Federal Licensing of Marriage

Apparently it is not enough for the Bush administration to decide for you when you are allowed to have sex and who with, but now they are taking a direct hand in how you manage your civil status. The source article for this entry was in the New York Times (and which is not linked because they archive their articles after 14 days and then demand that you pay to see them). It contained a number of individual statements that demonstrate a troublesome nuance, and the total of which, taken as a whole, do not speak at all well for this initiative or for the Bush administration.

The officials said they believed that the measure was especially timely because they were facing pressure from conservatives eager to see the federal government defend traditional marriage, after a decision by the highest court in Massachusetts. The court ruled in November that gay couples had a right to marry under the state's Constitution.

One of the amendments to the U.S. Constitution specifically says that any powers not accorded to the federal government are reserved strictly for the states. This initiative presents a clear and present attempt to do an end run around movements among the states to ensure the human dignity and the equal rights of homosexuals. There is no way in hell the federal government of the U.S. should get involved with matters within the purlieu of the individual states, and certainly not with micromanaging the lives of 300 million plus people. Moreover, this movement is a clear and present case of religious discrimination and implementing it would violate the church/state separation principle in that the antihomosexual movement clearly has no basis in politics.

A presidential adviser is qouted as saying, "This is a way for the president to address the concerns of conservatives and to solidify his conservative base."

Keep in mind that George Bush's conservative base is not found among the politically conservative so much as among the religious ultra-conservative. He sucked up to religio-political elements by promising to pander to their religious prejudices, and his "faith-based initiatives" are seen by some as an effort to appease those groups by half-heartedly fulfilling those promises.

Ronald T. Haskins, a Republican who worked on Capitol Hill and at the White House elsewhere under Bush was quoted, "A lot of conservatives are very pleased with the healthy marriage initiative."

This statement illustrates a misohomonist attitude toward gay sex as being intrinsically unhealthy. If taken on the face of it, one would naturally assume that it betrays an attitude that AIDS is a homosexual disease. If taken to a higher level, the term "unhealthy" could be interpreted as morally and emotionally unhealthy. Both assumptions of which are unfounded. I would not hesitate to state unequivocally that no conservative religious group has ever done an honest assessment into the psychological health of families headed by homosexual couples.

Administration officials said that this year George Bush will probably visit programs trying to raise marriage rates in poor neighborhoods. An unidentified official is quoted, "The president loves to do that sort of thing in the inner city with black churches, and he's very good at it."

Why the specific mention of churches with Black congregationists? This is just a tad whiff of racism; an assessment that is supported by the Christian belief that Blacks are the cursed seed of Ham. Despite that, I don't really think this is meant in the racist way it comes across. Still, given the context of this initiative, that niggling suspicion just won't go away.

In the last few years, some liberals have also expressed interest in marriage-education programs. They say a growing body of statistical evidence suggests that children fare best, financially and emotionally, in married two-parent families.

Nota Bene: Two-parent families. Not necessarily opposite-sex parent families; although perhaps that point was made but not mentioned in the source article. It stands to reason, at any rate, that children will fare better emotionally in two-parent families. They have more samples of emotional responses upon which to draw, and in hard times they can see a social support group in action. From this, they learn to give as well as to take, and that they are not always so dismally alone as we so often feel. As to faring better financially, that will be because a two income family has a better chance to pay its bills.

(There is a bit of a temptation here, to apply a reductio ad absurdum. One could ask what the U.S. feds plan to do about divorced parents or families in which a parent dies. Although I would like to know what they are going to do should the divorce continue at fifty percent; as I anticipate it will in spite of this program. Unless it goes up.)

Glenn T. Stanton, a policy analyst at the ultra-conservative Focus on the Family, is quoted, "We have a hard time understanding why the reserve. You see him inching in the right direction. But the question for us is, why this inching? Why not just get there?"

In short: enough of this nickel and diming the fags to death; disfranchise the lot of them right now.

The Rev. Louis P. Sheldon, chairman of the national Traditional Values Coalition, has started an e-mail campaign urging Mr. Bush to push for an amendment opposing the legal recognition of same-sex marriage.

I reiterate: One of the amendments to the U.S. Constitution specifically says that any powers not accorded to the federal government are reserved strictly for the states. This initiative presents a clear and present attempt to do an end run around movements among the states to ensure the human dignity and the equal rights of homosexuals.

