I wrote this hours ago, and I’ve debated whether or not I should post it. This is an incredibly divisive issue, and I’m sure that I will end up on more of those stupid boycott lists because of this, and that’s probably not the smartest business move, considering that I have a book coming out in less than two weeks . . . but I have to stand up for my beliefs, so here it is:
When I heard that George W. Bush had called for an amendment to the Constitution that would effectively codify homosexuals as second-class citizens, I recalled something Howard Dean said recently:
In 1968, Richard Nixon won the White House. He did it in a shameful way–by dividing Americans against one another, stirring up racial prejudices, and bringing out the worst in people.
They called it the “Southern Strategy,” and the Republicans have been using it ever since. Nixon pioneered it, and Ronald Reagan perfected it, using phrases like “racial quotas” and “welfare queens” to convince white Americans that minorities were to blame for all of America’s problems.
The Republican Party would never win elections if they came out and said their core agenda was about selling America piece by piece to their campaign contributors and making sure that wealth and power is concentrated in the hands of a few. To distract people from their real agenda, they run elections based on race, dividing us, instead of uniting us . . .
Dean was right. Just read that again, and replace “racial prejudices” with “sexual prejudices.”
I hate it when I agree with politicians, but John Kerry said what I thought as soon as I heard the news:
“This president can’t talk about jobs. He can’t talk about health care. He can’t talk about a foreign policy which has driven away allies and weakened the United States, so he is looking for a wedge issue to divide the American people.”
Personally, I don’t think the government should be involved in marriage in any way. I believe that marriage is between two people who love each other, who wish to make a commitment to stay together through good times and bad. I suppose that it can also be between those people and whatever god they choose to worship, but even then . . . wouldn’t it be stupid for the government to tell couples which god can bless their marriage? And who cares what sex they are?
An interesting thing has happened since San Francisco started granting marriage licenses to same-sex couples: my marriage is just fine!
That’s right. Even though there are thousands of gay and lesbian couples affirming their love for and commitment to each other, my marriage — my affirmation of love and commitment to Anne — isn’t threatened at all. As a matter of fact, the only people who can really “threaten” my marriage are . . . well . . . the two of us.
And this brings me to the first thing that’s so profoundly upsetting about this entire issue: it’s not about marriage, it’s not about love, it’s not about family, it’s not about commitment. It’s about hating homosexuals. It’s about treating homosexuals as if they are second-class citizens. It’s about dividing this country into those who support discrimination, and those who don’t. It’s about Karl Rove updating The Southern Strategy.
It comes as no surprise to me that, as part of that strategy, George W. Bush wants to take the Constitution, a document that is supposed to limit government and guarantee freedoms to all Americans, away from millions of our fellow citizens who are homosexual. I didn’t buy the “I’m a uniter, not a divider, compassionate conservative” bullshit during the 2000 campaign, and this is just another example of Mr. Bush revealing his true colors. And this argument that it’s a response to “activist judges?” That’s a huge load of crap too. Mr. Bush has a lot of nerve talking about “activist judges,” considering that he owes his presidency to five of them.
Ultra-Conservative writer Andrew Sullivan said it best, I think:
The president launched a war today against the civil rights of gay citizens and their families. And just as importantly, he launched a war to defile the most sacred document in the land. Rather than allow the contentious and difficult issue of equal marriage rights to be fought over in the states, rather than let politics and the law take their course, rather than keep the Constitution out of the culture wars, this president wants to drag the very founding document into his re-election campaign. He is proposing to remove civil rights from one group of American citizens – and do so in the Constitution itself. The message could not be plainer: these citizens do not fully belong in America. Their relationships must be stigmatized in the very Constitution itself. The document that should be uniting the country will now be used to divide it, to single out a group of people for discrimination itself, and to do so for narrow electoral purposes. Not since the horrifying legacy of Constitutional racial discrimination in this country has such a goal been even thought of, let alone pursued. Those of us who supported this president in 2000, who have backed him whole-heartedly during the war, who have endured scorn from our peers as a result, who trusted that this president was indeed a uniter rather than a divider, now know the truth.
Yes, I am shocked that I agree with Andrew Sullivan about anything, but that just illustrates how insane this idea is, and how it transcends political ideology.
Now, I have no doubt that this effort will fail. I believe that it will ultimately backfire on the Bush Administration, and contribute to his defeat in November. The United States just isn’t the Theocracy that Mr. Bush wants to create.
