Originally posted by BRussell
Maybe the crud could be deleted.
"To protect the sanctity of marriage," sure. But I think we'd both agree that that's vague rhetoric. I'm simply trying to understand, specifically, what Bush wants to do, and I think what it comes down to is that he wants to prevent states from interpreting their own constitutions in a way that makes gay marriage legal. The issue of states recognizing other states' gay marriages was already dealt with by the Defense of Marriage Act. And of course he can choose to veto any federal law that wanted to make gay marriage legal. So we're left with what states, on their own, are allowed to do.
The amendment (or at least the only one I found, there may be others) states:
It also appears to outlaw civil unions. But apparently it doesn't outlaw bad grammar.
Nice analogy with toxic waste. But again, states already are not required to recognize other states' gay marriages, so the analogy doesn't apply.
Yet another nail in the coffin for Bush among the libertarian-leaning conservatives. George W. Bush: Social conservative fiscal liberal anti-states' rights international interventionist.
I think what Bush and many others want is two-fold. First he nor do many others want a legal system where a few judges at the state level can change the laws and legal dealings for the rest of the country. If the Supreme Court takes up the issue and decides it, that is something we all have to live with, but state courts deciding how the whole country must live is more unnerving.
The second issue simply has to do with traditional definitions of words and how far will people go to win an argument. Marriage has always been understood to be between a man and a woman in this society. Many tolerant people, myself included, have said that civil unions would be just fine in addressing the legal issues associated with homosexual pairing while avoiding the historical and religious baggage. However that isn't enough. People want everyone's understanding and definitions to change basically against their beliefs or will.
Suppose I wanted to argue that judges should read viability or what born means in a manner different from historical understanding in order to advance an abortion argument. I don't think that would fly too well.
This isn't about rights because pretty much everyone, be they right or left have been willing to cough up the legal rights. This is about rights going past the end of my nose. This is about telling me what words had better mean to me.
Word switching has been used very well in the past to alter attitudes and opinions about a subject. Someone discussing immigration might use "undocumented worker" instead of "illegal immigrant." However at least they don't tell you that the constitution of your state has an entirely different understanding of what illegal and immigrant mean from the commonly understood definitions.
Laws and language are important things with regard to maintaining society. When they become meaningless, people have to resort to much less enjoyable means of hashing out their arguments. (Like say wars and violence)
I prefer to not let definitions and laws be twisted past the breaking point just to win a forced understanding of a word, not even the rights because those have been offered up, but to dictate what words mean to people.