In the face such stupidity, I have to ask myself just how constitutional a constitutional amendment can be that is specifically designed to be discriminatory. Nevermind that implementing an amendment on the religious principle of bible mandated misohomonism would be a clear and present case of making a law respecting an establishment of religion.

Other groups, like the Southern Baptist Convention and Focus on the Family, are pushing more quietly for the same thing, through contacts with White House officials, [...].

These are two more groups of ultra-conservatives who would impose the same kind of police state in America that the Taliban had in Afghanistan, and the Ayatollah's have in Iran.

In an ABC News interview in Dec 2003, Mr. Bush was asked if he would support a constitutional amendment against gay marriage and gay civil unions. He replied, "If necessary, I will support a constitutional amendment which would honor marriage between a man and a woman, codify that, and will -- the position of this administration is that whatever legal arrangements people want to make, they're allowed to make, so long as it's embraced by the state, or does start at the state level."

Get that? You are allowed to do whatever you want as long as you will be licensed to do so by either the federal or state government. To my mind, this betrays a mind set in the U.S. government of: we can make any law we want requiring or forbidding anything and nobody can stop us. Such an attitude is the hallmark of the dictator and petty tyrant, and it should be of serious concern to see it in an administration.

Dr. Wade F. Horn, the assistant secretary of health and human services for children and families, said: "Marriage programs do work. On average, children raised by their own parents in healthy, stable married families enjoy better physical and mental health and are less likely to be poor."

What Dr. Horn does not address (at least in the article) is: With a fifty percent divorce rate in the U.S., how many children are being brought up in healthy, stable married families where only one of the adults is a biological parent. How does that rate compare against heterosexual two-parent families where there has not been a divorce? And how does the rate compare with children brought up in families where the parents are not married, but equally committed to each other, in both hetero- and homosexual milieus? Also, in keeping with my comment above, how does a two-income family stack up against a single-income family with one stay-at-home parent for emotional and financial stability and well being?

These are questions that the American public will need to see addressed, but won't, unless they are brought up by civil liberties organizations. No misohomonist religious group will bring up these questions, and the government won't ask them so as not alienate the bible-thumpers. These questions are important because everything in life is a trade off.

Dr. Horn said that federal funds to promote marriage could be available only to heterosexual couples due to the 1996 statute, the Defense of Marriage Act. Which defines marriage for any program established by Congress. That law states, "The word 'marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife."

I smell a slippery slope in action. Whereas the slippery slope is a fallacy in logic, it is, unfortunately, an all too real force in the physical world. This ripe stench of corruption is more remarkable when taken in the context of the whole that includes the demands of the ultra-conservative bible-thumbers mentioned above.

Dr. Horn is also quoted, "I don't have any problem with the government providing support services to gay couples under other programs. If a gay couple had a child and they were poor, they might be eligible for food stamps or cash assistance."

Might be? Under what conditions? Whose ass will they have to kiss, and how, to become eligible? As if I need to ask. And aren't straight couples eligible for food stamps and welfare, too? The only way the U.S. government can operate this program in an nondiscriminatory fashion is to include initiatives for homosexual couples as well, even if they are in separate programs. No ifs, ands, buts, or maybes.

Still and all, this is: an extensive election-year initiative to promote marriage. Which means that it might be one hundred percent campaign bullshit. Just another standard throw-whatever-amount-of-money-at-the-voters-it-takes-to-bribe-them-for-their-vote tactic. It probably ranks up there with Bush's bluster and bullshit about going to Mars. I find that it is certainly typical of his self-delusion that he's trying to make himself the equal of Jack Kennedy, especialy as the last dolt to try that got shot down so badly during a televised debate. ("I knew Jack Kennedy, Senator. You're no Jack Kennedy.") It would be in keeping with his general asininity because there is not one other lesson of history that Bush has learned, so why should he have learned this one? Anyway, I don't give any credence whatsoever to that line of swill. Oh, I'm sure he'd be happy to fund all kinds of inititiatives to get to Luna and Mars. Not out of any regard for science or humanity, however. Only because space is a big and expensive business. Lots of room out there for his financial backers to make a big profit at the expense of the American tax payers. The question is: where is he going to find the money for such a program with billions being pissed away on Iraq, another billion and half for this program, the problem of a second front with North Korea, and the U.S. federal budget now running at a deficit?

