And I don't want to raise my kids (ha) in a society where a president finds it acceptable to bluntly stick religion into the constitution, despite the Establishment clause prohibition on same. Regardless of what you or I might wish, the definition of family IS changing. You cannot ban a lesbian woman from having a child, nor can you forbid motherhood to a divorcee or a single girl. And who's to tell me that a woman and a child don't make a family without a father? Single motherhood is far more acceptable now than it was thirty years ago. Bush is trying very hard to streamline the society's mentality into what he's comfortable with (gee, that was an awkward phrase)--a statistical mother-father-2.5 kids-dog-white-picket fence family. But what he's doing is absolutely unconstitutional.
As far as the founding fathers... well, it can be both ways. On the one hand, Constitution IS changing. The definition of "man" is different from what it was in 1776 (namely it includes all races and both sexes, which it did not at the time). I don't think that the founding fathers viewed Constitution as static--they were reasonable thinking men, and I absolutely cannot believe that they would not provide for some changes. On the other hand, even THEN, they put in measures respecting separation of Church and State--regardless of their own faith--for which they have my deepest respect. Not so our president. :(
First of all, Bush is not imposing anything on anyone. There is a difference between trying to influence and imposing. I believe all he did was ask the Congress to vote on the issue. And the Senate voted against it. On the other hand, all of the gay activists are trying to ignore the voters by taking the matter to courts with sympathetic judges. All the polls consistently state that the majority of americans are against same-sex marriage.
Second of all, part of growing up is recognizing that the world is not the perfect place that we would like it to be. We are forced to choose our battles. The battle of protecting children is more important than the rights of adult gays and lesbians.
To your point, various lifestyles have become acceptable these days. However, they were not proven good for the kids. Yes, it is acceptable for parents to get divorced or place their sexual desires above the welfare of their children. It is even acceptable to talk about it on day-time TV.
I couldn't get over my parents' divorce until recently. Nor could my husband or my friend's wife.
Well, divorce is a necessary evil, I suppose (though I don't view it as evil at all, for personal reasons). But you are making it about personal issues, and if so, I can tell you that I LOVED the fact that my parents got divorced. I found it absolutely a blessing. What follows? Absolutely nothing. It's a personal view, you cannot craft the entire country in a particular way because you were scarred as a child (though I can bet you a body part--most likely, had your parents stayed together "for the kids", like mine did, you, too, would have something to get over. Divorce does not break up a GOOD marriage, in most cases).
As to relative importance of issues. "The battle of protecting children is more important than the rights of adult gays and lesbians." FOR YOU! TO YOU! I could not give a flying fuck about protecting someone else's children (not to mention that as your child's parent, you can limit her exposure to gay-ness in this society by, for one, not letting her watch the TV). I care a lot more when a fundamental right is being denied to someone. I don't like it. I don't even know what galls me about it, but I don't like it at all.
What Bush is trying to do is to influence a definition of a fundamental right, which would then officially deny that fundamental right to a group of people, thus precluding the courts from ever allowing gay marriages.
"all of the gay activists are trying to ignore the voters by taking the matter to courts with sympathetic judges"--Well, courts have been at the forefront of the social change in this country, like it or not. They ARE the vehicle for changing the law--in cases of abortion, death penalty, miscegenation laws, etc. I don't see anything wrong with it--I think it was meant that way from the beginning.
Я считаю что в стране должно править большинство. Страна в которой меньшинство насаживает свои законы на большинство является тиранией. Если 5% населения еяляется геями, то я хочу слышать про их стиль жизни 5% своего времени. Я не хочу чтобы мой ребенок ходил в государственную школу и читал книжки про детей у которых есть 2 мамы или 2 папы.
I understand that you don't have a flying fuck about other people's children - probably because you have no children of your own. 3 years ago I would be saying the same things you are saying. However, things will change when you become a mother.
Marriage is NOT a fundametal right. It is a lot of fundamental responsibility though. Marriage came into this world as a union of a man and a woman for the purpose of having children. I have no problem with gays and lesbians living together and defining their unions however they want.