There is a wonderful opportunity here, though, that I haven’t heard anyone talk about, yet: we are now forced, as a nation, to acknowledge and confront the widespread discrimination against gays and lesbians, and I believe that Americans will unite against segregation now, just as we did during the Civil Rights movement.
I believe in America. I believe in the Bill of Rights, and the founding principals of this nation. I believe that goodness, compassion, and tolerance will triumph over hatred, bigotry, and ignorance.
And I am proud to stand up for these beliefs, whatever the consequences.
Thanks so much for deciding to publish that Wil, I nearly cried when I read it. Thankyou.
Alex
x x
Wil Wheaton cussed. Great speech, Wil!!!
Thank you so much for that thoughtful and well-written protest against the “master of political illusion.” Dubba’s administration has become incredibly skilled at diversion and distraction. It’s a crying and frustrating shame that we seem to live in a nation suffering from mass ADD. I can’t even begin to tell you how disappointed I am in Colin Powell’s association with this administration. When Dubba took office and announced Mr. Powell’a appointment, I had hopes that there would be a sane voice in the oval office to temper the insanity that I foresaw. Wish I hadn’t been wrong 🙁
Anyway, just wanted to share an interesting bit of GWB trivia with you…Were you aware that 1/3 of Texans have NO medical insurance? The situation is so bad that the hospitals have started turning away patients for non-payment. That seems to be the legacy their former governer has left them. I have to wonder what he’ll leave the rest of the nation when we finally get him the hell out of Washington??
Thanks for such a great blog, Wil! Can’t wait to read JAG!
Dierdra
I’m never quite sure whether to classify myself as a Republican or a Democrat. I’m strongly opposed to entitlement programs and the growth of government (I’m *very* attached to my pocket book, and I think that taking 1/3+ of my income for taxes every year is highway robbery), but I also think that the government should stay out of my personal life.
Congress and the President shouldn’t even have the opportunity to voice an opinion on who we marry or what we do with our lives and our bodies. It’s a slippery slope that Bush is treading on.
The Framers of the Constitution saw issues such as this as regional problems that should be handled at the local & state levels, because it is there that we have the most input into the policies and laws that govern our daily lives. If Minnesotans want to live in the Dark Ages and ban gay marriages, they should have that right: BUT, they most certainly should NOT have a say in the same issue for San Franciscans.
Comment 5,692 e99 for the day, I’m sure =).
PS: I’ve noticed no difference in the value or “sanctity ” (rolls eyes) of my marriage since this issue started. People who want to tell other people what they can and can’t do should’ve been taught better in preschool, and definitely should NOT be deciding our collective fate as a nation. Om mani padme hum.
So you just want to change the name of this country to “Sodam and Gamora”?
This nation is supposed to be about freedom. So why are we always trying to deny American citizens their freedoms. Wil, I agree with you on this completely. President Bush must be stopped. Equality for all. He keeps saying that gay marriage will ruin the good-name and values of marriage. Well, let me leave you with this. Straight couples have been getting married and then divorced right and left. The divorce rate keeps increasing. I think the good-name and values of marriage have long since been gone and changed. The Catholic Church is no better….saying that we should accept one another, be tolerant, and live in harmony. But in their next breath, accept for these people over here. The Catholic Church has made their stance on the issue, but that doesn’t mean that Catholics believe it. I’m a Catholic, and I believe in gay marriage. I’ve already written countless articles on my website about this…including one that I just posted. It’s an election year, so I’ll probably have more to say on it as the months pass. We must speak up and tell Mr. Bush to get back in touch with the American people and to stop this craziness.
Than you so much for this, Mr. Wheaton.
I’m a bisexual, and I’ve spent the last six years working with other students to ensure that students who come after us will be able to attend safe schools, free from discrimination based on their sexual and gender orientation.
While we’ve come a long way, it feels like plugging river with a pebble when we’re faced with the prospect that our work will mean nothing when we enter the ‘real world.’ We’ll still be second-class citizens once we leave school grounds, and that scares us.
Statements of support like the one you have written mean more to us than you know.
…and if its any consolation, we keep lists, too. And disposable income to spend on shiny new books.
mar
Right on Wil! My wife and I live with her brother, who’s a gay man. He’s shown no signs of being interested in getting married, but it’s made all of our lives a little better that he now has the choice. (Hurray for Ontario!)
