President Bush, the activist

Blog For Free! Archives Home 2007 April 2005 February 2005 January 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2003 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September My Links My essay: The Immorality of Marriage The Onion SelectSmart Games to test your logic, faith, morality, and philosophical ideas! Tom Robbins Quotes Funny Name Analysis Bushisms Letters From the Earth by Mark Twain Why I Am Not A Christian by Bertrand Russell Life, Liberty, Logic Wasting My Time RedTigress's Blog Jimmytherighteous's Blog Octo6er's Blog Nivek's Blog Magicjoejoe's Blog Littlemrmahatma's Blog Kurtmaddox's Blog Winstonsmith's Blog Drforbush's Blog Juniperflux's Blog Iron Blog Religion! tBlog My Profile Send tMail My tFriends My Images Sponsored Blog Bookmark this site!

President Bush, the activist 02.24.04 (2:27 pm)   [edit] A familiar criticism made by President Bush and his supporters is that "activist" judges have made the issue of gay marriage an issue. I find it interesting that this claim is thrown around so often while the activism of Bush is forgotten. Adding an amendment to the constitution is about as much activism as a president can achieve. Supposedly the intentions of Bush's proposed constitutional amendment are to protect the sanctity of marriage. But I just can't help thinking that Bush is overly determined to truly have a historic presidency. Marriage is a social institution- even Bush recognizes that. So why should an amendment be necessary to define the legality of a social institution? In terms of the law, the social aspect of marriage should not even be examined. The government cannot define the meaning of marriage for all of society, only the legal aspect of marriage. In this regard, all that matters is the benefits given to a couple that is married under the law. All Americans should have the equal right to attain the same benefits. Whether same-sex unions are wrong or right in terms of morality or religious views or whatever it is that somehow makes them questionable really doesn't matter and is of no concern to the law (or shouldn't be, I should say). Bush's proposed ban is "to protect the sanctity of marriage." What exactly is the sanctity of marriage? And what are the reasons for being against gay marriage? Please educate me, I seriously can't figure out what the big deal is. I won't go so far as to agree with Kerry's campaign's assertion that Bush's presidency is in trouble and the amendment is a desparate attempt at solidifying his presidency, but adding an amendment to the constitution does seem a bit extreme to me, especially to disallow certain citizens the rights granted to others.   posted by: RedTigress (reply) post date: 02.24.04 (12:13 pm) I just love it when officials make the wording of these things extra explicit, but it only makes the wording more confusing! posted by: mblog (reply) post date: 02.24.04 (6:27 pm) The sanctity of marriage is what gives Britney Spears the right to marry somebody on a whim and divorce him the next day. It's also what would give me the right to have oral or anal sex with my wife should I choose. But it would obviously be a mockery of the institution if instead I had a long time loving relationship with a man and wanted to perform the same sex acts on him that are acceptable with my wife. Our constitution defines our government and guarantees rights to citizens. Once we as a nation made a mistake and changed it to take people's rights away. Prohibition didn't work out so we changed it back again. Now Mr. Bush wants to make a mockery out of the institution of government by changing our consitution into a document that takes rights away from people for a purely social issue. This is an issue which, if legal, would require the government to do nothing more than apply the same standards to all couples. First we had Catholics who wanted to marry Protestants. Then we had whites who wanted to marry blacks. And somehow the nation did not fall apart. Instead of the rioting in the streets that Arnold Schwarzenegger predicted, we had parties, and three nut cases from the Westboro pseudo-church. posted by: DragonBait22 (reply) post date: 02.24.04 (7:52 pm) Reply to: mblog Well, I think that's probably the best explanation of the sanctity of marriage I've been given. I think maybe we should make an amendment to the constitution preventing amendments that take away rights of the citizens. posted by: Jimmytherighteous (reply) post date: 02.25.04 (1:34 pm) I think it's odd that conservatives are trying to mask their bigotry by beating up on "activist judges" who rule that hetero-only marriage laws are discriminatory. The favorite argument is that judges are creating law, which rather ignores a huge part of what judges do: interpret law. I'm not sure many people realize this, but the Supreme Court and the Federal District Courts aren't just about hearing civil cases. In fact, the vast majority of what they do involves interpreting law and determining constitutionality. In the case of the Supreme Court, they almost exclusively deal with rulings on the constitutionality of laws generated in the legislatures. The anti-gay crowd tends to forget about that part. Federal judges routinely override laws by finding them to be unconstitiutional - it's their job. Right-wing and anti-gay groups crow that the judges are "creating" laws when in fact they are only striking down parts that violate the equal protection clause of the constitution along with state and federal laws forbidding discrimination. I wonder why it is that judges are only "activist" and creating law when they rule that bans on gay marriage are unconstitutional? Are these same judges being "activist" when they strike down parts of more pedestrian laws involving commerce, communication, labor rights or religious freedom? Probably not in the mind of the anti-gay lobby. posted by: DragonBait22 (reply) post date: 02.25.04 (5:57 pm) Reply to: Jimmytherighteous Yeah, I'm getting sick of the "activist judges" argument. Interpreting what is constitutional is only viewed as activist when it is counter to the agenda of the conservatives, it seems. posted by: juniperflux (reply) post date: 03.16.04 (10:22 am) Amen! Between this and steroid use by professional atheletes, I have to give props to the Prez for taking on the BIG issues. Great Blog! posted by: DragonBait22 (reply) post date: 03.16.04 (3:49 pm) Reply to: juniperflux Lol, no kidding. Bush certainly has his priorities set. ;) Your Name: Your Comment:

"Tragically, a nation that was created by intellectuals and visionaries has now been completely taken over by venal corporate gangsters, delusional Christian fruitcakes and hopelessly shallow Texas shit-kickers." -Tom Robbins