As President Bush used the weekend to promote a constitutional amendment to define marriage as monogamous and heterosexual, the Other Party responded with its characteristic ability to stay clearly on message. That is, everyone said the same thing.
The key turn of phrase: This amendment would write discrimination into the Constitution.
Note the implication: defining marriage as between a man and a woman, as it has been done by all the major monotheistic religions for centuries (sorry, Joseph Smith, but your religion doesn't qualify, at least until just prior to Utah's statehood) is inherently discriminatory.
This apparently is how the Democrats intend to win back the family-values voter.
We urge all social conservatives among our gentle readers (if we haven't made you so mad that you've quit reading) to remember this come November and decide whether you can hold your nose long enough to vote for the party that doesn't think time-honored, foundational human relationships are inherently evil.
3 comments:
What I find interesting and ironic about this discussion is that many who support the end of legalized abortion do so on the legal basis that states should have the right to choose their own stance on the issue. All the while, many of these same individuals support a gay marriage ban amendment to the constitution, denying the states the very same right they claim for the first issue.
Sure. And vice versa. Scruples on state versus federal power have always caved to commitments on specific issues.
However, there is a common thread to both of these initiatives. The "right" to abortion was created by the Supreme Court. Likewise, the "right" to "gay marriage" has also been a court initiative, this time the Massachusetts Supreme Court, which basically instructed the Mass legislature that it had to pass legislation allowing the practice.
So antiabortion and anti-gay-marriage activists, largely the same folk, speak consistently when they say that they want to legislate or amend the constitution to restrain the actions of the courts.
And that's about as consistent as anyone can expect any politician to be, miserable sinners that they all are.
You are more than likely already aware of this; for I do not dare question your informational savviness. :-) But I found this article this morning which seemed to highlight the rhetorical moves being made by the Ds on this particular issue. (My apologies for the manner in which this link is noted -- it's a tad long. I'm not sure how to make a hyperlink in the comment).
http://go.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=RCDH0YOSD52PUCRBAEZSFFA?type=topNews&storyID=12452980
Post a Comment