Getting back to this marriage initiative, however, the only thing in the article that did not smack of civil liberties violations was a quote by Doctor Horn about how the program is not based on the idea of "marriage for the sake of marriage". I don't think such a program would get past Congress, and certainly such a program would not get past any religious groups that promote church/state separation, such as People For the American Way. I have no doubt that there are even conservative religious groups who wouldn't stand for it because marriage is supposed to have a certain sanctity and the prospective partners are supposed to approach it with reverence. (Slobbering religious idiots will, of course, say that that alone invalidates fags and lezzies.) Moreover, I can't complain about any illegality in light of that Defense of Marriage Act unless it is challenged in court and shot down as discriminatory. However, as I mention elsewhere, just because something is legal that doesn't necessarily make it right and just. And I do believe quite firmly that the Defense of Marriage Act and this new inititative are both discriminatory and therefore unethical.

It seems to me that if Bush's faith-based initiatives are an appeasement for the ultra-conservative, one has to wonder how far this program will take the formerly free country of Amerika toward that religious police state. However, that question raises another one: what if it is not appeasement? The most troublesome ramifications that arise from all this are: If these faith-based initiatives are merely bones thrown to the dogs to quiet them, or if they derive from a profound interest in establishing a religious state, how much of a sign of weakness or fanaticism is it, and what will this person throw to the dogs next?

[Continued on 21 Jan 2004, post State of the Union speech]

Last night George Bush exercised the President's annual rite of propaganda. And given his track record I can't grant any credibility to this one. And this speech is important to this issue because he did indeed include government mandated misohomonism in the State of the Union. Here's a look at the relevant three paragraphs.

A strong America must also value the institution of marriage. I believe we should respect individuals as we take a principled stand for one of the most fundamental, enduring institutions of our civilization. Congress has already taken a stand on this issue by passing the Defense of Marriage Act, signed in 1996 by President Clinton. That statute protects marriage under federal law as a union of a man and a woman, and declares that one state may not redefine marriage for other states.

Activist judges, however, have begun redefining marriage by court order, without regard for the will of the people and their elected representatives. On an issue of such great consequence, the people's voice must be heard. If judges insist on forcing their arbitrary will upon the people, the only alternative left to the people would be the constitutional process. Our nation must defend the sanctity of marriage.

The outcome of this debate is important -- and so is the way we conduct it. The same moral tradition that defines marriage also teaches that each individual has dignity and value in God's sight.

Let's look at this on a point by point basis.

A strong America must also value the institution of marriage.

Marriage as defined within the Christian ideology, of course. A definition that is exclusionary and discriminatory. A method of protection that is necessarily built on a foundation of weakness. If the institution of the United States is as strong as the sunshine patriots proclaim it to be, then why does it feel threatened by homosexuality? Or any non-mainstream group or movement? How exactly, will allowing homosexuals to marry invalidate the concepts of liberty and freedom and overturn the Bill of Rights and the Constitution? If anything, allowing gay marriages is a recognition of their equal status under the law and respects their civil liberties and personal freedom.

Whence this fear, then? As near as I can tell it derives from the belief that God will punish the whole country for the actions of ten percent of the population, rather than punishing only those individuals who transgress. I suppose this belief stems from the biblical story of the destruction of Sodom and Gomarrah. Why God would punish any country is beyond me, however. "Render unto Ceasar that which is Ceasar's and render unto God that which is God's. For My Father's kingdom is not a kingdom of this earth, it is the Kingdom of Heaven." Thus spake God Almighty vis a vis Jesus Christ. So why bother with how Ceasar is running his grubby, temporal, and very temporary, Earthly kingdom?

I believe we should respect individuals as we take a principled stand for one of the most fundamental, enduring institutions of our civilization.

This is very obviously a bare-faced terminological inexactitude. If Bush had any respect for homosexuals to begin with he wouldn't arbitrarily bar them from the institutions of civilization. There is no way he will be able to treat them with respect under any circumstances. Not to mention that fifty percent of Americans who marry subsequently divorce. You can hardly call marriage enduring under such conditions. And keep in mind that one hundred percent of those divorces will be in heterosexual marriages. And what, I wonder, is the incidence of adultery in heterosexual marriages in the U.S.? Since there are, as yet, no homosexual marriages. The ultra-conservative whine and moan about how homosexuality necessarily creates an atmosphere of infidelity, but they never, ever, examine rates of incidence for whatever it is among heterosexuals.

Congress has already taken a stand on this issue by passing the Defense of Marriage Act, signed in 1996 by President Clinton. That statute protects marriage under federal law as a union of a man and a woman, and declares that one state may not redefine marriage for other states.