So this is what passes for bravery these days? Surely your past posts have demonstrated that 95% of your audience here agree with you on anti-Bush matters.
I tend to agree that a constitutional amendment to legalize such bigotry is appalling. I can’t think of a more horrific use of our Constitution.
But it’s been my experience that Democrats are far more experienced in the wedge-driving game than Republicans. Let’s not forget that Clinton had every opportunity to veto the original “Defense of Marriage Act” in 1996 and instead chose to sign it.
If Clinton had shown some “bravery” then, perhaps we wouldn’t be discussing this matter today.
Thank you, Wil. I love that you actually GET IT. But of course after reading your blog for awhile, I don’t see how you wouldn’t.
To those who are so concerned with what their higher power thinks about marriage, you should lobby the government to completely obliterate all things marriage-related. Keep “marriage” as a religious institution for those who feel they are holier-than-I and my partner, and institute a “civil union” status for everybody in order to gain the Special Rights that the government bestows upon the betrothed.
Otherwise, we’ll have to make another Constitutional amendment to make sure that people of two different faiths cannot call their union “marriage” since that concept goes against many people’s concept of what a valid marriage is. As well, we’ll need another amendment to keep Catholics for example from every remarrying. A Catholic who divorces cannot get married in the eyes of the church again – however they can get married in the eyes of the State as many more times as they like. This is an affront to the Almighty! And don’t get me started on those Hindu marriages!!
Really,
Wil,
Kudos to you for the backbone to speak your beliefs! The whole idea behind free speech is so that citizens can discuss the issues of the day and hopefully come up with the best solution through logic and debate.
However, I think that you would be more effective in getting your points across by pointing out the problems that homosexual couples face when they are denied marraige as opposed to an emotional, illogical, half-baked conspiracy theory such as the “Southern Strategy”. This conspiracy of dividing the country sounds more like the plot of an X-Files episode rather than the possibility that Bush might just promoting what he sincerely believes to be the correct course of action according to his faith. I’m not necessarily advocating Bush’s position, but I think you are accusing him of something terrible that possibly isn’t true. I’m willing to bet that you hate it when commenters on your site make unfounded accusations about you that aren’t correct.
Wil, you’re a talented and passionate guy. You have it in you to do better than this post. If you want to change people’s hearts and minds you’re better off doing it with supportable facts rather than alluding to some speculative theory. Wild, glib statements such as these were the downfall of Howard Dean.
Wil,
I agree with you 100% on this issue. You are right in saying this will backfire: How do I know? Because I actually *voted* for Bush in 2000 (unfortunately)…and there is no way I am going to make that same mistake twice after something as blatently against the spirit of this country as this. It’s revolting, authoritarian, fundamentalist garbage, and one of the main reasons I decided to leave the republican party for the libertarian party…
Ben
Replace homosexual with child
Replace homosexual with animal
What about people who want to love more than one person?
Again Where to Draw The Line?
What makes any law valid?
If I want to sell cocaine, use cocaine why can’t I? Where are my rights? Where are my protections?
Why can’t I kill people I don’t like?
Why can’t a father marry and have children with his daughter?
Why can’t a mother marry her son?
Don’t these people love? Don’t these people have rights? Are they second class citizens?
What about my right to steal for what I want?
Can’t I kill someone and marry his wife and take his land?
Why can’t I lie in court? What business is it of theirs?
It all reminds me of something I heard on TV once:
“whateva, whateva…I do what I want”
GULP! I agree with Wil on something?!?!?! I consider myself pretty conservative but messing with the constitution about something like this is nuts. Like you said, Wil, leave government out of it altogether. That is what any true conservative should say in the first place.
GULP! I agree with Wil on something?!?!?! I consider myself pretty conservative but messing with the constitution about something like this is nuts. Like you said, Wil, leave government out of it altogether. That is what any true conservative should say in the first place.
What is that guy on? Over here in the UK I’m hearing every day on the news about Bush just going to more and more extremes and I just find myself thinking each time ‘Why is Tony Blair working with this man?’
As for marriage, well that is not the business of the government – what can they know about the love of a couple who have decided to spend their lives together? Regardless of sex? To make it a political issue is just cheap and insensitive – and to decide blatantly to re-engineer another age of hate is just ….I can’t think of what to say to describe it. What I can say it that the thought of it pisses me off big time. I have had several gay friends and they’re no different to anyone else physically, emotionally or socially; they’ve just made a choice regarding their sexuality. And by the way, what about bisexual people too? Are they also going to be victimised? Let’s not stop there, if this bill gets passed, who’s next? Fetishists? Nudists? Furries? Anyone who won’t tow the line? The thought is horrifying.
