Wednesday, February 25, 2004

Gay Marriage, Again

One thing that has been bothering me are the claims that Bush's statement yesterday should be construed to mean that he does not want to ban state's rights to create civil unions. There are two problems with that contention. One is that he did not put forth any language to suggest that he would not support the most popular amendment up for consideration, the Musgrave Amendment. That amendment clearly has language, as I previously posted, indicates that civil unions would illegal if the amendment was adopted. If Bush was against such a thing, why did he not make it clear that he does not support the Musgrave Amendment as written?

Secondly, it is clear that Bush is against Civil Unions.
MR. McCLELLAN: [...] The President has made it very clear that he would not have supported it for the state of Texas.

Q Civil union?

So, Bush is all about state's rights, I guess, except when it comes to marriage. States can relegate homosexuals to second class citizens, but they can't allow them to be full citizens with equal rights. Hmmm, sounds like a bigot to me.

I will give a shout out to Rob Bernard for getting a traffic surge from the 800-pound gorilla, but a commenter on Rob’s site referred to me as an "unknown blogger." Now, I am a nobody in the Blogosphere, but what kind of ego trip does it take to slam me for having an opinion, voicing it, but not having a reputation big enough to fit that commenter’s sense of self importance?

Just so we are clear, Bush is a bigot. Bush opposes allowing homosexuals the rights given to married couples. If he even wanted to help homosexual with some rights, like hospital visitation, I have not heard him once voice support for it either at the federal or state level. Now, to say that he is merely doing this for political reasons begs the question, if he is willing to work against gays, why would he not also wage a war for political reasons?

No comments:

Post a Comment

Don't be an idiot or your post will be deleted.