Courts should not be at the forefront of social change. Voters should be. Otherwise, things will get so out of control that the separation of Church and State will be the least of your concerns.
Tanya, I will respond to the rest of it later at lunch, but right to marry IS fundamental (this is textbook constitutional law). Supreme Court views it this way.
Also, courts have managed rather decently over the past two hundred years, don't you think? More or less, that is. And as for voters... I'm sorry, but i have fairly little faith in the vox populi in this country. How can voters be at the forefront of social change when on average 30% of them turn out for each election?
Being gay is not bad or harmful. Imposing the views of the minority on the majority is extremely dangerous. The majority of Americans is still against the gay marriage.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
Re: частично из-за этого
Date: 2004-07-15 09:46 am (UTC)As far as the founding fathers... well, it can be both ways. On the one hand, Constitution IS changing. The definition of "man" is different from what it was in 1776 (namely it includes all races and both sexes, which it did not at the time). I don't think that the founding fathers viewed Constitution as static--they were reasonable thinking men, and I absolutely cannot believe that they would not provide for some changes. On the other hand, even THEN, they put in measures respecting separation of Church and State--regardless of their own faith--for which they have my deepest respect. Not so our president. :(
Re: частично из-за этого
Date: 2004-07-15 10:10 am (UTC)Second of all, part of growing up is recognizing that the world is not the perfect place that we would like it to be. We are forced to choose our battles. The battle of protecting children is more important than the rights of adult gays and lesbians.
To your point, various lifestyles have become acceptable these days. However, they were not proven good for the kids. Yes, it is acceptable for parents to get divorced or place their sexual desires above the welfare of their children. It is even acceptable to talk about it on day-time TV.
I couldn't get over my parents' divorce until recently. Nor could my husband or my friend's wife.
Re: частично из-за этого
Date: 2004-07-15 10:34 am (UTC)As to relative importance of issues. "The battle of protecting children is more important than the rights of adult gays and lesbians." FOR YOU! TO YOU! I could not give a flying fuck about protecting someone else's children (not to mention that as your child's parent, you can limit her exposure to gay-ness in this society by, for one, not letting her watch the TV). I care a lot more when a fundamental right is being denied to someone. I don't like it. I don't even know what galls me about it, but I don't like it at all.
What Bush is trying to do is to influence a definition of a fundamental right, which would then officially deny that fundamental right to a group of people, thus precluding the courts from ever allowing gay marriages.
"all of the gay activists are trying to ignore the voters by taking the matter to courts with sympathetic judges"--Well, courts have been at the forefront of the social change in this country, like it or not. They ARE the vehicle for changing the law--in cases of abortion, death penalty, miscegenation laws, etc. I don't see anything wrong with it--I think it was meant that way from the beginning.
Re: частично из-за этого
Re: частично из-за этого
Date: 2004-07-15 11:44 pm (UTC)I understand that you don't have a flying fuck about other people's children - probably because you have no children of your own. 3 years ago I would be saying the same things you are saying. However, things will change when you become a mother.
Marriage is NOT a fundametal right. It is a lot of fundamental responsibility though. Marriage came into this world as a union of a man and a woman for the purpose of having children. I have no problem with gays and lesbians living together and defining their unions however they want.
Courts should not be at the forefront of social change. Voters should be. Otherwise, things will get so out of control that the separation of Church and State will be the least of your concerns.
Re: частично из-за этого
Date: 2004-07-16 04:42 am (UTC)Re: частично из-за этого
Date: 2004-07-16 05:13 am (UTC)Re: частично из-за этого
Date: 2004-07-16 05:16 am (UTC)Re: частично из-за этого
Date: 2004-07-15 11:59 am (UTC)Re: частично из-за этого
Date: 2004-07-15 03:15 pm (UTC)2. How EXACTLY would gay marriage endanger your children?
Re: частично из-за этого
Date: 2004-07-15 11:45 pm (UTC)Re: частично из-за этого
Date: 2004-07-19 12:13 am (UTC)