“Activist judges and local officials in some parts of the country are not letting up in their efforts to redefine marriage for the rest of America, and neither should defenders of traditional marriage flag in their efforts,” Bush said in a statement.
…then isn’t it all the more reason to let the states decide? “…the rest of America” might want to pass a ban, but the other parts might not. It’s called Federalism, and Republicans used to support it. But I guess the Bush White House sees a difference when people want to extend equal rights. Thank God he wasn’t in office in 1964. “Let us preserve the Anti-Miscegenation Laws”, I can hear him arguing, “we’ve had them so long, and it’s a traditional American value.”
Would the American public have allowed the Constitution to be amended to read “Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a white man and a white woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a white man and a white woman.” ? I think not. Why is this any different?
Random informative link: A series of lectures on ancient philosophy from the University of Washington. They’re easy to understand and presented well.
Incredible stupidity has always been a great source of concern for me. That anyone in this country could find any excuse to deny happiness and equality to another person shames me.