If a gay couple want to get married that’s fine by me; marriage is a big commitment, it is also a demonstration of how much a couple love each other enough to consider spending the rest of their lives together. So what if it’s two guys or two girls? What difference does it make? Where does it actually say in the Bible (or in any other book of faith) that you can’t do that?
I really, really hope this guy doesn’t win the next election.
Ditto – what you said.
I’m a republican that is ashamed to be one anymore, what with how the party is being represented these days. Kerry was totally right on about Bush not addressing real issues. I’m switching parties before the FL primaries, I can’t stand it anymore.
And here’s my two cents (if anyone actually reads this after all these comments!)
If there’s one defining characteristic about George W., it’s his shining streak of self-interest. In that vein, I don’t think this “amendment” he’s proposing is solely based on homophobia (although there’s a healthy dose of it there.)
It’s very, very simple: Follow the money. Who would REALLY be hurt by allowing two people of the same sex to formalize this union through the institution of marraige?
I’ll tell you who. Big insurance companies. Because as soon as you allow marraige between two loving partners of the same sex, then the insurance companies have to allow them to register as beneficiaries. They get the same benefits (gasp) and the same rights as heterosexual couples enjoy. And that’s what ultimately is driving this whole campaign, whether we realize it or not. Even most democrats are not in favor of marriage, they’re in favor of “civil unions” – which, I’d bet money, WON’T be recognized by insurance companies.
Allowing gay and lesbian couples to marry hurts ansolutely no one – not my marraige, not the fabric of my community, no one. And although this stance may get him more campaign contributions from the big insurance companies, and more votes from the ultra-conservatives – there’s no way I’m going to make the same mistake twice and vote for Bush again.
Mr. Ben doesn’t seem to fully grasp the concept of CONSENSUAL.
And why do bigots always love to throw in ANIMALS into the equation as if the love my partner and I share (or anybody else in a loving and committed relationship shares) can even compare to bestiality.
Bravo Wil! No matter what someone believes, legalized discrimination can never be an acceptable answer. Thank goodness for people like yourself who have the moral character to speak up and be heard!
So Mark…where do you draw the line?
Then who are you to draw the line?
So animals is wrong, but your daughter is ok?
So does that mean that a pot smoker is discriminated against for smoking pot?
It’s interesting that they want to ban gay marriages, but won’t even look at the idea of banning adultery. Hmmmm.
Not A Biggot (and apparently Not A Speller):
Where is the line drawn? Quite simply: two unrelated adults in a consensual relationship.
Keep your slippery slope in your bedroom, por favor.
Mark,
Who are you to limit it to two consenting adults?
Three is better than two, and four is better than three!!
No slippery slope just why not 3 or 4?
In response to Michael Phillips, 11:07am
I understand the arguments you make. In brevity, I for one hold fast to the Romans 1 description of the world, decaying into a fallen state where people blur what is right and wrong. One symptom of which is that unnatural things are acknowledged as natural. While the Leviticus verses spell out clearly who you should and should not have intercourse with, without explanation “why,” the fuller descriptions of the actions of the Sodomites and the future proscribed by Paul in Romans correlates in my mind ungodly living and homosexuality.
But that’s one guy’s view, and it should not be in the Constitution because “I say so.” But, the majority of people who feel as I do aren’t just stretching the Bible for our own political gains or cultural biases. It’s there.
Your Librial is showing Wil. You might try listening to Rush you will be so much better if you do.
Wil,
Thank you for taking a stance on this issue. Everyone should make their voice heard so Bush knows that the majority of America is not behind this insanity. If you get on boycott lists for this I wouldn’t be too worried since you would only be losing a few close minded morons you’d be better off without.
Good post and keep up the good work. I have to say I thought you were pretty cool just from TNG, but from checking out your site over the last few months I find you are awesome for many other reasons as well.
Very good comment,SK.
Wil,your opinions on this travesty in society is right on. I haven’t read all the comments on this page so if I sound redundant,oh well.
