Friday, October 27, 2006

Same sex marriages...Bush weighs in...again

Once again, our verbally challenged President ("the Google" is a classic) weighs in on social issues, intimating that somehow his beliefs carry impact far greater self-righteous impact than those of other American citizens or leap, as he has so eloquently displayed frequently during his painful six years in office, common sense.

"I believe marriage is a union between a man and a woman," he said. "I believe it's a sacred institution that is critical to the health of our society and the well-being of families, and it must be defended."

Bush has advocated a federal ban on gay marriage. Earlier this year, a proposed constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage failed to win the needed two-thirds support in both the Senate and House.

For the narrow of minds, the institution of marriage is not under attack, as such media pundits as Bill O'Reilly would have us believe. No amendments are being proposed to block marriage between a man and a woman. No churches are outlawing marriage between a man and a woman. No government or private agency is threatening to withhold benefits, remove income tax provisions, revoke community property statutes or anything remotely resembling changes in the existing institution of marriage.

What proponents of same sex marriage are simply asking is to extend the legal recognition of the institution to man-man and woman-woman marriages.

Gay marriage is legal only in Massachusetts. Other states, including Vermont and California, have laws permitting civil unions or domestic partnerships that offer virtually all the benefits of gay marriage, except the name. New Jersey and some other states have domestic partnership laws that offer fewer marriage benefits.

The sacredness of marriage is embedded in the bond between the two individuals. The state cannot legislate or control that critical function of the union. And, unfortunately, the state seemingly cannot control the health of the marriage either. The annual divorce rate hovers just short of 50%. Is Bush intimating we need to defend the status quo of a critical institution with such a high failure rate?

Instead of waxing political--nothing energizes the evangelical conservatives and distracts them from the struggles of Iraq and the shrinking middle class than whipping up the embers of the gay marriage fire--maybe Bush should direct more resources to developing ways to insure marriages are strong and substantiative, that families have the support they need to function well (i.e., health benefits, living wages).

How, preventing same sex marriages supports "a sacred institution that is critical to the health of our society and the well-being of families" is a mystery only our President's convuluted logic can assimilate. We're waiting. In the meantime, focus on leading the United States in a manner that restores our moral standing in the world and focus less on your narrow mores at home.

-30-

posted by dq @ 11:47 AM 0 comments

Thursday, October 12, 2006

Bush's logic

Is this a joke?

Our president actually said, “I am, you know, amazed that this is a society which so wants to be free that they’re willing to know that this level of violence that they tolerate.” Besides the observation that Bush—once again—twists the English language into unimaginable fits of linguistic contortion, when did our grammatically-challenged president poll the Iraqis? What evidence does he present to support his assertion that the Iraqis, who have endured unimaginable hardship and death, inspired by the United States' invasion of the country, 'tolerate' the violence so rampant in their country? What evidence does he present that the Iraqis want to be 'free' as the United States defines 'free'? Judging by the Bush Administration's actions in the last six years, free might be a tenuous, fluid term.

One Johns Hopkins Unviersity study concluded that more than 600,000 Iraqis have died as a result of the United States' invasion.

“No question it’s violent. But, this report is one, they put in out before is,”—seque to a avuncular Dick Cheney tone—“the methodology is pretty well discredited.” Huh? Pray tell, what methodology were they using? Thought so.

According to Les Roberts, one of the co-authors of the study by Johns Hopkins University, who appeared on Democracy Now!, the methodology employed in the study is the same methodology employed by the United States government to estimate deaths after conflicts in Kosovo and Afghanistan. The federal government is spending millions to educate employees on the cluster methodology to measure mortality.

UNICEF employs the cluster survey approach to estimate deaths in poor and underdeveloped countries. The methodology is now considered a standard in the field of statistics. Yes, the methodology employed by John Hopkins is the same methodology employed by the United States government. But, then, Bush and Cheney never let facts or common sense cloud their pursuit of narrow ideology.

Ranks right up with the idea that suicides committed by enemy combatants held without charges in Guantonamo Bay are “acts of war,” somehow, perversely designed to “get” the United States, as one military official charged. Can we 'tolerate' that?

-30-

posted by dq @ 12:33 PM 0 comments