Mike Silverman is incensed at Bush, and I don’t blame him:
I guess I was a bit too smitten with Bush’s policy on Iraq and Israel such that I gave him a pass on domestic policy.
No more. I am wary, angry, and frustrated with the President now in a way that I have not been since September 10th, 2001.
Since matrimony is the theme of the day, let me say that the honeymoon is over and I want a divorce, Mr. President!
And Andrew Sullivan rings in on what this really means, which is all-out discrimination:
It seems clear to me that we are now headed toward a terrible and possibly definitive tempest on the issue of gay equality. President Bush said yesterday, in so many words, that he is considering amending the constitution to deny gays legal equality in their relationships – indeed to enshrine second-class citizenship for gays in the sacred words of the founding document.
In the meantime, comments over at Daimnation are going from the absurd to the ridiculous. Arguments like this one:
Aren’t religious views based on divine revelation — or, if one prefers, thousands of years of reflection and lived human experience –at least as compelling as ‘what harm could it do’ or ‘studies show that…’?
Ah, the old “the scientific method can’t possibly compete with this booming voice in my head” argument. Or this one:
The same is true for gay marriage: what gay activists don’t understand is that they can call themselves married all they want, but they will not really BE married, in the only eyes that count, the eyes of God, who created the sacrament. Gay men and women are equal under the law, but their unions are not.
Here’s a thought: maybe they don’t all believe in the same god who you suggest would relegate them to second-class status! Maybe they believe in another interpretation of religion, another religion altogether, or *gasp!* no religion at all! And maybe they’re tired of having laws passed that deny them that freedom.
Isn’t the concept of “rights” itself religious? Even the Declaration of Independence says that rights are a gift from the creator. What natural entity has the authority to grant (or withdraw) basic human rights? If human rights are subject to human whims, they can hardly be called fundamental.
The old “only god can give us rights” argument. Hmmm. I guess we should take away the right to vote from Blacks, cause back when that was changed, people believed it went against god too.
The real reason behind the opposition to gay marriage is the widespread belief, supported by nearly a century of psychiatric research, that homosexuality is an inherently dysfunctional orientation influenced by a variety of social and psychological factors during childhood and/or adolescence.
You know, the only “dysfunction” is assuming that someone who isn’t like you is evil, wrong, or psychologically messed up. Maybe the teen suicide rates and the rates of “dysfunction” among homosexuals would be lessened if they weren’t one of the only minorities that it was still acceptable to persecute and oppress. Ever consider that?
Here’s the doozy of all arguments:
When I say gays shouldn’t (actually, can’t) marry, I am imposing my religious viewpoints on a minority. When they insist they should be allowed to marry, they are imposing their secular philosophy on me. Why does secularity trump religion? Because you are not religious? Oh, that’s fair.
Yeah, cause gays getting married is really gonna restrict your human rights. Suuuuuure. I find it amazing when people claim that it’s wrong to infringe on their “right” to infringe upon the rights of others. Kinda like the WTO protestors who claimed that it was an “infringement on their freedom of speech” to arrest them for smashing windows and trying to infringe on the freedom of speech of the people inside the conference. Hmmmm. Yes, I’m detecting a common theme of hypocricy here.