I see all this emphasis placed on the sanctity of marriage,that it should be between a man and a woman and that the Bible intended it so. It’s funny how the Bible is always touted when the Great American Way of Life is threatened in any way shape or form. The Bible this,the Bible that. It’s Adam & Eve not Adam and Steve-get real people. We preach about being the perfect conservative society but we all as a whole fuck it up daily. We live in a society where Michael Jackson is allowed to have children share his bed and sniff his collection of their underwear. Any constitutional amendments out there to prohibit that? A priest sexually molests children.No constitutional amendment proposed to handle that(perhaps has something to do with the separation of church and state). Yet,a gay couple wants to get married and American society is all up in arms. It’s immoral,they’ll tell you. God did not intend for man to be with man or woman with woman. Well,sometimes a marriage between man & woman is immoral. I’ve seen gay couples last longer in relationships than most heterosexual couples. There are some heterosexual couples who shouldn’t even be married and who rightly tarnish the sanctity of marriage. There is nothing wrong with two people who love each other and want to commit to that-even if they’re of the same sex. Get real. I hope all this conservative hysteria dies with Bush’s generation because he sure as fuck doesn’t speak for me.
Let’s just blame Bush’s latest action on the Smallpox vaccination(as if he really had one).
Seriously though,Please don’t just talk the talk vote this foolish arrogant so called man out this November.Separation of Church and State means just that!!
Bang on Wil, thanks for your thoughts and the forum for us to talk it out. It’s good to hear an American speak out – sometimes in Canada we get the depressing picture that you are all GWB clones, and that’s just not the case here, thank you!!
Well it’s a long list here but for those of you tuning in a couple times like myself to see what’s new, here’s my response to a few posters:
Thanks Bryan for a measured stance that calls for national discussion on what it really is we value. Good separation of civil rights and religious ideals.
However, in your call for a discussion of what special rights the ‘breeders’ might retain, you are making the same mistake as the authors of the document that Dave Campbell offered us: that gay people do not procreate.
I took up Dave’s challenge to read the doc he posted: http://www.marriageinstitute.ca/images/mmmode.pdf
Unfortunately it’s not particularly balanced and its biases are clear. Being queer does not make one of these authors unbiased, nor does being female.
What I would note in particular is the repeated insistence that gay marriages ‘do not’ or ‘cannot’ produce children – a common misunderstanding and weapon against queer families. But of course they do, especially lesbian couples, and gay male pairs adopt and/or bring their ‘natural’ children to a marriage as well. (It’s especially undermining of their argument to say that sperm donation is an acceptable outcome of marriage in cases of infertility – thus upholding the apparently prime procreation purposes of straight marriage – yet sperm donation to lesbian couples is not). Many, many queer people have kids, often born while in het marriages before they come out.
I am also personally offended by their insistence that marriage is for procreation and that, say, my decision to not have kids is somehow a ‘mistake’ or I might change my mind or have an ‘accident’ thus still fulfilling my role as an ostensibly ‘straight’ person in a marriage. The ideological underpinnings are clear: no single person is a proper member of the community, and no non-procreating person is either.
Interesting that their reasons for why ‘every society needs a public heterosexual culture’ includes encouraging men to give back to the community by being fathers, and helping men be active in family life – forming a ‘healthy form of masculine identity.’ I’m all for healthy masculinity, but since they have not one word about what marriage can give to women (women are assumed to be only giving to – ‘cooperating’ – not getting from) I am already understanding their gendered as well as anti-single stance.
In their final analysis, gay marriage’s hugest impact will be on the psyche of the young male of tomorrow, who will look for a negative identity in lieu of the ‘proper’ married male adulthood he ‘should’ have, except that gay marriage will take away the women he ‘should’ have access to marry.(p.13)
Whoa. While it is laudable to be concerned for the many cultural factors that affect youth, this in essence is saying: women must not have their own choices about their sexuality or indeed to not marry (single mothers are at fault here as well) – they must marry men in order that men have the preferred identities, practices, roles that society thinks they should have. Women are made to serve men’s personal needs on all levels, and to have none of their own. It’s classic misogynist thinking. (Not to mention condemning all men who choose not to marry as having a negative identity, implying this is the cause of deviance and violence.)
My point is that this is indeed one of the great fears of gay marriage: women will have choices, many women may not choose to be with men, and society, as usual, will fall because of it. (They said the same over women having the vote – actually thought women would stop marrying, which begs the q. of how bad marriage must be for political equality to make women chuck it entirely.) And men, who are really soulless violent apes, will tear down civilization because they didn’t get their women. If I was a guy I’d be seriously offended by all the implications here.
