The historical legacy of our Constitution is one of granting rights to individuals - not taking them away. The founding fathers believed that future generations of Americans could be trusted to uphold the ideals of civil rights and liberties, and at the same time, not abuse the power of the Constitution.
However, extreme times call for extreme measures. That is why George W. Bush is calling for an amendment to the Constitution that would define “marriage” as a union between a man and a woman. In doing this, Bush hopes to curb the immoral and blasphemous influence that “The Homosexual” has had on American society.
Please note the sarcasm in that last line. Is this man serious? I’m afraid he is. In response to the Massachusetts Supreme Court’s recent decision to allow same-sex marriages, Bush criticized the court as “a very activist court in making the decision it made.” He went on to say that “The court, I thought, overreached its bounds as a court.” Wow, this court sounds surprisingly like the Supreme Court that voted Bush into office in 2000. He sure wasn’t complaining then.
With all the issues facing this nation today, such as health care, the environment, education, energy, poverty, disease and homeland security, why is Bush taking time to tout an amendment as controversial as this one? I’ll tell you why: because nothing mobilizes voters (I’m talking about the 2004 election here) like a worthy cause. And if you’re looking to appeal to the homophobic ignoramuses in this country, what could be more worthy than preventing gay couples from exchanging promises and vows that will legally recognize their love for one another?
That’s what is at the heart of this argument: love. Who is George W. Bush, or anyone else for that matter, to say what kinds of love can and cannot be legally binding? Who is George W. Bush to say that marriage is not a right, but a defined privilege?
Bush and his conservative cronies from the religious right would have you believe that in some way, gays and lesbians somehow fall short of being fully human.
Somehow, the love between two men or two women is incapable of being as genuine and fulfilling as the love between a man and a woman. Why does Bush feel this way? Because his Bible tells him so. What an extraordinary precedent: letting the Bible be a guide to amending the Constitution. After the gay marriage amendment, I hope to see an amendment that will allow me to have the men of my town stone my stubborn son to death (see Deuteronomy 21), or perhaps one that will let my dad sell my sister into slavery to pay off my debt to Luther (see Exodus 21).
There is more on the line than most people are aware of. Bush and his administration want to use the Constitution (the very document that should have kept them out of the White House in the first place) to marginalize a significant portion of the American population. Just think about that.
At the risk of being cliché, I’d like to remind everyone of a very powerful line (though sadly, not legally binding) from our own Declaration of Independence:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that [everyone is] created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. But not gay love. That is just wrong.”
Oh. Well, crap. I guess I was wrong this whole time. Bush-Cheney in 2004!
–
Chris Burton
0 responses so far ↓
There are no comments yet...Kick things off by filling out the form below.
Leave a Comment