<$BlogRSDUrl$>

"History will be kind to me, for I intend to write it."-Winston S. Churchill

"The wandering scholars were bound by no lasting loyalties, were attached by no sentiment of patriotism to the states they served and were not restricted by any feeling of ancient chivalry. They proposed and carried out schemes of the blackest treachery."-C.P. Fitzgerald.

Tuesday, February 24, 2004

Gay Marriage 


I tried to tell people that this would happen, but no one would listen. Of course, no one cares about what i write, with the possible exception of my family and the nine other people who read this blog.

Oh, I forgot Barney, Domo-kun, and Jesus. They care....


So, aside from burning his bridges with Andrew Sullivanand Roger L. Simon, what did Bush do and why did he do it?

Bush aligned himself with forces in Christian and Orthodox America which were very uneasy and, indeed, angry that the institution of marriage had been caught up in the gay revolution of the 1990's that carried over into this century. Now, lay aside Bush's evangelical nature. He's smart enough a politician to have wanted to avoid this fight. Gay marriage is divisive. Indeed, as one of my relations remarked, it's one of those relatively unimportant issues that distract from the prosecution of the war. However, Bush had to act precisely because others forced his hand. The gay community in this country wanted to have rights created without going through the legislative process of creating them. So, they went to the Court in Massachusetts. That Court created a new right and directed the Legislature of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts to write law according to this ruling. Set aside separation of Powers, the citizens of the Commonwealth had no say in this decision. Meanwhile, in San Francisco, the Gay Community and local politicians hardly paid so much as a by-your-leave to the law. Mayor Gavin Newsom blithely remarked that he had to follow his interpretation of the California State Constitution.

In two instances, the rights of state legislatures to set marriage laws were ignored. In each case, the public was not allowed to have its say. In the case of California, the marriage statutes may have been ignored. Personally, I don't give a rat's ass if two guys get hitched for life. That's their business. However, if one wants to change the marriage laws in a state, one is supposed to do so legislatively.

Bush did not want this issue on the plate, even though it helps him with his base. However, I suspect that most voters don't like it when their desires are ignored, and I suspect that Bush will be the beneficiary of a solidified base. The bottom line is how Bush is able to keep this discussion on a civil plane while the Evangelicals throw fire and damnation and the Gay Community warns of concentration camps for gay people. That's a tall order.

If Jesus were here, He'd understand.

Oh, I forgot, He is with us....


Comments: Post a Comment

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?