Regarding the Federal Marriage Amendment…

Wishing to protect marriage by banning it for non-heterosexuals, this offensive attempt to insert discrimination into the Constitution is nothing more than the dehumanization of a minority, the intentional infliction of inferior rights on a group already disenfranchised.  Sadly, if it in fact represents a piece of legislation intended to protect marriage, it fails to address incest, divorce, infidelity and adultery, sex out of wedlock, prostitution (something I think should be legal, but that’s another post…), masturbation, fellatio, anilingus, cunnilingus, and many other examples of those activities which are not for procreation and which might interfere with the healthy relationship of a patriarchally-defined married heterosexual couple.

Rather than burn more brain cells on this disgustingly abusive nonsense, I’ll just point out some of the better items I’ve seen today.

From The New York Times:

President Bush devoted his Saturday radio speech to a cynical boost for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. It was depressing in the extreme to hear the chief executive trying to pretend, at this moment in American history, that this was a critical priority.

[…]

The aim of the president’s radio address — which darkly warned that Massachusetts and San Francisco (nudge, nudge) are going to destroy marriage — is the same as the Republican leadership’s plans to trot out one cultural hot button after another in the coming weeks. After gay marriage comes the push for a constitutional ban on flag burning, a solution in search of a problem if there ever was one.

All this effort to divert the nation’s attention to issues that divide and distract would be bad enough if the country were not facing real, disastrous problems at home and abroad. But then, if that weren’t the case, Mr. Bush probably wouldn’t feel moved to stoop so low.

From Keith Boykin’s open letter to George W. Bush:

I have a suggestion. I used to teach American government to college students in Washington, and I believe I learned something there that might be helpful. When you took the oath of office last year, you swore that you would “preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.” The oath is only one sentence long so I’m sure you remember that part. So why not start there? Why not use the Constitution as a place to start in making tough decisions? Why not follow the example set by our framers of using the Constitution to protect and expand the rights of the people? And why not continue the example set by hundreds of years of American leaders of using the Constitution to help rather than to harm people?

[…]

Marriage is a bond between the people who enter into it. To use the term “democracy” to justify your plan for government discrimination against some of those people is an affront to democracy and an affront to me as an African American. Were it not for what you call “activist judges,” blacks might still be prohibited from marrying outside their race in Virginia and several other states today. It was the nine “activist judges” of the U.S. Supreme Court who unanimously rectified this problem and rejected your discriminatory approach exactly 39 years ago next Monday. They were guided by the Constitution, just as you should be.

[…]

At a time when our country should rededicate itself to the fight against the deadliest new disease of our lifetimes, we find ourselves fighting one another instead. At a time when we should be discussing how homophobia has prevented us from responding to the AIDS crisis, our leaders are ready to inscribe new homophobia into the most sacred document of our government. At a time when we should be plotting strategies to move forward in the fight against AIDS, we find ourselves moving backwards into old debates from 25 years ago.

From John at AMERICAblog:

Bush says courts shouldn’t be permitted to decide who can marry who. That’s exactly what happened in Loving v. Virginia, and the public was NOT happy about it. So, rather than pull some cute argument about how blacks aren’t like gays, Bush needs to tell us directly – if the courts aren’t empowered to decide who can marry whom, then is the Loving v. VA decision wrong since an activist court overruled the will of the people?

From a recent poll of Americans (politically, the poll splits at 46% who voted for President Bush and 36% who voted for John Kerry in the 2004 election):

Asked to name the most serious moral crisis in America today, 28% of Americans cite “kids not raised with the right values”; followed by 22% saying “corruption in government/business”; 17% saying “greed and materialism” or “people too focused on themselves”; and only 3% citing “abortion and homosexuality.”

[…]

[From another poll cited] What issue do you think should be the top priority for the president and Congress to deal with?

The top five responses were:

Situation in Iraq/war: 42%
Fuel/oil prices/lack of energy sources/the energy crisis: 29%
Immigration/illegal aliens: 23%
Economy in general: 14%
Poor healthcare/ hospitals; high cost of healthcare: 12%

I suppose gay marriage could be classed with “Ethics/moral/religious/family decline”, which was the 20th of the 28 issues listed by respondents, important to only 1% of those polled.

From someone who watches Fox News:

What we have here is a too obvious political play that unfortunately scapegoats a minority as a means to gather votes. This is unkind, manipulative and divisive. My wife and I are Christians. We are not remotely confused abut our own marriage. Are we supposed to care about this because some other Christians are offended? Does this really threaten traditional marriage? Are there truly couples in traditional marriages who are personally confused and threatened by this? Fear not! We know two women who both earlier had children from a traditional marriage. They later lived with one another. They’ve also made sure their children have male influences. Why not let them and all their children have health insurance benefits and no extra problems? I say this to President Bush: We as a nation ought not impose particular religious beliefs on strangers doing no harm in the name of gathering votes.

And how does the White House describe this gay-bashing maneuver?  Tony Snow, the White House Spokesperson, called the FMA “civil rights legislation”…

Finally, let’s go back to Bush’s Saturday radio address.  He said:

In our free society, people have the right to choose how they live their lives. And in a free society, decisions about such a fundamental social institution as marriage should be made by the people…

He presumably meant the people can make the decision only after some level of government does.  But he continued by saying that we should permanently restrict how one particular minority — the gays — are actually allowed to lead their lives, mainly sans the promise of equal protection under the law.  All laws.

But it gets better.  He then said:

As this debate goes forward, we must remember that every American deserves to be treated with tolerance, respect, and dignity. All of us have a duty to conduct this discussion with civility and decency toward one another, and all people deserve to have their voices heard.

What he meant to say is that all non-dissenting voices will be heard.  You see, the Republican/conservative evil machine has already decided for the rest of us.  They intend to stop any possibility of the GLBT community being treated as equals in our society, and that means no matter what me might say, we really won’t be heard.  Our voices are silenced given the course of action already in play.  I guess Bush misspoke.

Let me close with this: The amendment will not get through Congress, so it will never be presented to the states (people) for ratification.  There was never any hope of this passing, yet here it is, a disgusting and divisive political ploy by the hateful bigots on the right who feel themselves above their own religious convictions (the Bible specifically prohibits this kind of action), above the Constitution (it ensures equal protection and is there to guard minorities from the majority, yet here we are trying to reverse that trend), above morality (need I explain why discrimination is against all good moralities?), above decency (hello!), above respect (those in favor have no intention of hearing the other side of the debate, nor will they ever respect the gays), and above American values — this one is most self-evident.

Now, I’ll try to step down from my soapbox.