I don't usually get too inflamed about political issues because I can usually see that there are multiple ways to see the issue...multiple approaches to a problem...opinions I can respect even if I don't share them. I see almost everything in 256 shades of grey.
But not this.
If we are to prevent the meaning of marriage from being changed forever, our nation must enact a constitutional amendment to protect marriage in America.
This makes me so angry on so many levels I'm afraid I may just be sputtering instead of reasonable.
If you read the full text of the remarks, the President frames it as a states-rights issue in danger of being lost to the activist courts. I understand the legal issues.
What I don't understand is how extending the civil institution of marriage to homosexual adult couples in any way threatens the institution, or families, or children, or society.
Until someone can give me a good answer to that question, I remain firmly convinced that it is a matter of discrimination and bigotry, and I don't see shades of grey there.
Posted by Nic at February 24, 2004 05:43 PM | TrackBackAnnika put a different perspective on it, taking those words literally about state's rights. By forcing debate on an ammendment (that's almost certainly going to fail), he's letting the entire public decide and not just a few judges with personal agendas.
I don't know if I buy it, but it's possible.
Posted by: Ted at February 25, 2004 12:13 PMI suspect that the timing of this is purely political. But as far as judicial activism goes, I don't think that is outside the political process. It is another avenue of change (an avenue that can turn right or left), and the courts have a part in that big old checks & balances system.
Posted by: nic at February 25, 2004 02:25 PM