Who knows what to make of this passage? Let me fisk it:
A strong America must also value the institution of marriage. I believe we should respect individuals as we take a principled stand for one of the most fundamental, enduring institutions of our civilization.
The premise here is that allowing gay people to marry is an idea that’s incompatible with valuing the institution of marriage. But that’s the crux of the debate! If this is such an important issue, shouldn’t the president explain why he believes that allowing more people to marry is such an insult to the institution? It’s not a given. And if it is a given, then the president is simply not “respecting individuals” who differ from him. He’s dismissing them as a threat to an institution they merely want to join.
Congress has already taken a stand on this issue by passing the Defense of Marriage Act, signed in 1996 by President Clinton. That statute protects marriage under Federal law as the union of a man and a woman, and declares that one state may not redefine marriage for other states.
So does the Defense of Marriage Act stand or does it not? Who knows?
Activist judges, however, have begun redefining marriage by court order, without regard for the will of the people and their elected representatives. On an issue of such great consequence, the people’s voice must be heard. If judges insist on forcing their arbitrary will upon the people, the only alternative left to the people would be the constitutional process.
What constitutional process? A State constitutional amendment? A federal constitutional amendment? The constitutional attempt to remove or elect judges? Again, who knows? And what would the president’s position be if a state’s legislature passed equal marriage rights? There’s a majority in Massachusetts in the polls on such a matter. California has just passed a marriage-in-all-but-name civil union. Would he support a constitutional process to thwart the people’s will as well? Again: who knows?
Our Nation must defend the sanctity of marriage.
So why not tighten divorce laws? Or support a new covenant marriage? Or criticize high divorce rates? Nah. Might lose votes.
The outcome of this debate is important – and so is the way we conduct it. The same moral tradition that defines marriage also teaches that each individual has dignity and value in God’s sight.
It’s a nice sentiment, and I’m sure the president means well. But if the president really meant it he could have said something else: “The same moral tradition that defines marriage also teaches that each individual – whether gay or straight – has dignity and value in God’s sight.” But the president wants the credit of being tolerant without talking the real talk, let alone walking the real walk. If gay people have dignity and value in God’s sight, why are we unmentionable? Why are we talked about as if we are some kind of untouchable? Why in three years has this president not even been able to say the word ‘gay’ or ‘homosexual’? The reason: because Bush will not confront bigotry outright. He wants to benefit from it while finding a formula to distance himself from it. That’s not a moral stand. It’s moral avoidance. Still, the good and important news is that the president hasn’t endorsed the Federal Marriage Amendment. The Family Research Council is mad as hell.
AND THEN … : I watched Nancy Pelosi and Tom Daschle. Good grief. What whining weenies. Back to Bush.
The Dish 