WP's Cohen on Gay Marriage: "What Crisis?"

[Bertha Venation]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A10827-2004Feb26.html

Even for Bush, for whom the bar is set very low, his statement on gay marriage lacks intellectual consistency. He said he was "protecting the institution of marriage," but all he was doing was barring gays and lesbians from participating in it. He admitted the "amendment process" was a serious one and should be limited to "matters of national concern." He then trivialized it all by saying "the preservation of marriage rises to this level of national importance."

That is just plain silly. The 3,000 or so gay and lesbian couples who have been married in San Francisco have not, as far as I can tell, materially weakened this great country. What's more, their marriages may not survive challenge. It could be that the crisis will end with some judgment by a court affirming California's right to limit marriage to heterosexuals, such as Britney Spears.

<snip>

Everything about Bush -- his background, his innate tolerance -- suggests that he called for this amendment with his fingers crossed behind his back. But he knows -- at least he ought to know -- that some of the movement he is appealing to is motivated by homophobia, by prejudice and that in this, as in all such cases, hatred is hard to contain.

<snip>

My favorite quote: Just about everyone agrees that Bush is securing his conservative base before the general election. This makes political sense, but it also represents moral cowardice. Never mind that the Constitution ought to be off-limits to partisan gamesmanship.

[glarius]

1. Why should the government decide whether God approves or not?

I have been greatly moved by the numbers of apparently loving, peacful homosexual and lesbian citizens who have been hungering for the ability to get married...For God's sake let them!....Why should the government decide whether God approves or not?