Jon is less than impressed with President Bush for his statement released the other day in response to the Massachusetts Supreme Court's judgment.
This is a difficult issue to say much about. Opposing same sex marriage can leave one open to the charge of bigotry – maybe rightfully so. But too many of the proponents of gay marriage vilify those who oppose this development and ridicule their beliefs. All too often, wild assertions are made about those who would uphold tradition in the face of "progress".
I am opposed to homosexual marriage, although I can't say I've given it a great deal of thought. My instinctive opposition stems from my conservative views and belief that long established tradition should not be shunted aside quickly or haphazardly.
I also don't see the logic in maintaining the other restrictions on marriage if it's no longer one man and one woman. Why cannot three or more people be married? Why are polygamists not due the same "equal rights"? Why can a man not marry his sister/daughter/mother or even father/son/brother? Or why can a woman not marry her brother/father/son or even mother/daughter/sister?
Jon claims that George Bush has "ducked for cover" by declaring that "marriage is a sacred institution between a man and a women". Jon then says, "Perhaps in your church, Mr. President, but not in your country".
From what I can see there are very few "churches" that do not hold that marriage is a union of one man and one woman. Some, including Islam, allow for polygamy, but none that I could find allow for two people of the same sex to be married. It seems that it's not just George Bush's church, but all churches that oppose gay marriage.
Marriage may not be "sacred" in the "country", but there's little doubt that marriage, even in the most secular of circumstances, has referred to one man and one woman throughout the history of the United States. In the 1880s, Congress declared polygamy illegal and its renunciation by the Mormons was a prerequisite for Utah's statehood. Throughout thousands of years of Judeo-Christian history marriage has referred to one man and one woman.
The state certainly doesn't consider marriage sacred as evidenced by its consistent campaign to undermine marriage over the past 50 years. Exploding divorce rates, treating co-habiting couples as married and other changes have undermined marriage as an institution. But, never did marriage mean anything other than the union of a man and a woman.
As for Jon's legal argument that the other 49 states will have to recognize Massachusetts marriages, that seems pretty uncertain at the moment. The Defense of Marriage Act was passed in 1996 to avoid just such a situation. Some states may choose to recognize Massachusetts 's same sex marriages and some may not.
Whether Tuesday's judgment will lead to gay marriages or not is still an open question. Massachusettes lawmakers are looking at a "civil union" type arrangement that will stop short of gay marriage.
