![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
okay, i don't normally bother to rant about the news.
But I read the Post online most days (left-leaning, but [a] in the USian sense and [b] not that far to the left), and this morning one headline says "Bush Upsets Conservative Supporters". Always delighted to hear that conservatives are upset (wishing no harm or unhappiness on my friends who happen to be conservative, you understand -- merely wishing them political frustration), I clicked on through. Inside headline says "some supporters" instead of "conservative", but no biggie.
It seems that the president is backing off on the federal marriage amendment nonsense, since he knows he can't win the issue and no longer needs the political capital anymore to win the election. (Okay, that's my angle, not the article's.) I'm obviously pleased to have less effort being made in that direction, and I frankly almost don't care why he's backing off -- as I see it, the reasons* to stop pursuing a constitutional amendment are (1) you don't agree, (2) you don't think it should be a federal matter, or (3) you just plain don't give a damn [anymore] -- as much as I care that he's backing off.
Sure is pissing off the goofs in these so-called "family" groups, though.
Everybody get that -- the United States is conflicted on the question of Social Security, but not on equal rights.
On the one hand, I'm furious with the right for continuing to maintain that "the nation" is "united" on any of their (or our) pet issues -- I'm pretty fucking tired of defeat turning into disenfranchisement. But on the other hand, it occurs to me that they can't all be liars and spin doctors -- for all I know, Tom Minnery of Focus on the Family really does believe that the nation is united on marriage. And that's a pretty big chunk of disillusionment he's got in his eye, there, and I'll tell you, all I can do is laugh.
* In fact I do rank the reasons; I don't actually think very much of just-not-giving-a-damn, but when the issue came up last time, I was more pleased with those lawmakers who said they didn't personally think gays ought to be allowed to marry, but voted against the amendment anyway than I was with those who voted against it because they agree that gays should have the same rights as straights. Upset some people with that, I think, but I'll tell you what: the thing is it's not, or it sure the hell shouldn't be, a federal issue. [I get that the amendment is a question of whether to make it a federal issue; but I think (not being a Constitutional scholar) the clauses on (a) commerce and (b) full faith and credit, plus the 10th Amendment, pretty well preclude an additional amendment defining marriage federally.] And the folks who voted against the thing despite their personal feelings are the only ones we know for sure cared that it's not a federal issue. I was as glad to see the amendment go down as the next girl, but I don't want Congress to get in the habit of turning things federal that shouldn't be just because they're that charged by the issue. Had I been aware of anyone whose official statement said "I'm voting against the amendment because it shouldn't be a federal matter, and my personal feelings about gay folks marrying couldn't possibly be less important", that would have been who I was most pleased with. This concludes the Fox-is-not-as-liberal-as-you-thought special for this morning.
It seems that the president is backing off on the federal marriage amendment nonsense, since he knows he can't win the issue and no longer needs the political capital anymore to win the election. (Okay, that's my angle, not the article's.) I'm obviously pleased to have less effort being made in that direction, and I frankly almost don't care why he's backing off -- as I see it, the reasons* to stop pursuing a constitutional amendment are (1) you don't agree, (2) you don't think it should be a federal matter, or (3) you just plain don't give a damn [anymore] -- as much as I care that he's backing off.
Sure is pissing off the goofs in these so-called "family" groups, though.
"The president is willing to spend his political capital on Social Security reform, but the nation is greatly conflicted on that issue," said [Tom] Minnery, vice president of public policy for Focus on the Family. "The nation is united on marriage."
Everybody get that -- the United States is conflicted on the question of Social Security, but not on equal rights.
On the one hand, I'm furious with the right for continuing to maintain that "the nation" is "united" on any of their (or our) pet issues -- I'm pretty fucking tired of defeat turning into disenfranchisement. But on the other hand, it occurs to me that they can't all be liars and spin doctors -- for all I know, Tom Minnery of Focus on the Family really does believe that the nation is united on marriage. And that's a pretty big chunk of disillusionment he's got in his eye, there, and I'll tell you, all I can do is laugh.
