WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush said Tuesday that he supports a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage to "prevent the meaning of marriage from being changed forever."
<soapbox>
....blah, blah, etc, etc. Anyway, I find it humorous that politicians like to have vauge meanings of words when it's convenient for them (see also: Clinton-Lewinsky "meaning of 'is' " ordeal), but "marriage" has to have an absolute meaning (assuming Bush could spell it right). My thoughts (which I haven't heard from either side of the debate, ironically) are that even though the pure "separation of Church and State" is a myth, the government cannot, under the constitution (Article I), make any law "respecting an establishment of religion" (i.e. marriage), which is what both the divisive Defense of Marriage act and Bush's proposed amendment are.
I agree with the Massachusetts courts that the "civil union" thing is probably very "separate but not equal", so why not just make every government-issued license a "civil union", regardless of gender? Someone tell me why that won't work? What if I'm atheist and I want to get hitched with my woman, but have nothing to do with any religious "church" of any sort?
</soapbox>
No comments:
Post a Comment