Monday, October 30, 2006

On Gay Marriage

President Bush gave a campaign speech today in Texas, up at Georgia Southern University where he has decided to go on the attack against that issue that has been the subject of so much debate this year, and has really lit up the news wires, evidencing its overwhelming importance so far this year - Gay Marriage. Apparently, Gay Marriage is bad. Not only is Gay Marriage bad, but it must be defended against.

From the president: "For decades, activist judges have tried to redefine America by court order. Just this last week in New Jersey, another activist court issued a ruling that raises doubt about the institution of marriage. We believe marriage is a union between a man and a woman and should be defended."

The "activist decision" from New Jersey? The NJ Supreme Court ruled that there is no fundamental right in the New Jersey Constitution to gay marriage. What they did rule was that homosexual couples are entitled to the same rights as heterosexual couples, but will leave it to legislature to decide if it will allow marriage or some other type of civil union.

As you can see, it's easy to see how President Bush can get his you-know-what caught in a wringer from this decision, after all, he's said for years that this is wrong. Or did he? Perhaps he should look at what he's said in the past before he makes statements. Remember, his policy was "stay the course" until a couple weeks ago, when "it was never stay the course." Anyway, with regard to gay marriage:
Here's a CNN article from February of 2004 where he suggests that he'd endorse an amendment that would ban gay marriages, but could allow for civil unions.
Here's a CNS News Article that highlights the President thought that states should be allowed to decide.
And on October 26, 2004, from Civil Rights.org - President Bush said that his party was wrong to oppose civil unions.

So, if he supports states finding for civil unions, then where is the judicial activism where the New Jersey Court finds that Homosexuals are entitled to the same protection as Heterosexuals? Perhaps it has to do with the legislating from the bench - wait, no, the Court didn't legislate from the bench, they left the legislating up to the legislature. The Court ruled on an area of law and left it up to the state to find a way to operate within the law - wow, that damn court. Or perhaps one could say that President Bush supported civil unions until he opposed them...

President Bush is on his way to Texas to campaign for Shelley Sekula-Gibbs, a write-in candidate for the Congressional seat vacated by Tom Delay. Apparently, she needs some heavyweight help to get elected, though she is gaining in the polls. I wasn't opposed to her running until yesterday when I heard her on the news explaining why she entered a polling station the other day during voting. Apparently she was going in to inquire into the process and see how it's going, according to her explanation. Why is this bad? It's a misdemeanor offense for a candidate to enter a polling station for any reason other than to vote. This makes sense, because we don't want to encourage voting booth campaigning by candidates, with the pressure it can cause or the undue influence it might create. Anyway, that she admitted to being in there for a reason other than to vote, and that it's a misdemeanor to go in for any reason other than to vote would seem to suggest that she has broken the law, and I can't support a candidate that can't obey a law during the campaign; it suggests that she won't be able to while in office. This isn't a Republican or Democrat thing. It's a credibility thing. Fortunately for Shelley, I'm not in her district, so she doesn't have to worry about losing my vote, but I doubt I'm the only one who caught on to that issue. Perhaps the president should hold off on supporting her until after she's cleared of any wrongdoing??? A little patience isn't a bad thing.

2 comments:

janet said...

This might be slightly off topic, but not entirely ...

Can SOMEBODY please explain to me the difference between marriage and a civil union? Is it just me that thinks this is total semantics to make people feel like they're not totally discriminating against a group of people?

Steve said...

The way I understand it is that Civil Unions are a plan to allow gay couples to benefit from similar benefits that spouses enjoy, such as medical insurance, death benefits, etc., but stops short of recognizing the couple as spouses. I guess I understand it as eating the cake, but not having it.

That said, I do think there is a lot of semantics involved. I think many people find difficulty in accepting a concept of gay couples "marrying," because they think it undermines the meaning of the word.

Which of course common law marriage, annulments, divorce, no fault divorce, palimony, and cohabitation all work to do as well.