Monday, June 05, 2006

Things I've Learned Thanks to the Gay Marriage Kerfuffle

Random tidbits from the Marriage Amendment debate. My reactions, as always, follow in italics.

From Sam Brownback:
Massachusetts marriage licenses now have spaces for "partner A" and "partner B" instead of "husband" and "wife." This means the terms husband and wife will soon disappear, and if that happens, Lord only knows how the terms "father" and "mother" will be redefined (shudder). Because Lord knows that if I don't put my name on a line explicitly labeled "husband" on a form, that word will permanently disappear from my vocabulary.

More from Brownback:
How this impacts religious freedom: Catholic Charities was forced to leave Boston! Because "they're not allowed to do adoptions anymore!" Never mind, of course, that they chose to stop administering adoptions rather than consider same-sex couples.

Brownback's closing argument:
Ask in your own heart: is this the best way to raise the next generation? Hmmm. Should we raise them to believe conformity with a specific interpretation of the Christian Bible should be mandated for an entire society, or should we raise them to believe the individual informed conscience should be the arbiter? Let me think about that one for two seconds.

Whoops, Sam ain't done:
It's very hard for children to be raised by single parents. So it somehow follows logically that the problems encountered by single-parent households are solely due to the absence of the opposite gender, rather than the absence of a second parent. One of the best ways out of poverty is to get a job and get married! So we better make sure that option is never available to gays.

Oh, goody, now it's Cornyn:
We're not raising this issue gratuitously. It was brought to us by people who ran to the courts claiming that one man-one woman is discrimination. The facts that it's election run-up season and Dear Leader's numbers are tanking have nothing--nothing!--to do with it.

Throughout history, the marriage of a man and a woman has been viewed as the ideal. Except, of course, when it hasn't.

Lawrence v. Texas signaled the beginning of the threat to traditional marriage. The court not only struck down the sodomy law but created a new constitutional right saying your intimate adult sexual relationships can't be regulated. Because conservatives want nothing more than for government to butt out of... oh, wait a minute, that only applies to business regulation.

This almost seems surreal to me. Try spending a day inside my skin, bro.

This is our Constitution. And it's the people's prerogative to amend it and say what goes into that constitution. Funny, I thought it was my Constitution too, but I seem to have very little say about what goes in or stays out.

This amendment will protect the American people from having to live in a country where the laws do not reflect their will. Oh, John, John, are you sure you want to skate out on ice that thin? Forty years ago there were a hell of a lot of people in this country who vehemently disagreed with the notion that two people of different races should be allowed to marry.

I'd live-blog more of this, but it's just too fucking depressing and I can't listen to it any more. Much more later, I'm sure.

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

If you want depressing, just listen to his incoherent, yet horrendous speech. They won't be satifyed until the entire country ignores our existence once again!!