Christ, not this again. They might be getting desperate:
"'Activist judges try to define America by court order', Bush told the crowd of 4,000 at Silver Creek High School, flanked by local Rep. Mike Sodrel, R-Ind., who is running for re-election. 'Just this week in New Jersey, another activist court issued a ruling that raises doubt about the institution of marriage. We believe marriage is between a man and a woman'."
I spent a long time in Indiana. Hell, I graduated from High School out in God's country, and it doesn't shock me at all to read the account here of such reactionary sentitments. Indiana is a reactionary state, by and large, at least in the southern portion, which is where the Klan is still active. It is also a place where Bush could sell his bullshit lies at this late point, where as the rest of the country is starting to wise up. Indiana is a lot like George Bush: Stupid, short sighted and paranoid.
Where I used to live, a little slice of heaven known as "Bright", though it was anything but, was full of recent transplants who were fleeing from the nasty realities of ...Western Hills, to the idyl that was a willful actualization of a Simulacra known as Mayberry R.F.D.
Yes, I understand why they love Bush in Indiana. That's why I left.
Oh, here's some context on Gay Marriage, or rather, a way to think about it.
Hmm. Here's a question for opponents to "gay" marriage, though I think I already know what their answer might be.
ReplyDelete[I use scare quotes around "gay" because, personally, I believe that marriage is marriage, whether civilly or religiously or some combination of the two.]
Scenario:
Major Premise: Opponents of "gay" marriage define marriage as occurring between "a man and a woman."
Minor Premise: A specific human being has legally, officially and physically changed his or her gender, whether male-to-female or female-to-male. For example, according to the Transgender Law & Policy Institute, as of last year almost 1/3 of U.S. citizens have some measure of transgender anti-discrimination law in place, which covers employment, housing and public facility access (notice Bloomington and Cincinnati are now even included).
Conclusion: Therefore, if a person has changed his or her birth gender and is legally, officially and physically now categorized as the opposite gender, would not that change and scenario allow for the definition of "a man and a woman"? For example, if a male-to-female transgender person is now legally, officially and physically recognized as a woman and wants to marry a man (or vice versa), shouldn't such a union be acceptable and permissable to "gay" marriage opponents?
As I indicated above, I think "gay" marriage opponents would reject this as a "valid" marriage since they would probably view transgender human beings as aberrations and abominations in the eyes of God. However, the scenario above does seem to fit their definition of marriage between "a man and a woman," especially if the transgender person is already legally and offically recognized as their opposite birth gender. Thus, it would seem that "gay" marriage opponents would have to acquiesce to such a union.
But I know, I know. Opponents of "gay" marriage will say that such a marriage is invalid because there is (or should be) a difference between civil and domestic rights and "guaranteed" Constitutional rights. (Seems a rhetorical and semantic sleight of hand, if you ask me.)
The world isn't so black and white as "a man and a woman" . . . nor has it ever been if "gay" marriage opponents would read a little history and anthropology.