Is this really something to worry about?

Question

A great deal of Americans are against President Bush's desire to amend the Constitution to forbid gay/lesbian marraiges from taking place. Whether homosexual marraiges are right or not is not for us mere humans to decide (and I couldn't care less since such a ban wouldn't affect me in any way), but what is the real problem with Bush wanting the Constitution amended this way? If it just so happened that the American public would be disgusted by such an act, couldn't they just vote to have the amendment amended after Bush was out of office (please remember that he doesn't have much time left at all)? Remember for a while that drinking and selling alcohol was a federal offense in the U.S. for quite a while, but that was amended after it was realized how ridiculous it was. If gay marraiges were banned and it was decided that such a ban is just as ridiculous as prohibition, couldn't the ban just be lifted in a future amendment?

Plus, I'm sure whoever we get next in the White House will be ALL OVER whatever he can get his hands on to correct whatever he considered to be mistakes caused on Bush's behalf, wouldn't he?

Answer 1

You can't make an amendment to ban gay marriage because it is a violation of other amendments. It is unconstitutional to take away rights from people.

Answer 2

No, it's nothing to worry about, the issue is a non-issue designed to shift public debate away from valid discussion and detract from important political issues. You cannot address lack of Congressional oversite if you are preoccupied with a moral debate.

The ethical or moral aspects of any issue are in the end personal choices people make that are evaluated and labeled by their society. In short peer pressure. Hence the blogbaba must simply state that homosexual behavior is a choice, not a minority or a genetic trait. One doesn't choose to be Oriental or Black any more than they choose to be tall or short, they are born that way. The legal debate surrounds benefits for minorities, and the benefits attached to married couples and whether same sex marriages should be given the same benifits. Bush is against Cheney's daughter and her partner getting a tax break, and it cracks me up to think about it.

One chooses to be homosexual. The argument that Homosexuals are born that way doesn't hold water any more than the claim that saints or sinners are born that way. Life choices define and ultimately label people with such stigma.

"Feelings" whether of love or lust do not define a minority, physical characteristics and ethnic custom does. To a lesser extent marriage as a social institution between members of the opposite sex is defined in the same manner. Social acceptance or rejection also defines deviance. Acts not opinion define sexuality. Whether an act is labeled deviant or acceptable by a society has nothing to do with the morality or lack thereof of the act. People know right from wrong without someone else telling them what it is.

The blogbaba is pretty sure history proves you cannot legislate morality, people will do just about whatever they want to in the privacy of there own homes. Individual morality is between a person and God. You can however legislate social benifits, which is really what Bush is doing in establishing a legal definition of marriage that excludes same sex unions. The fact that your position on the issue also determines your personal acceptance or rejection of homosexuality is incedential.

Moral integrity is a rare and valuable quality, those who lack it will try and take yours away. Don't let them, and don't blindly agree with positions just because the prevaling winds of poliltical correctness blow against your better judgement. We all answer to God, not Bush and even though the blogbaba happens to agree with the President on this one, I wll still push for another Clinton in the White House and most likely vote straight Democrate the rest of my days.

Answer 3

legislating moprality has never worked. It never will