Perkins SOTU post mortem: Where's the divisiveness?
The Family Research Council's Tony Perkins is applauding some of the president's State of the Union Address. However, the anti-gay leader is criticizing Bush's failure to address such "family" issues as a ban on abortion, stem cell research, and gay marriage:
So why didn't Bush bring up gay marriage like he has in past SOTUs? Well, it's quite simple: Gay marriage, while clearly a threat to heterosexual families worldwide, simply does not pose the same sort of danger to lame ducks and their progeny.
No word on what, exactly, Perkins would've liked to have seen from Bush. However, we imagine this....
...isn't too far off.
Marriage, a religious institution?
Somebody please help me understand why marriage by many is considered a religious institution. For the sake of discussion I would like someone to tell me why atheists are then eligible for marriage? It seems to me that heterosexual marriages are afforded just about any opportunity and environment they choose to take their vows. They can choose a church marriage, they can get married underwater, on a mountaintop, by a justice of the peace, by a ship captain and the most beautiful and holy place I can imagine to pledge their vows of love and fidelity and the promise to be there through thick and thin, is driving through a drive-in chapel in Las Vegas, as one would order a family meal. The best part, no one has to even get out of the car and the best man and woman are readily available for one of the most holy of events in ones life; holy matrimony. Has it dawned on anyone that the constitution of the United States says very clearly that all people shall be treated as equal? There are no clauses added to that, such as, except gays and African Americans. What was stated in that document then still rings very clear yet today and likely for many years to come. We don’t have to look to awfully far back into our history to find examples of how we ignored the constitution for selfish heterosexual white Anglo-Saxon citizens. It wasn’t until the early part of the nineteenth century before woman were allowed to vote. Not so long before that it slavery was legal. It wasn’t until nearly fifty years ago that African Americans weren’t allowed to marry whites. If we are to learn anything from our countries history we should then know that whenever we veer off from what the beautifully crafted document we call our nations Constitution says, it is eventually changed for reasons of being unfair. Back to my original question, I am hoping someone can give me a valid reason to prevent any two people that love each other from having the right to marry. I have heard some reasons that make no sense to me. One being that if gays were allowed to marry it would have the impact of destroying traditional marriage. We only have to look at the statistics of the success of heterosexual marriages to discover that more than half end up in divorce. Gays did not cause that. Fidelity within marriage has a terrible track record as well. Therefore I would truly like to hear some reasonable argument posed that would make sense why gay marriage ought not to be allowed. Thank you, Aaron Jason Silver www.aaronjasonsilver.com; Fennville, Mi 49408
Posted by: aaron silver | Jan 24, 2007 2:54:37 PM
Mr Siliver: You realize you posted this to a pro-gay site, right? You're preaching to the choir.
Posted by: G-A-Y | Jan 24, 2007 2:59:07 PMcomments powered by Disqus