Log in

No account? Create an account
This whole paragraph from President Bush is just lovely. via… - Nate Bunnyfield [entries|archive|friends|userinfo]
Nate Bunnyfield

[ userinfo | livejournal userinfo ]
[ archive | journal archive ]

[Links:| natehaas.com onetake (my experimental music podcast) ]

[Jun. 5th, 2006|08:12 pm]
Nate Bunnyfield
This whole paragraph from President Bush is just lovely. via lemur68

America is a free society, which limits the role of government in the lives of our citizens. This commitment of freedom, however, does not require the redefinition of one of our most basic social institutions. Our government should respect every person, and protect the institution of marriage. There is no contradiction between these responsibilities. We should also conduct this difficult debate in a manner worthy of our country, without bitterness or anger.


The whole idea of a Federal Marriage Amendment makes me so damn mad, I almost don't where to start.

Here are some of my thoughts...

1. Slavery and (arguably) worker unions are some of our most basic social institutions too. Why did we give up on those?

2. It's not like limiting individual's rights through the US Constitution hasn't been tried before: Prohibition lasted almost 14 wonderful mob-filled years.

3. I would bet that in 70 years same-sex couples will be able to marry anywhere in the US. I'm judging that on totally unscientific research into the nation's anti-miscegenation laws, sodomy laws, same-sex adoption laws, and history of interfaith marriage.

4. This is the one big issue that hate groups can have some sway with the mainstream media and population. So I now hope the Klan (or whomever) gets enough airtime to do what they do best and scare the crap out of every undecided voter.

If it matters, I am against any federally recognized civil marriage. I feel it is such a personal and spiritual matter that it should not to be legislated, rewarded or penalized at a federal level.

And full disclosure, I'm also marrying my girl in a few weeks.

[User Picture]From: troy_story
2006-06-06 02:17 am (UTC)
the part that makes the least sense in his argument (and the thing that always upsets me the most about this president) is bringing in the religious defense:

The union of a man and woman is the most enduring human institution, honored and encouraged in all cultures and by every religious faith. ... Marriage cannot be severed from its cultural, religious and natural roots without weakening the good influence of society. Government, by recognizing and protecting marriage, serves the interests of all.

No! It serves the interests of RELIGIOUS people to federally protect marriage. Contrarily, it offends and uproots the dignity of all who believe that religion should not influence the government nor its meddling in our personal/spiritual lives. The divide must ALWAYS ALWAYS remain between church and state. Am I wrong??
(Reply) (Thread)
From: natebunnyfield
2006-06-06 06:24 am (UTC)
Not surprising for me to say this, but...

I don't think there is a strong secular tradition in America. It's just a line.

And I don't see an end to the institutionalized persecution of athiests and believers in less popular religions (even Mormonism) in the US any time soon.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: lazyman
2006-06-06 07:42 am (UTC)
I suspect (though I'm basically guessing here) that while religion has always been strong in America, conflicts over its overt involvement in government and calls to increase or decrease that involvement are fairly recent. As the country has become dramatically more diverse in the last few decades, traditional religious groups have felt threatened and politicians have found it a useful rallying point.

Two studies I often go back to on the issue:
Atheists identified as America's most distrusted minority (UMN)
Among Wealthy Nations, US Stands Alone in its Embrace of Religion (Pew)

The latter includes the fascinating graphic:
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: shamsbeloved
2006-06-06 02:29 am (UTC)
I totally agree with this.

And the fact that Brush is focusing on gay marriage, flag burning, and border control, which are all issues to further his personal moral code rather than what the country and the world actually NEED right now, makes me so mad. Why isn't he fixing the mess in Iraq? Why isn't he preparing for the possibility of avian flu? Why can't he just stand in the shoes of the American people for FIVE FREAKIN' MINUTES to see what the country and the world NEED. We don't NEED an ammendment on gay marriage.

I should say also that I think border control is a major issue, but the way he's trying to solve it is assinine (as usual).

Sorry for the rant. Just in the middle of being pissed off at him, myself.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: lazyman
2006-06-06 05:23 am (UTC)
Regarding #4 -- Immigration is another big issue the hate groups roll with, and I don't know that the arguments are changing opinions as much as hardening them.
(Reply) (Thread)
From: natebunnyfield
2006-06-06 06:02 am (UTC)
Yeah, that's just my forced optimism talking. I'd like to think that the good Reverend Phelps is ironically helping our generation support same-sex marriage, but I have nothing to back that up with.

By the way, my favorite quote of the whole same-sex marriage thing is Governor Schwarzenegger's (and I'm paraphrasing here) "Same-sex marriage isn't for the people to decide - it can only be decided by activist judges." Can't imagine the GOP was too happy about that. Kinda reminds me of Tommy Boy when Farley screams "Kill whitey!" on stage.

Well, I'm really looking forward to leaving the country in a few weeks now!
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: lazyman
2006-06-06 07:30 am (UTC)
Phelps is basically disowned by everyone, particularly since he started protesting at the funerals of soldiers. No, I think the growing social tolerance is mostly generational. Sex just isn't as taboo as it once was. I suspect that given the sex acts the average middle or high school kid has seen on TV/internet or done themselves, they just aren't bothered by anal sex between men. And lets be honest, it's the gay men that the religious right seems to have the biggest issue with.

Schwarzenegger got himself in a hard place politically. His polls were shit, and basically he had to choose (by veto or not) between a law passed by the legislature and a proposition passed by the electorate (5 years previous). Either way would lose him half the electorate. So he punted it to the courts. Which was just the next pass in the game of social policy hot potato:

"A mayor can't disobey the law, the courts must stop him"

(Courts decide to allow marriages)

"Laws should be enacted by elected representatives, not in the courts"

(Legislature approves gay marriage)

"The legislature shouldn't be overruling propositions -- best to let the courts decide."
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: eyeboogies
2006-06-06 01:15 pm (UTC)
4. This is the one big issue that hate groups can have some sway with the mainstream media and population. So I now hope the Klan (or whomever) gets enough airtime to do what they do best and scare the crap out of every undecided voter.

Actually, you can do your part here! In years past, I have been known to call Bill o' Reilly and his ilk, at first praising their greatness and agreeing with all they have to say to catch them off guard, and then calmly asking what he thinks we're going to do about the niggers. I assume usually the delay cuts it off, but if you spend enough time kissing their asses, things work out okay.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: subplot2
2006-06-06 09:21 pm (UTC)
I imagine they get plenty of legitimate calls like that as well.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)