Tuesday, October 26, 2004

Oh, and by the way--Mary Cheney is a lesbian

The New York Times has some fun with President Bush's statement in an interview that he supports the rights of states to allow homosexuals to enter into civil unions. The story notes that the president's position is in opposition to the Republican Party platform, but frankly, that's not a big deal. Party platforms are written by ideologues, and they have little more than symbolic value. The GOP platform has consistently called for Roe v. Wade to be overturned, for example, even though few Republican candidates have staked out such a conservative position on abortion.

What I don't understand about the president's position--which isn't too far from John Kerry's position, except that Kerry opposes the proposed gay marriage amendment--is why bother drawing a distinction between marriage and civil unions. Obviously, for most Americans, myself included, a wedding entails a religious ceremony and a commitment not only between two people but between two people and God.

But the law does not require people to get married in a religious ceremony, and the law does not compel clergy to marry anyone. The minister who married my wife and I was free to turn us down. And the law recognizes marriages performed by judges. So why should a religious objection to gay marriage be codified into law?


Anonymous Anonymous said...

That's because he's a flip-flopper. Flip flop! Flip flop! Actually, he voted for civil unions before he voted against them.

11:05 AM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think what you see with Bush is a feeling that marriage is something very different than a "civil union." Of course, both are contracts in the eyes of the law, but Bush is afraid to give a quasi-religious nod to gay marriage.

Of course his proposed constitutional ban is a no-go, and he knows it, and he's backed off of the civil union spiel. Why? He's a state's rights kinda guy. Let the New England states adopt civil unions. Just give the other states the right to reject their binding validity when the families cross state lines into, say, Utah or Mississippi.

Bush is right when he predicts a looming constitutional clash over gay marriage, and I'm not sure you and others have really considered what, exactly, MA is supposed to do when NV refuses to accept a marriage certificate from there.

1:00 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Besides, who cares about all this election shit when you can have Spider Man reviewing crayons:


3:15 PM

Blogger Jonathan Potts said...

You're right, I haven't given it much thought. But I have given plenty of thought to what reasons, other than religious objections, there are for denying gays the right to marry. And I can't come up with too many. After all, Catholic Church law prohibits divorce. I don't see too many states outlawing divorce.

3:52 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Now read the Spider Man thing.

5:32 PM

Blogger Jonathan Potts said...

It's funny because it is true...WHY IS THERE A WHITE CRAYON?

6:06 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Exactly! Why aren't the candidates talking about this? This is nothing more than the tentacles of Big Crayon reaching into the very confines of Capitol Hill and preventing meaningful regulation of the industry.

I don't want to hear any, 'I voted for the White Crayon amendment until I voted against the White Crayon amendment.'

I don't want to hear why Halliburton got a non-competitive contract to produce White Crayons.

I don't want to hear from the White Crayon Veterans for Truth about what LtJG Kerry, J.F., was really doing in Cambodia with a White Crayon.

I just want to know about the White Crayon. And Goldenrod. And Neon Pink (shudder).

What's up with Neon Pink?

If Spider Man (or "Le Homme de l'Araignée" for John Kerry) can't solve this, who can? John McCain?

8:03 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

And another one to remind you of Life in the Newsroom:


5:37 PM


Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home