Slashdot Mirror
President Bush Flip-flopping on Gay Rights Issue?
An anonymous reader writes "In a move that has upset some in the GOP, George Bush has suddenly declared his support for civil unions for gay ane lesbian couples. Will such a move help or hurt him this late in the game?"
Marriage as an institution has existed as a legally binding institution for thousands of years. For a very, very long time it was a transfer of ownership of a woman from father to the new husband.
Yet it's religious? Religions co-opted marriage. Marriage itself is neither inherently religious nor secular at this point. It has been one, the other or both for so long making such a statement is silly.
"States' rights" used to be something of a codeword for "slavery," way back when; as in "it's a state's right to determine whether or not it will allow slavery." Granted, it was used to allude to other things, as well, but slavery was the main issue with which it was meant to be connotated.
No, I'm not intending to draw a direct line of connection, but I am pointing out the coincidence.
There's more I could say on this, but I'm tired, my mind is fuzzy, and my belly is full of pizza.
~UP
Eat the Path.
Except, of course, for the fact that in previous statements, Bush has stated that in order to "protect" (from what, exactly?) marriage, it must be defined as only between a man and a woman, and that same sex couples do not deserve the same rights as others in this country. However, I agree: it's not flip-flopping, it's just that he doesn't actually know what he's said (or believed) in the past.
It's remarkable that two (at least) of the last three republican presidents can't (couldn't) remember what they say or do from day to day. It's also remarkable that those two presidents had essentially the same staff.
Actually, author Jonathan Rauch makes the case in his book that one of the principal reasons that we have marriage -- completely ignoring the "shouting points" of love, children, etc. -- is that a couple making a promise to take care of each other in hard times is a boon for society in general, since it means that support networks like extended family, charities, and welfare don't have to spend as much time and money taking care of that couple when something drastic happens. From this perspective, it makes perfect sense to give couples a slight tax break.
Range Voting: preference intensity matters
As a licensed (Baptist) minister, I agree. There is a huge difference between marriage as I believe God ordained it and the mockery of marriage we call civil marriage, even if you leave aside the gay marriage issue. In God's marriage, divorce is allowed only in the most dire circumstances, remarriage is never allowed, and the husband and wife "become one flesh." In civil marriage, the opposite obtains. It's time to stop equivocating on what marriage is and get the state out of the marriage business.
"He who would learn astronomy, and other recondite arts, let him go elsewhere. " -- John Calvin, commenting on Genesis 1
And the reason for those laws (that discriminate against homosexual couples) is that homosexual couples will not breed. The system wants growth in the form of more consumers, and babies are consumers.
Then they should just give incentives for having kids instead of for marriage. Why give benefits to useless infertile people? Or people that just don't want kids?
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
I am somewhat curious as to why this is a topic for Slashdot.
I personally don't give a damn what consenting adults do in the privacy of their bedrooms, since it is none of my business, but it is slightly suggestive given the byline "News for nerds".
:-D
I am sorry, but I think you are totally off the mark here. The only reason for marriage is so that the human race can continue.
I call BS. As far too many paternity suits show, marriage is utterly IRRELEVANT to procreation.