Like Fellows, I have to say I was a bit surprised to see Kirkland's vehement response, given how well-reasoned most of his other posts have been (at least those I've read recently). But everyone has their "push buttons" that really set them off I guess, otherwise you're not human... I certainly am no saint in this regard.
My take on this whole thing:
1) Bush is pushing an obvious religious agenda without using religious terminology. Clarity my ass. How about aversion to clarity, Mr. Press Secretary?
Hopefully people are not sheep-like enough to buy it, but I worry a lot of people who are (for lack of a better phrase) "latent homophobes" will support the idea because it suits their views. It's also a means of enforcing a sort of unofficial "class" system upon American couples. I mean, what's left in America that heterosexual couples can have, that gays can't? Marriage. That's it. Gay couples can have kids, they can live together, work together... whatever they want (and that's as it must be in a free society).
But they can't get married with equal ease... and now Bush and his religious fanatics want to BAN it? Pathetic. You don't have to understand or even approve of the gay lifestyle in order to see this is blatant bigotry. It's not even subtle. George and Laura dislike gays (Laura can't even bring herself to talk about it openly) and want to snub them. Simple as that.
2) As others have said, the federal government has no business legislating the personal lives of American citizens. I have yet to hear a single argument which convincingly argues why gay couples should not be allowed to marry. Not one.
If we let them do this, what else are they going to try and legislate? It's embarrassing we've even let it get to this point. It's sort of like certain provisions from the Patriot Act where everyone was like "well gosh, I really don't like the idea, but 9/11 you know... I guess we have to."
No we don't frigging have to agree to ANYTHING! This is OUR country, not President Bush's country. Not Dick Chenney's country, not even Tom Ridge's country (though he was a respectable governor in Pennsylvania I have to admit). If we are disgusted by the implications of making a Constitutional Amendment
(!!!) regarding who can and cannot be married in this country, let it be known, people. This is grotesquely UN-AMERICAN any way you slice it.
Call it what you want, this is just another name for "abridgement of freedom". You cannot tell two grown, consenting adults that they aren't allowed to marry, because they have the wrong genitals. That's just absurd. I do agree that a marriage should legally be between only two people, but which two should never be for a government to decide, unless one of the two is under-age.
3) I am of like mind with Kirkland in the sense that, if this actually passes, and/or Bush gets re-elected after having proposed it... it's a clear sign to me that the majority of citizens in this country has lost their understanding of freedom and deserve whatever dark scenarios that come to pass as a result. This is REALLY scary sh*t, if you don't mind me saying so. Every bit as bad as wiretapping laws and holding prisoners without charging them.
This is becoming a country designed to serve the government and not the other way around....