Real men who want real relationships with women (or men) – not automatons to service them – are left out of the picture. Their ideas of marriage are irrelevant. And women don’t count at all.
I think everyone who wants a healthy, equal, loving relationship is being attacked by anti-gay marriage rhetoric.
Personally, I say if you’re worried about marriage, go after the adulterers, the incest perpetrators, the spousal abusers. The ones who really ruin marriage, and our society, and create much of the ‘negative’ identities that you’re so worried about. Clean up your own house first.
Thanks again Wil for the room to rant. Canada is struggling, but we might be getting somewhere – you’re all welcome to join us (well, as long as you’re a white, middle class professional… that’s another rant entirely.)
Thanks, Wil. My marriage is fine too. Us straight couples have to stand up for the rights of our friends and neighbors and hope they would do the same for us. 😀
Oh, and I tried to ignore the troll who is comparing homosexuality to beastiality and considers himself not to be a biggot, but I just can’t…There must be a new definition of biggot of which I was unaware. Probably one Bush came up with.
Wil – as always, your blog is intelligent, insightful and timely. More than 30 (THIRTY – pardon my caps) years ago, before we were even here, Pierre Elliot Trudeau, then-Prime Minister of Canada made the comment that the government has no place in the bedrooms of the nation (slight paraphrase). No one has the right to tell us whom we can spend our lives with. An amendment to your constitution is an abhorrent idea and reflects the homophobic, xenophobic, everythingnotwhiteandfromtexasphobic ways of your current president. As a not-so-neutral outsider, I hope that all responsible Americans cast their votes in November, and save your beautiful country and its wonderful people from the future which Mr. Bush and his cronies have planned for you. Its not a pretty future, and it will change everthing for all of us. Go Wil!
I agree. Well said.
As has been said, the *majority* of americans believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. Shouldn’t america (which is a democracy, if I remember correctly) bow to the will of the majority and keep marriage the way most americans believe it should be?
I think Bush was forced to play this hand because of the extra-legal actions of the mayor of san francisco. It would have been better to try to legitimize gay marriages when there is more public acceptance.
Yeah, what you said, Wil!!! Well done.
I’ve been saying all along: If you replaced “gay” with “black” or “Jewish” or “handicapped,” no intelligent person would accept that. Gay prejudice is the last bastion of hate, and I don’t know WHY!
No more of this “separate but equal” schyt.
Wil,
Thank you.
Thank you, Wil, for posting this. I was actually pissed enough about what Bush said to have written a letter to my congresspeople:
I strongly urge you to not lend support to any proposal to ban same sex marriages, or government mandated definition of marriage.
I do not believe that the government has the right to tell its citizens who they may fall in love with and choose to spend their lives with. My own marriage would probably have been deemed
Foreigner: The Bill of Rights is specifically designed to protect the minority from the majority – that’s why it’s there. Why do you think it’s so hard to amend the constitution? The system is deisnged so that people can retain their rights despite the whim of all but the strongest majority.
I agree and disagree with you on this subject. I don’t think a Constitutional Amendment is in any way necessary for this subject. It goes against many things the Constitution stands for. It makes me think of all the horrible things that were caused by Prohibition.
However, state rulings on marriage and its definition are a problem. The issue on this isn’t marriage itself, but the sanctity of the union. Christianity, Judaism, and Islam,the three greatest religions in the US today (and to which, the vast majority of Americans belong), agree on the fact that marriage is a union between man and woman, and that homosexuality is a sin. So for me the problem isn’t so much that two men or two women want to live together, it’s that a few judges wish to make me and the rest of the nation treat this as morally responsible. It isn’t. The book of my religion (in my case, the Bible) clearly states in in three different places.
That is the problem with this issue as a whole. And it’s one that millions of Americans will side with President Bush on. I don’t like the idea of the new Amendment at all; I don’t really see it as necessary. But this entire controversy promises to be a huge issue in this campaign, and I believe Bush wishes to mince no words on where he stands.
