Bush: Discrimination 'Serves Interests of All'

[im10ashus]

President Bush has framed his support for a Constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage as a necessary defense of cherished institutions and practices.

"Marriage is the most enduring and important human institution, honored and encouraged in all cultures and by every religious faith," the president said Monday. "Ages of experience have taught us that the commitment of a husband and a wife to love and to serve one another promotes the welfare of children and the stability of society. Marriage cannot be cut off from its cultural, religious, and natural roots without weakening this good influence on society. Government, by recognizing and protecting marriage, serves the interests of all." So, you see, denying citizens who love one another and want their relationships to be sanctioned, respected and protected by the state is in everyone's interest – even, Bush assures us, the interest of those who because of their sexual orientation do not meet with this particular president's approval.

Gee, where have we heard this logic before?

Oh, yes, back in 1914, after President Woodrow Wilson dramatically expanded segregation in the federal civil service, a group of African-American leaders led by newspaper editor Monroe Trotter came to the White House to challenge the decision.

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/notion?bid=15

[meow2u3]

1. I forgot who mentioned this gem about marriage

Marriage is a fine institution, but I don't want to live in an institution.

[robbedvoter]

3. And neither - for some reason does W, aparently

:shrug:

[im10ashus]

4. LMAO!!!

Now you sound like my lover of 9 years.

:-)

[robbedvoter]

2. Isn't scapegoatig always done to "unite" the mob?

Whether in righteous hatred or relief they aren't on the receiving side of this thing, the mobs always love a good lynching.

[Skeptor]

5. Pushing a boulder up hill has it about right.

The conservatives will slip up eventually, and the whole dang ball of social progress will roll over the top of them.

[eppur_se_muova]

17. Now there's an image to contemplate. Thanks. nt

[kpete]

6. Bush just does not get it

EVER!!!

[Pacifist Patriot]

7. Unfortunately I've reached the point where my response is...

FUCK YOU ASSHOLE!

I can't even engage rationally anymore I'm so distraught, saddened and royally ticked off.

[im10ashus]

8. I feel the same way.

Like a political pinata, I feel. Beaten over the head for the last four years or more.

[ComerPerro]

9. Odd how they take studies showing the benifits of marriage

to use as justification for not allowing people to be married.

[im10ashus]

13. Isn't that the way numbers work?

You can spin them anyway you want to get the results you want.

[Stephanie]

10. Denying women the right to vote served the interest of all -

all men, that is.

[young_at_heart]

11. Bush is trying to change centuries of human nature

Homosexuality has been part of humanity always. I've read that in all societies the percentage is the same. In other words, it's a normal situation and for Bush to think he has the power to outlaw something so inherently human is the height of arrogance. Gay people getting married will have no effect on heterosexual marriage....it's just another "type" of marrriage.

[ChickMagic]

12. Tyranny of the majority

It seems the founders knew all about this little chestnut.

[Stevious]

18. Tyranny of the majority

History, tradition and majority support are not sufficient or valid reasons for laws to violate an individuals right to equal protection. One only has to look to the recent past to see examples of laws steeped in tradition, which enjoyed the support of the majority, which trampled on individual rights. In the early 1950's, racial segregation in public schools was the norm across America. Yet in 1953, the Supreme Court ruled that it deprived children of minority groups equal educational opportunities.

Eventually, progress will steamroll Bush and his cronies on this issue too.

:bounce:

[gollygee]

14. That begs a couple questions

1. What are the good benefits of marriage on society?

2. How exactly would they be weakened if gay couples were able to marry?

He has no argument so he's trying to baffle them with bullshit.

[im10ashus]

15. It's the same ole spin.

Just keep saying "it will benefit society" without backing that up with facts. And when they go on the talk shows and spout this out NOBODY questions the rhetoric or lack of facts. It's the merging of church and state.

[InkAddict]

16. In Ohio, this is how government professes to protect my

straight "marriage."

"your spouse will still be liable for any joint debts. If you file together you will be able to double your exemptions. (see Ohio bankruptcy exemptions) In some cases where only one spouse has debts, or one spouse has debts that are not dischargeable then it might be advisable to have only one spouse file. If the spouses have joint debts, the fact that one spouse discharged the debt may show on the other spouses credit report."

F&*(K REPUKES and BUSH! I stayed home 6 years to raise my daughters and took a "womanly" job in the an allied health profession after paying for my own education without loans, working full-time while carrying 16 credit hours when the time was right.

Poof! Ax the breadwinner's career by sending the jobs off to a foreign nation so they can drink more Coca Cola that will, in the end, pollute their own land and dry up water intended for their crops? Or by ending projects and contracts that will help businesses flourish in this competitive society? All without regard to whether or not there's a marriage mangled by their fascist greed!

Just like the extra employment "protections" of being over 40, and extra points for military service, George can take this "marriage protection act" and shove it! You bet I'm angry with this latest political rhetoric.

THE DESTROYERS, COMING TO A MARRIAGE NEAR YOU!

[bluethruandthru]

19. We need to ask the repukes

If they're so interested in protecting marriage...why not outlaw divorce? This seems to be the most reasonable thing to do...right?
Gay people are not threat to my "traditional marriage". ...but divorce is!

[ProfessorGAC]

20. Besides, It's Oxymoronic

Discrimination CANNOT be in the interests of ALL! By definition, those being discriminated against are those whose interests are NOT served.

So, you cannot discriminate and serve EVERYONE'S interest. It's impossible.
The Professor

[ProfessorGAC]

21. Dupe

.