Is the "Same Sex Marriage" melee a trap? For Secularists?

[JanMichael]

Or anyone else who doesn't wish to prescribe to one particular religion/faith?

""The president will announce his support for a constitutional amendment to protect the sanctity of marriage," said White House spokesman Scott McClellan. Bush was to make the announcement in the White House Roosevelt Room at 10:45 a.m. EST."

For instance I was married in a County Courthouse last summer and guess what? "god" was not mentioned in the service once, not once. It was a beautiful Secular wedding in a fabulous courtyard with no "god" present.

Did that protect the "Sanctity of Marriage"? Not if we're using the same definition for "Sanctity" it isn't.

=======================================
Main Entry: sanc·ti·ty
Pronunciation: 'sa(k)-t&-tE
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -ties
Etymology: Middle English saunctite, from Middle French saincteté, from Latin sanctitat-, sanctitas, from sanctus sacred
1 : holiness of life and character : GODLINESS
2 a : the quality or state of being holy or sacred : INVIOLABILITY b plural : sacred objects, obligations, or rights
=======================================

Not a terribly Secular word, is it?

So is this a tricky ploy to invalidate/attack the non-Religious regardless of sexual preferences?

Personally I find it improbable that the "final" constitutional amendments wouldn't address those godless troglodytes that call themselves "married" when "god" wasn't in the ceremony.

[tobinov]

1. covenant vs. contract

same sex couples and liberals need to approach this in the language of "covenant" not "contract".

When Bush* uses the "Sanctity of Marriage" line, it is code to the Religious Right and their covenant to God.
"Civil Union" is a "only" social contract to them.

I think we could stop these calls for constitutional amendments as first, a violation of the first amendment and secondly, the fourteenth if we can regain control the semantics of this issue and use their terminology against them.

[JanMichael]

2. Maybe the right isn't so stupid after all. They keep creaming us...

...with semantics.

I really do see this as a bigger issue than simply the same sex marriages. I have a feeling that it'll be expanded.

[Carni]

4. I agree 100%

There is something funny going on here beyond the obvious...

I was married by a Judge not in a church.

If the right has their way, will secular heterosexual people such as myself also have to enter into "civil unions" if they choose to forego the church route after this change to our constitution?

That would certainly give the bush co. brand "Christians" yet another way to flag those of us that aren't as religiously minded as they think we should be, wouldn't it?

I wonder if they'll let civil union people's kid's take the last name of their fathers or if they will be considered "bastards" by the right winged loons?

[tobinov]

5. I agree with you

there are larger issues at play here and that this will be expanded.

It is very clear that the Rove and the Bush League are looking for hot-button issues to get reactionary and emotional responses from voters--its a clever way to blur truth and avoid thoughtful analysis.

Notice how Bush is singling out "activist judges" in this issue when he himself is appointing ultra-right wing judges to do the same...

I think they will likely try to expand the "Sanctity of Marriage" debate into a constitutional anti-abortion amendment...

(edit re: spelling)

[camero]

3. It's the slippery slope to theocracy

Once they can "define" what a marriage is and is not, then they will branch out into other areas as well. Notice the state says what a church is through the licensing procedure which violates the seperation of church and state itself. It's just one more step in the blending of church and state.

Bah, can't think right today. Maybe I should just watch. :)