And to use an attack on his message of bi-partisanship on togetherness against his stance was wrong. Bush wants to find solutions for the country that a majority of America can agree upon. He wants to bridge the huge gap that has grown between Democrats & Republicans. He still wants this. Both parties do not. His stance against homosexual marriage isn’t because of a hatred for homosexuals, it is for the reasons I posted above. (And just as an aside, if he were to try to institute this amendment, it would require bi-partisan support, as an amendment would require a 2/3 vote in both branches of Congress.)
As always, thanks for the interesting commentary.
The sad thing is, when I saw the news announce Bush’s stance the first thing out of my father’s mouth was “Good! I don’t want gay immigrants bringing their gay spouses into this country!”
I love the man dearly, but homosexuality and religion are two areas in which I wholeheartedly disagree with him. It was sad to see that despite being accepting of various races, he still has some prejudices that he was raised with. I have to remind myself that he was raised in an era of bigotry.
I was irritated enough when Bush said he wanted to only appoint people with “common sense” and by such he defined having common sense as believing in a God.
I don’t really know if the man is intentionally malignant, or if he’s just ignorant. I’d like to think he’s ignorant. I met George Bush Sr, and he seemed nice enough, but he still had policies that were detrimental to the country.
I’m sad to say I have less faith in the people of the country in terms of voting for civil rights. We still have gender descriminatory laws (such as the indecent exposure laws which are biased against females), political leaders that spit in the face of the constitution by spitting in the face of freedom of religion, and most certainly discrimination against homosexuality. I’ve found that the gender and sexual discriminations are closely bound to the religious ones. The religion is often the origin if not the excuse. It’s very sad.
I hope things work out though.
I don’t think this issue is Liberal, Conservative, Democratic or whatever. This issue is about people.
Wil, I completely agree.
After reading many of the comments posted here, I think I should point out a few things that people are missing. I believe they are the true heart of the matter.
First, I believe at that this is really a monatary issue. Question, If I were to waive my magic wand and make the entire issue go away and deny same-sex marriages and revert to status quo, would that stop same sex partners from cohabitating and raising children? Unlikely. At issue is do we as a nation bestow monetary and legal rights to a class of citizens that were a mere twenty years ago regarded with contempt. What are the fiscal and social impacts of granting such a change?
You are talking about a fundamental shift in how we as a society recognize the family unit. So where do we redraw the line? Do we recognize same sex unions, or will we in another twenty years time begin to recognize communal marriages, or polygamy. How does the property get divided when we die? How looks after the kids?
Also to state that gay marriages have been taking place a few weeks or months and nothing has happen yet (in all due respect) is pretty low brow. The real question Wil is what happens when these people’s marriages begin to fail. Think about it, marriages have a 50% failure rate. Is it reasonable to assume that everyone one of these same sex marriages will end happily. Do we as a nation want to add to the court burden already? DO NOT dismiss this as a secondary issue. The devil is in the details. WE WILL NOT KNOW FOR YEARS the true measure of the impact.
Second, the amendment is being proposed because it is becoming clear that courts are dictating laws. Let me be very clear in this. The Mass. State Supreme Court gave an order to their own legislature dictating to them on what to make law. Courts DO NOT have this power. They can interpret the existing laws only. This is a matter that belongs to the people to vote on. Isn’t that what your issue is with Bush that the people’s vote was being denied?
I ask you what is the difference here? The vote in California banned these unions for good or ill. The mayor of SF. decided to flout it, why not just go to the courts? His actions are a direct cause to giving fuel to the fire. The majority of Americans are liberal minded except when it comes to core values(loyalty, love, honesty, right of education,etc) and do not greet change quickly in these.
For those thinking of moving to Canada, I wish you well. Your right to emmigrate is one I cherish as well. My own ancestors lived in Canada for a time and I assure you it is a beautiful country. They have a serious population growth problem and will probably welcome you there. Just be sure you change your citizenship when you get there. I can’t stand people who won’t commit to what they believe in.
To those foreigners, I welcome your opinion, but please make it a informed one. If you saw it on TV, it doesn’t necessarily make it true.
Oh and personally insulting Bush and the majority of Americans who don’t agree with you only makes you look petulant. Stick with reasoned arguments, “Bush is evil, Bush sucks” just clutter up the board.
Anyways, thats my two cents worth.
Bush’s (and others’) ignorance (or arrogance – this is out for debate) really comes through when he speaks of “activist judges” – I find it hard to believe that he’s never been educated in the wonderful checks and balances incorporated into our system.
If what was popular ruled the land, perhaps in 2004 the folks at American Standard would be shipping two sets of drinking fountains for every order placed.
