I’ve been avoiding the political beat for quite a while, because every time I dig in, I end up losing interest in defending my position. Don’t consider this return to politics a desire to stand fast with the opinions presented here - I just read something (especially the comments) on Philly Future this morning that got to me, and something needed to be said. This is the comment I posted, which I hope will see a different audience by re-posting here. Enjoy, and read it before you post a comment so that I don’t have to call you names.
(Thanks to Brian, who helped produce a good bit of this text during a conversation we had over IM quite a while ago.)
The bush amendment was a constitutional enshrining of a Bill Clinton act. Bill Clinton- Democratic, caring, socially liberal wonderboy.
The reason for the constitutional enshrining?
Because the Mayor of San Francisco flagrantly, knowingly, and deliberately violated his own state’s law, based on a democratically passed referendum, upheld by the California judiciary, defining “marriage” as between man and a woman.
This referrendum included wide and expansive guidelines for legally equivalent same sex “civil unions”. The mayor did this “act of defiance” to create a public outrage; to deliberately enact theater, and force it to be a national campaign issue.
Bush pushed forward ideas of converting the existing Clintonian law to a constitutional amendment because a mayor wilfully violated the law of his own state banning same-sex marriage, even though there were legally effective alternatives.
So, why the fuss now? Why can’t Bush just ignore it?
Not affecting this amendment will lead to such nastiness as suing a catholic, jewish, or muslim church into the ground for failing to “marry” a same sex couple, just like you could sue them (in civil court) for failing to admit you if you’re black.
It would be ironic if on one day an organization lobbied for homosexual rights in terms of renouncing a marriage amendment, and then on another day sued a church for failing to follow the laws that they suggest. This type of suit would be inevitable. What measures would prevent this violation of our rights to religious freedom? More laws?
So, there is a stealth solution; one that confers the rights of man-woman marriages on same-sex partners and is entirely compatible with conservative values.
It’s built into the Bush amendment: States could, under the Bush amendment, choose to grant their own citizens civil unions, while the legal label of “marriage” is reserved for opposite sex couples. The amendment does not prevent civil unions (and all of the rights they convey upon the couple as is within the power of the government to grant), it says that the word “marriage” in terms of legality is between a man and a woman. (I an interested in hearing only well-reasoned opposition to this interpretation of the FMA.)
The demonstratable nature of such things is that laws like state-sponsored civil unions will inevitably spread and become the norm, c.f. ending of slavery, emergence of civil rights.
The ideals we’re trying to foster by recognizing marriages are that of families and how they improve our nation. Having people support each other is the real goal, so that’s what all of us should focus on, not enforcing what the word “marriage” means. If the law gives states the power to build healthy families, whether heterosexual or homosexual, then I’m for it, especially if it perpetuates my right to practice my religion as I believe it.
