What equal rights?
"President" Bush today said that he will fully support the Federal Marriage Amendment (FMA). Several blogs have commented on this, but my favorite was from conservative pundit and homosexual Andrew Sullivan. His sense of betrayal is very real, and is strong enough to make me feel sorry for the guy. He, and many other gay conservatives, are shocked that their leader would hang them out and ostracize them like this. While I could have told them that Shrub never gave a rat's backside about anyone other than himself and his cronies, I do sympathize.
The Right Christians have very good posts about Bush's decision here and here. Incidentally, I feel that I must further clarify my stance. While I believe that the state should get out of marriage, I don't think it will. As such, I believe that homosexuals should get full marriage rights, including the title "marriage." I do not believe there is any point in supporting civil unions but not marriage, as many mainstream Democrats unfortunately do. It's only asking for comparisons to the old "separate but equal" days.
I do not believe that this proposed amendment will get out of the Senate. There are more Democrats there that will stand on principle than there are in the House. However, if the bill does get out of Congress, I'm afraid of what may happen. There are recent poll numbers saying that there is a plurality of Americans that oppose such an amendment, but there is no telling what can happen once the polls actually open, especially with the sort of campaign that will happen once the amendments are put to a vote.
Here's hoping the people of the United States are smarter than the Bush administration thinks.
UPDATE: Color me stupid. According to this morning's Fort Worth Star-Telegram, the state legislatures will vote whether to ratify, not the people. This being the case, I think that the amendment will be home free if it passes Congress. Already, 38 states have passed or are in the process of passing laws restricting marriage rights for homosexuals, and 38 is exactly how many states are needed to ratify a Constitutional amendment.
Robert
randomliberal@email.com
The Right Christians have very good posts about Bush's decision here and here. Incidentally, I feel that I must further clarify my stance. While I believe that the state should get out of marriage, I don't think it will. As such, I believe that homosexuals should get full marriage rights, including the title "marriage." I do not believe there is any point in supporting civil unions but not marriage, as many mainstream Democrats unfortunately do. It's only asking for comparisons to the old "separate but equal" days.
I do not believe that this proposed amendment will get out of the Senate. There are more Democrats there that will stand on principle than there are in the House. However, if the bill does get out of Congress, I'm afraid of what may happen. There are recent poll numbers saying that there is a plurality of Americans that oppose such an amendment, but there is no telling what can happen once the polls actually open, especially with the sort of campaign that will happen once the amendments are put to a vote.
Here's hoping the people of the United States are smarter than the Bush administration thinks.
UPDATE: Color me stupid. According to this morning's Fort Worth Star-Telegram, the state legislatures will vote whether to ratify, not the people. This being the case, I think that the amendment will be home free if it passes Congress. Already, 38 states have passed or are in the process of passing laws restricting marriage rights for homosexuals, and 38 is exactly how many states are needed to ratify a Constitutional amendment.
Robert
randomliberal@email.com
posted at 8:24 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home