politics

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