Sorry to go off topic, but this just chaps my hide.
Following the Mass. Supreme Court decision to make gay marriage legal, our President went on record to say that he found the incident "very troubling" and hinted that he would explore a constitutional ban to "preserve the sanctity of marriage."
I find this stance on the sanctity of marriage rather sanctimonious. I mean how can you cite the sanctity of marriage when it is perfectly legal for a convicted pedophile to marry and have children? It's also perfectly legal for a pair of Ku Klux Klan members to marry and raise a gaggle of racist children. If the sanctity of marriage is the issue, shouldn't there therefore be more restriction on who can and cannot get married?
To me, this reeks of George Wallace blocking the entrance of the University of Alabama. A politician taking a perceived moral stand to pander to his constituents when in actuality, he is defending discrimination. Plain and simple. How can an objective-minded person defend this view?
Admittedly, the Dems aren't much better; Kerry is in favor of "gay unions," a separate but unequal distinction. But like slavery, civil rights and women's suffrage, isn't this an issue where we need to differentiate between what is popular and what is the right thing to do?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
No sidewindin bushwackin, hornswaglin, cracker croaker is gonna rouin me bishen cutter!
Following the Mass. Supreme Court decision to make gay marriage legal, our President went on record to say that he found the incident "very troubling" and hinted that he would explore a constitutional ban to "preserve the sanctity of marriage."
I find this stance on the sanctity of marriage rather sanctimonious. I mean how can you cite the sanctity of marriage when it is perfectly legal for a convicted pedophile to marry and have children? It's also perfectly legal for a pair of Ku Klux Klan members to marry and raise a gaggle of racist children. If the sanctity of marriage is the issue, shouldn't there therefore be more restriction on who can and cannot get married?
To me, this reeks of George Wallace blocking the entrance of the University of Alabama. A politician taking a perceived moral stand to pander to his constituents when in actuality, he is defending discrimination. Plain and simple. How can an objective-minded person defend this view?
Admittedly, the Dems aren't much better; Kerry is in favor of "gay unions," a separate but unequal distinction. But like slavery, civil rights and women's suffrage, isn't this an issue where we need to differentiate between what is popular and what is the right thing to do?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
No sidewindin bushwackin, hornswaglin, cracker croaker is gonna rouin me bishen cutter!