I'll have to study up on that Act. I don't know what it says. However, I do know, as I mentioned twice above, that the United States Constitution also forbids the federal government to redefine marriage for the states.

Activist judges, however, have begun redefining marriage by court order, without regard for the will of the people and their elected representatives.

Now this is the most egregious sample of George Bush's ignorance. The First Amendment says, "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging . . . the right of the people to petition the government for a redress of a grievance." The mechanism by which they can do that, and which (mostly) rests outside of government control, is the Judicial Branch. Moreover, as Norman Solomon once pointed out: it is not the business of the courts to decide if a given law is a good idea or a bad idea; their purpose is to make sure that Congress is playing fair. If courts are beginning to strike down laws which discriminate on the basis of orientation, one can must needs assume it is because those laws are no more fair than the racist Jim Crow laws struck down by an earlier generation of judges. Those courst are the first line of defense by which the will of the people can be defended. What Bush means when he says "the will of the people", of course, is the will of those people whose prejudices parallel his own.

Plus, the judges who are finding misohomonist laws unconstitutional are constrained by the same metalaws which govern the other two branches of the American government. To Whit: the Bill of Rights and the Constitution. Strictly speaking, they are not making new laws; they are making new interpretations of existing laws.

Plus, this whining is redolent of the most foul hypocrisy in as much as George Bush is exploiting the presence of reactionary judges such as Charles Pickering to reverse the trend toward greater protections for civil liberties and personal responsibility that has been extent for the last seventy some years. A condition which will allow a reactionary judiciary to redefine the Bill of Rights "without regard for the will of the people" who demand proper respect for it.

And lastly, his shot at "elected representatives" ignores the fact that some of those representatives are politically opposed to him (and, I imagine, some are morally aligned), while some of those who are politically aligned with him are morally or philosophically opposed to this suppresive movement.

On an issue of such great consequence, the people's voice must be heard. If judges insist on forcing their arbitrary will upon the people, the only alternative left to the people would be the constitutional process.

BINGO! We have a weiner! A very clear and present intimation that if We the People continue to respect the human dignity and the rights of fags and lezzies to equal treatment under the law, the neo-fascist Bush administration will disfranchise them with a constitutional amendment.

And my friends wonder why I'm so cynical.

Oh, and don't miss the point where he whines and snivels that rulings respecting civil liberties and human rights is the matter of judges arbitrarily forcing their will on the people. I account this as "projecting his shadow." Do you really imagine that knee-jerk, reactionary, ultra-conservative, religious ideologues who base their rulings on vague and ill-defined "biblical law" will not be arbitrarily forcing their will on the people? At least the secular laws upon which the U.S. is founded are required by the Bill of Rights to be narrowly and properly tailored and nondiscriminatory. The laws of the bible have no system of checks and balances.

Oh, George Bush illustrates a great deal about himself and his ideology in these three short paragraphs.

Our nation must defend the sanctity of marriage.

Unfortunately, as I mentioned a number of times already, they want to define marriage so narrowly that it becomes exclusionary. So when he says he wants to protect the sanctity of marriage, what he means is that he wants to protect the sanctity of those who share his religious bigotry.

The outcome of this debate is important -- and so is the way we conduct it. The same moral tradition that defines marriage also teaches that each individual has dignity and value in God's sight.

This is just more hypocrisy and misapprehension. Yeah, the outcome is important. If he can pull it off, then it takes Amerika one step closer back to burning witches and books; and this time fags and "abortionists" will burn with them. If he can't pull it off, then the ultra-conservatives fail to gain any political advantage (and they will interpret the failure as an attack against their religion instead of as an indication of the bankruptcy of their ideas).

I have to wonder exactly what Bush means in that phrase: "and so is the way we conduct it". It is just so rife with nuance, but for my money, what he means is that the program must be conducted in such a way as to ensure benefits for hetero's but in a way that does not violate any federal laws, while still allowing for discrimination against homosexuals.

As for his nonsense about moral tradition that each individual has dignity and value in God's sight, that's mostly another terminological inexactitude. Jesus Christ called for such respect for one's fellow man, but foaming at the brain religious lunatics never seem to get beyond the blood-lust and genocide promoting Old Testament when it comes to comportment towards their fellow man. And it also flies in the face of the ideology that homosexuals are morally disordered and intrisically evil.

For another analysis of this initiative, as well as a look at some of the political waffling involved, see Bush Leaves No Bride Behind, By Arianna Huffington, from 19 Jan 2004.