si-blog

Bush bashes bent bonding

Posted Jun 05, 2006 in Family, Personal, Politics, Religion.

After a pretty good speech on immigration reform, it seems that President Bush needs to win back some support from the right-wing wack jobs conservative right. In a recent radio address, the President weighs in on gay marriage:

Next week, the United States Senate will begin debate on a constitutional amendment that defines marriage in the United States as the union of a man and woman. On Monday, I will meet with a coalition of community leaders, constitutional scholars, family and civic organizations, and religious leaders. They're Republicans, Democrats, and independents who've come together to support this amendment. Today, I want to explain why I support the Marriage Protection Amendment, and why I'm urging Congress to pass it and send it to the states for ratification.

He goes on to say that “Democracy, not court orders, should decide the future of marriage in America.” I would argue, perhaps a little naively, that love should decide the future of marriage in America. To me, marriage is a moral promise of a committed relationship between a pair of consenting partners. In most cases, the relationship forms a legally-binding contract recognized by a civil authority. For some, marriage carries a religious significance as well.

The federal government (or any government, for that matter) has no business trying to define what a marriage should or should not be, and it should certainly not be applying a religious test to such a union. Such an attempt would surely violate the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights. Trying to amend The Constitution to remove certain rights from individuals - to descriminate against those individuals - seems to go against everything the United States is supposed to stand for.

Comments

  1. Gravatar

    As liberal as the US is, in this area it seems to be dragging its feet. Since marriage has its own set of rights for married couples, it does make sense to define a marriage. But to go as far as amend the Constitution to take away these rights is outrageous. How about the rest of the world?

    Source: BBC News:

    * In Britain, legislation came into force in December 2005 giving same-sex couples in registered partnerships similar rights to married couples, in areas such as pensions, property, social security, and housing.

    * The Netherlands became the first country to offer full civil marriage rights to gay couples in 2001.

    * In Belgium gay marriages were allowed in 2003.

    * Spain, too, legalised full marriage for gay couples in June 2005, despite fierce opposition from the Roman Catholic Church. Gay married couples can also adopt children.


    Posted by Alison Ronco on Jun 23, 2006.

  2. Gravatar

    You are quite right, Alison. It seems that the United States has much to learn about freedom from European allies.

    Posted by Simon Jessey on Jun 23, 2006.