Separate is inherently unequal
President Bush's political adviser Karl Rove, whose history of dirty tricks would give pause even to Machiavelli, told Fox News (of course) today that Bush will still push for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage in his second term. I wouldn't be too worried just yet, though. One must remember that Rove is paid to play politics, and what better way to calm Bush's socially conservative base than with an assurance that the administration will pay attention to one of their biggest concerns? Besides, two attempts to pass the amendment through the Senate failed earlier this year, and I still don't think the GOP has the necessary two-thirds vote to get it through both houses of Congress.
Adding a gay-marriage ban to the U.S. Constitution would be a humiliating concession to the forces of fear and ignorance, and, much like Prohibition, it would force future generations to pass another amendment to repeal that ill-conceived notion. America's historical trend has been toward freedom for more and more people, and this amendment would reverse that trend by enshrining discrimination in the Constitution. It would be the first time ever that we amended the Constitution to punish people just because of who they are.
I've heard the arguments about homosexuality being a choice. Save your breath. I've seen very compelling scientific research that indicates homosexuality is genetic -- more than 450 animal species exhibit homosexual behavior -- and, perhaps more importantly, every gay person I've ever met has said he or she had no choice in the matter. (As one gay man told me, his sexual preference would be to be heterosexual, but his sexual orientation was homosexual.) I can't remember the moment when I actively chose to be heterosexual, which suggests that no such moment existed. I'll assume the same principle applies to homosexuality.
Some might argue that no harm would come from a constitutional gay-marriage ban because Bush advocates civil unions, which would bestow essentially the same rights upon gays as marriage would. In other words, "marriage" would be for straight people, and "civil unions" would be for gay people. Separate, but equal.
Hmm, where have I heard that before?
Adding a gay-marriage ban to the U.S. Constitution would be a humiliating concession to the forces of fear and ignorance, and, much like Prohibition, it would force future generations to pass another amendment to repeal that ill-conceived notion. America's historical trend has been toward freedom for more and more people, and this amendment would reverse that trend by enshrining discrimination in the Constitution. It would be the first time ever that we amended the Constitution to punish people just because of who they are.
I've heard the arguments about homosexuality being a choice. Save your breath. I've seen very compelling scientific research that indicates homosexuality is genetic -- more than 450 animal species exhibit homosexual behavior -- and, perhaps more importantly, every gay person I've ever met has said he or she had no choice in the matter. (As one gay man told me, his sexual preference would be to be heterosexual, but his sexual orientation was homosexual.) I can't remember the moment when I actively chose to be heterosexual, which suggests that no such moment existed. I'll assume the same principle applies to homosexuality.
Some might argue that no harm would come from a constitutional gay-marriage ban because Bush advocates civil unions, which would bestow essentially the same rights upon gays as marriage would. In other words, "marriage" would be for straight people, and "civil unions" would be for gay people. Separate, but equal.
Hmm, where have I heard that before?
posted by Alabamian at 6:15 PM
<< Home