This has turned into a two-part post; I actually started it yesterday and didn't have time to go through it, and of course, there are new developements. So, Part the First:
Feedback from Fox News:
Well, Dubyah said his piece yesterday, and now the Senate is ready for another empty debate. (If I have time and the inclination, I might go back and cover some of the debate. Frankly, the whole issue is getting to be a bit much -- the arguments against the FMA are very clear and should be self-evident to anyone with a brain -- in fact, there are liberal, conservative, and libertarian blogs that have gone over them ad nauseam. This is not a popular amendment with anyone except the usual suspects. Andrew Sullivan pointed out some of the responses to the issue on Fox News' website. There was actually a range of opinion (so, apparently Fox News listeners are not a homogeneous group of knee-jerk right-wingers -- big surprise), but I ran across a couple that are just too egregrious:
"I am in complete support of a constitutional amendment to define marriage as being between a man and a woman. Marriage is a God-ordained, not a man-made, institution. Therefore, we have no right to attempt to re-define it.
Well, no. As far as I know, there is no institution in human history that can unequivocally be demonstrated to be made by God. There have been many claims made, but no proof offered.
But I firmly believe that the real issue here is not about marriage itself.
Is there anyone alive who still thinks this is about marriage? It's about avoiding dealing with (or answering for) the worker-hostile economy, gas prices, the disaster in Iraq, the resurgent Taliban in Afghanistan, the lack of effective response to Katrina, medical care . . . I hadn't realized how long the list of this administration's failures had gotten.
It goes much deeper than that. It is about a group of individuals wanting to legally force society to not only accept but embrace their chosen lifestyle. To force us to say that this way of life is okay. People have the freedom to choose the way they want to live their lives. But they do not have the right to force that upon others." - Mark (St. Louis Park, MN)
I agree completely. And that group would be headed by Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, Donald Wildmon, James Dobson, Rick Santorum -- the usual suspects. After all, people choose to be Christian, and they choose to be vicious; they don't choose to be gay.
"They definitely need to protect marriage. Small groups are taking rights away from the majority of people a little at a time.
Those small groups would include Focus on the Family, the American Family Association, the Pentagon, the Justice Department, the White House.
Prayer and discipline are not allowed in schools. Acknowledging God and His guidance is not allowed in government or in history books. Now they're attempting to destroy families by saying marriage isn't between a man and woman. What will it take for us to stand up and pay attention?" - Chris (Chattanooga, TN)
Time for a remedial civics course. Lesson one: "Congress shall make no law regarding establishment of religion."
"The bestselling book of all times is the Holy Bible. It is without error from the front cover to the back, including the word 'Holy.' For thousands of generations it has been made clear that a marriage is between one man and one woman. God created Adam and Eve. The younger generation has been brainwashed with this thing called tolerance. With true Christianity there can never be compromise." - Paul (Emphasis added.)
There you have it. Note the key concept -- "tolerance" is a matter of brainwashing, and "true Christianity" admits of no compromise. Now just substitute "Islam" for "Christianity" in that statement, and you have -- (drum roll) jihad!
"Freud was the first person that I know of to postulate that, all other things being equal, children need both sexes to act as parental role models at various times during their development. Any nationwide policy, constitutional or otherwise, which promotes a man and a woman working together to be positive and active parents in one home, is a good thing. I believe this measure can accomplish that, so I support it" - Mike (Las Vegas, NV)
And, unless one is going to stay current in the field, one should not lightly refer to theories (and remember, Freudianism is only a theory). In point of fact, Freud did postulate something similar to that, which has since been demonstrated not to be the case. After all, Freud (who was adamantly heterosexual) had his own hangups.
One of Sullivan's readers came up with a fascinating thought:
By tying gay marriage to the fading star of contemporary 'conservatism', the President has given many people who may otherwise be uncomfortable with the idea of same-sex relationships the concrete reason they need to change their minds. 'If these guys are so hard against it,' millions of Americans without a direct stake in this debate must be thinking, 'it may be a good thing'.
The prize, however, goes to Tony Snow, Dubyah's new mouthpiece. See this piece from Slate:
WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY TONY SNOW: Whether it passes or not, as you know, Terry, there have been a number of cases where civil rights matters have risen on a number of occasions, and they've been brought up for repeated consideration by the United States Senate and other legislative bodies...
Q You mentioned civil rights. Are you comparing this to various civil rights measures which have come to the Congress over the years?
MR. SNOW: Not -- well, these -- it --
Q Is this a civil right?
MR. SNOW: Marriage? It actually -- what we're really talking about here is an attempt to try to maintain the traditional meaning of an institution that has maintained one meeting for -- meaning for a period of centuries. And furthermore --
Q And you would equate that with civil rights?
MR. SNOW: No, I'm just saying that I think -- well, I don't know. How do you define civil rights?
Q It's not up to me. Up to you.
MR. SNOW: Okay. Well, no, it's your question. So I -- if I --
Q (Chuckles.)
MR. SNOW: I need to get a more precise definition.
Read the extended transcript -- it's absolutely priceless: the bald-faced political nature of this whole thing comes through loud and clear, in spite of Snow's backpedaling and waffling.
No comments:
Post a Comment