To borrow and paraphrase a description that is usually reserved for terrorists:
Bush hates gays because of their freedoms.
Big news yesterday was Bush throwing his support behind a constitutional amendment to ensure that a loving same-sex couple could never have the same rights that a hetero couple has. The flat-out-homophobia vote is in the bag.
Can we now call Bush an activist president? This man wants to amend the constitution to specifically deny certain consenting adults the ability to marry their choice of spouse, according to his personal beliefs (whether they be religious, homophobic, or whatever)
Chuck made some good points in the comment section of a previous post. One of the points he touches on is the distinction between the religious aspect of marriage and the civil aspect. My view is that people’s rights ought to be equal. Perhaps the best way to do that is to get the government out of the marriage business altogether. Let religions and such handle marriage. If the government wants to recognize family units, it can issue some sort of civil union document for everyone, hetero and gay.
That solves the name issue. But I suspect the same folks who were shocked that Murphy Brown was a single parent on TV are horrified that the government could ever recognize a type of family other than that depicted on Leave It To Beaver.Posted by James at February 25, 2004 1:42 PM