have the upper hand and if the man doesn't please her she can dump his belongings on the front stoop and there you go... end of marriage.
In the past, some people in the U.S. have decided that some people are not quite as equal as others... women, immigrants, Jews, blacks, and so on. When there is a critical mass of folks who believe otherwise... that all of us are created equal including women, immigrants, Jews, blacks, and so on, we get an amendment to the Constitution that sets things out clearly. All Americans are better because of the amendments that extended voting rights to women and ended the institution of slavery and because of laws that ended prejudice and discrimination. What Bush is up to is an attempt to forestall that natural, moral process and progress by proposing an amendment that would do exactly the opposite of what we have done throughout our history as a nation. In the past, we have recognized our errors and have affirmed the equality of all persons, becoming more inclusive with each amendment. Bush would write our errors vis a vis people who are homosexual in stone, eliminating the possibility of progress and more inclusiveness and, in the end, a better life for all of us. That sort of thing must be stopped.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(831 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