Wow, this really blows me away.
I’m gay.
Every hour of every day, I live with some level of fear, anxiety, and depression. Some days worse than others. When I was in school, I worried that I’d get beat up if I got found out. Or my friends would dump me. I worried that my parents would beat me or throw me out of the house. When I left home, I joined the Navy, and worried that I would be imprisoned if I got found out (before “don’t ask, don’t tell”). After 8 years of service to this country, I left the Navy. It got better after that, mostly. I only had to worry about casual namecalling or being fired from my job, which is at least not as bad as prison.
Over the years, things seemed to get better. I found friends who were accepting of me, and a life-partner (can’t call him my husband, yet). My fears were renewed when Matthew Shepard was killed. They waned when shows like “Will & Grace” and “Queer Eye…” became popular.
I’ve been quite depressed to hear the reactions to the San Francisco weddings and the proposed Constitutional Amendment–the polls I hear on the news that say most American’s don’t support allowing gays to marry, and the fact that DOMA had sufficient support to pass the threshold needed for a Constitutional Amendment. I’ve been wanting to crawl into a hole and disappear, or move to Canada. I despaired that discrimination could be this acceptable and widespread in this country. Why do people hate me or fear me or feel threatened by me so much just for loving a guy instead of a girl?
So I was so blown away with your blog entry. It restores my faith that some shred of sanity remains in this country, that not all straight people hate me or want to enshrine discrimination into the Constitution. Thank you, thank you, thank you. I’m furthermore stunned by the hundreds of comments (mostly) in support of your stance. Wow. You and your fans made my day, and lowered my level of fear, at least for a while.
You totally rock. \m/
Check this out. This is funny! It’s a proposed version of the amendment based on “Biblical Principles”. I wonder just how many people can actually get married if the definition of marriage keeps going the way of the bible.
http://www.whitehouse.org/dof/marriage.asp
– Emily
Good call, Wil. I’m a devout Christian and I basically agree. My preference: get rid of the idea of state/federal/workplace recognition of marriage and replace it with contracts.
I wrote more on my blog, including asking what should be an obvious question: why 2? Who can discriminate against polygamy? Polynamy? Communes? Not making a slippery-slope argument, just asking the question. More:
http://www.tallent.us/CommentView.aspx?guid=b2c8e3ac-4732-4ff0-b5bd-2af81bf93ca8
I think the thing that annoys me the most is that Bush and his ilk are trying to justify their deep-seated homophobia through quoting doctrine that doesn’t even apply to their professed faith, which is just hypocritical.
Marriage didn’t become a religious issue in the Christian tradition until the Fourth Lateran Council (1215) under Pope Innocent III. Prior to that marriage was a civil, contractual affair. So the “sanctity of marriage” within the confines of the Catholic Church only–not Christianity as a whole–is a mere 800 years old. (It is notably also the only of the seven sacraments in the Catholic tradition that was not commissioned by Christ, since it was a preexisting civil condition, which I consider further evidence of its questionable status as a sacrament.)
Since the schism between orthodox and catholic church had already happened by then–in 1054 to be exact–I’m assuming that the orthodox churches made marriage one of their holy mysteries at one of their ecumenical councils at some point, but I don’t know when.
Martin Luther, on the other hand, was very vocal that, “Not only is the sacramental character of matrimony without foundation in Scripture; but the very traditions, which claim such sacredness for it, are a mere jest… Marriage may therefore be a figure of Christ and the Church; it is, however, no Divinely instituted sacrament, but the invention of men in the Church, arising from ignorance of the subject.” (cf. “Von den Ehensachen,” “De captivitate Babylonica”) Therefore any denomination that follows the Reformed tradition of Luther (Calvinists, Presbyterians, Puritans, Congregationalists, United Church of Christ, and Baptists) technically shouldn’t believe in the sanctity to marriage to begin with (regardless of whether they actually do), because it is contrary Luther’s teachings.
Bush claims to be a Methodist, and Methodists only recognize baptism and communion as sacraments. So whenever he’s talking of “the sanctity of marriage” I’m thinking he either doesn’t know what the hell he’s talking about, or else he hasn’t looked up the dictionary definition of the word “sanctity.”
And I’ll be buying your book, mostly because I wish a lot more celebrities had the guts to do what you just did by posting this. Thank you.
Hmm. Interesting.