Despite a strong endorsement by the campaigning George Bush and his conservative cohorts, the proposed constitutional amendment to ban same sex marriage failed miserably. No doubt this was in part due to the fact that Bush simply used this social issue in order to distract voters from more pressing concerns, such as the economy, the Iraq war, etc. And considering that the ludicrous "Defense of Marriage Act" (DoMA) already exists, this underscores the fact that this latest attack on same sex relationships is nothing more than election year grandstanding.
Supporters of such an amendment assert that it is necessary to amend the constitution in order to protect and defend "traditional marriage" (i. e. lifelong, heterosexual, and monogamous). President Bush said, "If courts create their own arbitrary definition of marriage as a mere legal contract, and cut marriage off from its cultural, religious and natural roots, then the meaning of marriage is lost and the institution is weakened."
What a load of bilge water! For one thing, so-called "traditional" marriage has been around for a very long time. The fact of same sex couples joining the club de jure, in addition to the de facto marriages they've long entered into, will not prevent conservative heterosexual couples from continuing to do what they've always done.
Secondly, if "traditional marriage" would be so easily toppled from its pedestal, then it's an unstable institution to begin with, and probably needs to be tampered with, anyway.
Thirdly, all the public debate has been about marriage as a "legal contract", as the cultural, religious, and natural parts of marriage are highly private and personal, beyond the reach of government interference. If Bush objects to marriage being a "mere legal contract", perhaps he ought to abolish marriage altogether as a legal matter and let individuals, both gay and straight, decide for themselves what marriage is, according to their own beliefs and needs.
Works for me.
No comments:
Post a Comment