As Kos points out here, we have Commander Codpiece:
"Because marriage is a sacred institution and the foundation of society, it should not be re-defined by activist judges. For the good of families, children, and society, I support a constitutional amendment to protect the institution of marriage."
Um ... excuse me? Marriage is "the foundation of society"? When exactly did that happen? Suddenly, I feel so inadequate. No, no, wait. No, I don't. Go Cheney yourself, George.
2 comments:
As everyone this morning takes time to dissect and digest the content of Bush's address, I feel it is important to note that everything Bush says has no meaning! Everything is so vague. this passage, for example, could mean he plans to outlaw divorce. I believe "activist judges" in Bush's mind describes any justice who does not agree with his policies.
Lets come back to reality here: anyone, Bush or any other australipithecene who would inhabit the White House, probably hasnt had the privilege of residing in the poor and middle classes America and seen what passes for an adult relationship involving children. Marriage being so sacred is a myth. Anyone who pays the least bit of attention to modern day western society knows this.
An "activist judge" is one who defies the law to promote political agenda.
A judge who defies political agenda to promote the law is just doing his job.
Certain people are currently being treated unequally due to tradition, religious dogma and good old fashioned bigotry. The law says that all people are entitled to equal treatment, that the bigotry of the majority cannot be used to curtail the rights of the minority, and that religious dogmata are not valid justifications for public policy.
Protecting unpopular minorities from a spiteful and shortsighted majority is, I would argue, a much more solid foundation of American society than is marriage.
Furthermore, the word "sacred" has no secular definition whatsoever. Absent a belief in a deity who favors some things over others, there is no substance behind such a word. Therefore, invoking the notion of the "sacred" is by definition an illegitimate justification for public policy. Any policy with tangible benefit can be justified using the language of the material world. Any policy without tangible benefit is a waste of public time and money.
Post a Comment