President Bush Defends Sanctity of Marriage

I am trying to curtail my anger and look at President Bush as objectively as I can, but the man is a veritable idiot, and hasn't gained any points with me with the War in Iraq, his No Child Left Behind Act and especially for his recent comments about the sanctity of marriage, which is in direct reference to the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruling in November of 2003 to strike that States ban on same-sex marriage, saying it is unconstitutional and giving state lawmakers six months to craft a way for gay couples to wed.
Now I am not an American, but I do try to follow our sister nations policies and politics closely. We as Canadians are far more in tune with US policies and going-ons, then they are to ours. Not that Canadians are quiet or that we don't have our share of interesting topics to go on (sic Gay marriage, which I will delve into later) - But it has to do with the way we are bombarded by images and media from the States. One isn't likely to surf the tele without crossing some CNN or Fox network broadcast that looks more like a political ad campaign funded by the Presidency.

But I digress. President George Bush is quoted as saying,
"Marriage is a sacred institution between a man and a woman. Today's decision of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court violates this important principle. I will work with congressional leaders and others to do what is legally necessary to defend the sanctity of marriage."
Please see http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/11/20031118-4.html

If marriage was such a sacntimonius union, why is it that the going divorce rate is 50% or thereabouts (this number can be debated). If Bush thinks marriage is a "federal definition of marriage as a solely man-woman union" then maybe he should speak to the sanctity of a nation that allows for 55 minute unions (sic Britney Spears) or unions that last less than several years. I know dozens of gay couples who have been together for years (some a decade or more) who were not guaranteed the rights of union under the law becasue they were of the same sex. These loving, monogamous caring couples that I see everywhere, are no different in their love for each other, other than their gender. If only people could remove the sexual act from their minds - because that is what it all comes down to. You mention gay and people think sex. If you could see beyond these limitations people, you would see so much more life and so much more depth.

So is Bush and his administration intolerant and homophobic? Well Bush says that "I do believe in the sanctity of marriage ... but I don't see that as conflict with being a tolerant person or an understanding person". Hmmmm - I guess that explains it, huh?

I never understood any administration that would use their Constitution to take liberties and rights away. The Constitution was enacted (either Canadian or American versions) to protect the basic rights of all citizens under the law. That means everyone, Mr. Bush. You are supposed to use it to expand peoples rights not use it for prejudicial reasons, and remove them - I believe Winnie Stachelberg said something like that recently in some human rights campaign.

Anyhow that's my rant for the day. Now I can sleep better.

By the way, Canada rules and hopefully Martin (ummm- for you Americans that's not Sheen or Steve, but Paul Martin, out Prime Minister), will hold true to his agenda and preserve our rights as humans and citizens to the same rights as all for marriage.