* In fact I do rank the reasons; I don't actually think very much of just-not-giving-a-damn, but when the issue came up last time, I was more pleased with those lawmakers who said they didn't personally think gays ought to be allowed to marry, but voted against the amendment anyway than I was with those who voted against it because they agree that gays should have the same rights as straights. Upset some people with that, I think, but I'll tell you what: the thing is it's not, or it sure the hell shouldn't be, a federal issue. [I get that the amendment is a question of whether to make it a federal issue; but I think (not being a Constitutional scholar) the clauses on (a) commerce and (b) full faith and credit, plus the 10th Amendment, pretty well preclude an additional amendment defining marriage federally.] And the folks who voted against the thing despite their personal feelings are the only ones we know for sure cared that it's not a federal issue. I was as glad to see the amendment go down as the next girl, but I don't want Congress to get in the habit of turning things federal that shouldn't be just because they're that charged by the issue. Had I been aware of anyone whose official statement said "I'm voting against the amendment because it shouldn't be a federal matter, and my personal feelings about gay folks marrying couldn't possibly be less important", that would have been who I was most pleased with. This concludes the Fox-is-not-as-liberal-as-you-thought special for this morning.
no subject
Seriously, though, I do approve of those people, because I'm sure they got a lot of shit for it from some of their supporters. And because when two of your principles conflict, I'm sure it's a difficult position to be in.
no subject
I see no reason why that shouldn't be the case still.
no subject
no subject
Marriage is a sacred rite that has over centuries come to confer certain civil rights. I don't believe any religious institution should be forced to recognize a union it considers, rightly or wrongly, to be sinful any more than I believe a country that recognizes a separation of church and state should be forced to deny civil rights on what amounts to religious grounds.
Ergo, I think marriage of any gender mix should be left to religious institutions and the state should confine itself to recognizing domestic unions for the purpose of defining property rights and child custody.
What, after all, are the civil benefits to denying anyone the right to set up a household, amass and dispose of property and clarify who's got the right to raise children or pull the plug on a dying family member? I don't believe I've ever heard an argument against gay marriage that wasn't rooted in a religious belief.
no subject
the marriage i'm talking about is a legal condition.
no subject
I'm saying (not expecting to happen in my lifetime, just sayin') we need to separate the legal condition from the religious rite. Have anyone from the Pope to your local Plumber of the Holy Drain bless your union, but if you want to sue over joint property or child custody, you'll need a contract recognized by your local government that carries the same legal weight the ceremony + license carries now. I split the hair because my understanding is that all the durable medical powers of attorney in the world signed by gay couples can't necessarily stop someone's family from intervening in end of life care.
no subject
we're agreeing, you and i. you're just willing to give up the term, and i'm not, quite yet. :-)
no subject
I don't see property rights ever being separated from the marriage rite in real life, of course. I just got alla sudden rilly rilly tired of listening to co-workers prose on about the sacredity of marriage, as if the slough of iniquity that is our call center were some sort of connubial paragon, and decided that it would just be cleaner and less embarassing to both parties if church took care of defining the sacred and government took care of the profane.
no subject
no subject
plus, read the article: in fact it looks like he's backing off until such time as DoMA faces a serious legal challenge; when that act gets struck down (and it will, eventually) the amendment crowd will be out again baying for -- well, whatever it is they bay for. can't be unconstitutional if the constitution's been amended, after all, right?
it's not even close to over.
no subject
no subject
state of the union
Re: state of the union
But even then - Safia Taleb al-Suhail? GREAT moment.
Re: state of the union
2. "although" nothing. did you or did you not say he wouldn't push it? apparently you did. did he push it? looks that way. were you mistaken?
ayup.
Re: state of the union
2. He pushed it. So I was mistaken. Will he push it hard? Nah.
oh, but on another subject
Re: oh, but on another subject
no subject