|
|
Thursday, February 26, 2004
|
|
WITH ALL MY POSTING ON THE SUBJECT OF GAY MARRIAGE, YOU MIGHT THINK THAT I'M OBESSED WITH IT AND I JUST MIGHT BE. BUT THAT DOESN'T MAKE ME GAY! HONEST! NOT THAT THERE'S ANYTHING WRONG WITH THAT. I COULD USE THE STYLE SENSE AND BESIDES, I DOUBT I COULD GET LAID ANY LESS IF I WAS GAY......ON SECOND THOUGHT......
I was going to give the subject of gay marriage a rest for a few days as I was afraid that this blog was becoming "your first stop for all things homo." I swore to myself that I would avoid the topic on one condition: that the stillborn looking, former Republican presidential candidate and all around Blowhard for Christ, Gary Bauer do the same.
Guess what? He issued a press release.
And it's very instructive, too. If you're a giant asshole. Let's take a look, shall we?
Brought to you courtesy of the Talking Points Memo.
Questions and Answers about Homosexual "Marriage"
02/25/2004
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q. Why shouldn't homosexuals be allowed to marry?
A. If marriage is no longer what it has always been, the union of one man and one woman, then there is no logical, legal or moral reason for banning polygamy or denying legal recognition to any other form of relationship. Marriage will be any and every relationship imaginable. And ultimately it will be nothing.
So what? Marriage isn't worth a whole lot now. May I refer you to some very handy divorce statistics? Oh, I forgot. People like you view empirical evidence as satanic. My bad.
Q. Why should I care what two consenting adults choose to do?
Good friggin' question!
A. The institution of marriage is about far more than just two adults. Healthy marriages yield healthy families and healthy families in turn yield healthy citizens and strong societies. Marriage is a fundamental institution of our society and civilization. Besides, child abuse is frowned upon when it happens outside of the home. If kids must be giant psychological messes, they should come by it honestly.
Moreover, marriage is about families and children. Marriage is the best arrangement for raising children, for perpetuating cultures, nations, and civilization from one generation to the next. This is not an opinion - it is fact supported by every serious academic study on the subject.
Children need a mother and a father. Girls need a mother to whom they can relate and boys need a father to whom they can relate. Boys and girls also need a parent of the opposite sex as an example to learn from as well.
Yeah, they should know what to avoid in their first spouse. The well-being of innocent children, who cannot choose their parents, must be governed by what is proven to be best for them. Study after study shows that parents are not interchangeable puzzle pieces - mothers and fathers bring unique and different contributions to parenting and children need both. Is that why you support adoption over abortion, Gary? I also think it's a scream when someone who usually rails against the "intellectual elites" starts citing "study after study." We cannot make a personal desire for a child the primary factor in establishing families. Should they be accidents? Those kids are always well-adjusted! We must make the well-being of the child the most significant consideration. Society should do everything it can to encourage the best child-rearing environment - stable, loving, married, two-parent homes - the traditional nuclear family.
This is, of course, the same nuclear family that brought you such things that are conducive to "the best child-rearing environment" as alcoholism, spousal abuse, child sexual abuse, adultery and divorce. Gary firmly believes that we shouldn't lose this. For the children, goddammit! For the children.
Q. Isn't marriage law a state issue?
"States rights" is an interesting argument. People like Gary used to argue that making black people sit at the back of the bus was a "states rights" issue. Except back then, people like Gary were called Democrats. The Republican argument against federal gun control is that it is best regulated by the states. I love how neither party can maintain a coherent argument on states rights.
A. While marriage law has traditionally been a state issue, the definition of marriage has never been an issue. Moreover, there are other universally accepted conditions as well. You cannot marry a blood relative. You cannot marry more than one person. I've got a billion Muslims who disagree on your last point. Oh, I forgot.They're going to Hell. You cannot marry someone who is currently married. I know, Godfuckit. You can't even marry someone who is legally separated. I checked. You cannot marry someone of the same sex. In 1996 Congress reaffirmed that basic understanding when it passed the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) by overwhelming margins -- 342-to-67 in the House and 85-to-14 in the Senate. The bill was signed into law by then President Bill Clinton.
Gary has a point on DOMA. On the other hand, I think it was passed because most members of congress need someone to defend their marriages. And I don't even think I need to mention President Bill Clinton in that regard.
Q. Why isn't the 1996 federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) sufficient to preserve the institution of marriage?
A. Like every law, DOMA is subject to interpretation by the courts and may be declared unconstitutional by activist judges. Many legal scholars believe the United States Supreme Court's recent decision in Lawrence V. Texas, which found a "right" to homosexual sodomy, indicated a willingness by the Supreme Court to rule in favor of same-sex "marriage" at some future date. This indicates that Gary - and Republicans like him - would like the government to get "off of our backs", yet stay in our asses. Interesting, no? If DOMA were declared unconstitutional, homosexual "marriage" would then be legalized by judicial fiat in all fifty states. A constitutional amendment, however, cannot be overturned by the courts.
Besides, we all noticed how successful DOMA was in defending the marriages of Bill Clinton, Newt Gingrich, Bob Barr....
Q. Why do we need a federal marriage amendment to the United States Constitution?
A. The Constitution of the United States is "the law of the land." It is binding on the courts at the state and federal levels and it is binding on all fifty state legislatures. In order to maintain the uniformity of marriage in America as the union of man and one woman, we must have a constitutional amendment that preserves the traditional definition of marriage.
Without such an amendment, men will be able to marry other men in some states and in other states one man may be allowed to marry three women and yet in other states groupings of individuals will be able to marry each other.
"Besides, it makes Democrats nervous in an election year and we can scream, "Beat THAT!" a lot. And that's fun."
Q. Isn't gay "marriage" about equality and fairness?
That's an exceptionally good question. Particularly when you have that annoying Fourteenth Amendment which sort of demands equality and fairness.
A. There is no need to wholly redefine marriage in order to accommodate concerns frequently raised by homosexual activists. Hey, Douchebag, There's no need for the people to keep and bear arms either. The threat of the English coming receded some time ago. So while you're busy fucking around with the Constitution, bear that in mind. Hospital visitation rights, end of life decisions, and property transfers can be accomplished through other legal instruments such as wills and power of attorney.
So outlaw marriage for everyone by a constitutional amendment and allow all family relations by common contract law. That would be nice and constitutional.
More importantly, however, the government has an obligation to promote public policy that is best for the general welfare and to discriminate against behaviors that adversely impact society and public health. Tobacco use is heavily regulated by the state and smoking is strongly discouraged. But the state also profits handily by tobacco use. Oh, and aren't you folks against excessive taxation and government regulation? A major study conducted by Oxford University demonstrated that homosexual conduct is three times more deadly than smoking. Homosexual behavior is fraught with adverse health affects. Again, this is not opinion, but documented medical fact. Public policy must not be ignorant of medical facts associated with this lifestyle and from a public policy perspective, the behavior should not be encouraged by affording it the status of marriage.
Again, so what? I can cite any number of studies that demonstrate that getting shot in the face is chock full of "adverse health affects" as well. According, if personal freedom extends to your gun cabinet, it's only logical to assume it extends to where you park your genitals. Freedom does not begin or end with your stock portfolio, shithead.
For more about the federal role in protecting the institution of marriage, please see Gary Bauer's September 2003 letter to Congress.
|
|
|
| |
