If the Founders didn’t ban it, why do so now?

Just when you think BushCo had run out of gas for good and sure (check out Dubya’s latest approval ratings–remind you of anyone?), they pull a rather predictable rabbit out of the hat (or should I say, habit out of the rat?)–appeal to the “base”. In this case, it is definitely the Hardcore Stupid:

President Bush will promote a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage on Monday, the eve of a scheduled Senate vote on the cause that is dear to his conservative backers.

The amendment would prohibit states from recognizing same-sex marriages. To become law, the proposal would need two-thirds support in the Senate and House, and then be ratified by at least 38 state legislatures.

It stands little chance of passing the 100-member Senate, where proponents are struggling to get even 50 votes. Several Republicans oppose the measure, and so far only one Democrat – Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska – says he will vote for it.


[…]

A slim majority of Americans oppose gay marriage, according to a poll by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press from March. But the poll also showed attitudes are changing: 63 percent opposed gay marriage in February 2004.

Those poll results don’t reflect how people might feel about amending the Constitution to ban gay marriage.

Therein lies the crux of this bit of red-meat throwing, which is about as ham-handed as anything I’ve ever seen from Chucklenuts. Their personal feelings about same-sex marriage aside, most don’t want to see the constitution mucked with in this manner:

I would never vote nor support an admendment that bans same sex marriage because that will start the process of enshrining descrimination in the US Constitution. The US Constitution has always been the tool to break down descrimination. There has never been an admendment in that document that enforces descrimination in any way. It has always been to broadened freedoms, instead of restricting them nor enforce narrow minded opinions.

–Robert Tripp, Sammamish, WA

Slightly flubbed wording aside (typed in the heat of great emotion, no doubt), I’d say Robert Tripp nails it. “We the People” also includes They, the Gay People. Amending the constitution to cut them out of the definition of The People would be akin to repealing the amendment that banned slavery. It would officially sanction gay-bashing in all its forms, including the slick sophistry of those homophobes who retort, when challenged, that “of course gays are allowed to marry–someone of the opposite sex, just like everyone else!”

Definitely a huge step backward for a country that’s used to making small moves forward, with occasional setbacks. And that must, therefore, use its own constitution as the weapon against those setbacks. They won’t be able to do that, however, if that constitution is perverted as Bush would like to do.

It may be “just a goddamn piece of paper!” to him, but to most of the country, it’s still sacrosanct, and so not to be put in service of any one man’s prejudices.

Item: Perhaps there’s another reason why Dubya is pushing this steaming brown piece of hypocrisy. Wayne Madsen reports that Pickles is now staying at the Posh Mayflower Hotel, upset over Dubya’s blatant goings-on with Condi Rice. (Scroll down to June 1 and 2.) While I can’t confirm this anywhere else as yet, I can well believe it; Pickles’ scary Xanax grin tells us all we really need to know about how she feels about being no more than a “lump in the bed” to the Giggling Killer. So much for the sanctity of “traditional” marriage, eh?

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail
This entry was posted in Do As I Say..., Law-Law Land, Pissing Jesus Off, W is for Weak (and Stupid). Bookmark the permalink.