Nothing like being the political football...

[solarbird]

It's Marriage Protection Week, courtesy a national proclamation from the Office of the President. The full text is here.

It's not a big deal, really, except for the intentionally exclusionary language. President Bush is again making the statement that marriage is a man and a woman, setting that position on paper in the form of a national political statement, and doing so in a context that says that the rest of us are the ones from whom marriage needs protection.

But this isn't news to anyone. This is the usual political rhetoric, just writ into a national proclamation. I really don't see the point.

I mean, I presume it's the lead-in to the big push next year, the one for for an amendment to the Constitution banning same-gender marriage. In the draft I saw last, it'll also ban anything that provides similar recognition to same-gender couples - in other words, no more domestic partnerships. Take that, Vermont. Take that, California. Take that, presumably, Massachusetts.

(Not to mention, "take that, Federalism," but then the Republicans haven't been Federalists - or small-government politicians, either - unless it suited their real agendas. Not for a long, long time.)

Proclamations don't really help with an amendment effort, though. I don't even know why it's been thrown out there. Is it just a slap at us? Is it just a little poke, a little reminder to say, "we really don't like you. We like rubbing your face in it."? Is it just a moment's assurance to the fundamentalist right, letting them know that he'll be on their side? That's not news. Everybody knows.

So... what does it mean? What's the real intent here? Is there one, beyond "take that, queers?"

I really can't tell.

Comments

Re: Mawwaige

[lickingtoad.livejournal.com]

... is what bwings us togevah today. (Ha!)

No, serious-like. If it were about making (healthy) babies, as they insist it is, then they would also prevent marriage involving the sterile, the feeble, the crippled ...

... hey, that's already been done! I keep waiting for that little mustache to pop out on the Shrub's upper lip.

[risu.livejournal.com]

Propaganda.

Seriously, Bush doesn't want to engage in a debate over whether gay marriage is right. That implicitly accepts that it could be, which legitimizes the opposite position. So instead he's going to make the argument by relying on 'gay marriage is wrong' as an assumption.

The more public statements go by with this as the underlying assumption, the more people will assume it.

If I'm doing the traditional prank of trying to get H2O banned as a dangerous substance, and someone walks up to me and explains, "Um, it's water," I'm not going to argue with him in front of others. I'm going to ignore him, attempt to deny him a forum for his views, and go on explaining the dangers to the people who might actually sign the anti-H2O petition.

Same reason people trying to convince others that God exists rarely engage in direct intellectual debate on the historical accuracy of the Bible. That's reserved for discussion *within* the Christian community, discussion entirely outside it, and the sadly rare frank exchange of views between Christians and non-Christians unburdened by proselytism.

Rebecca

[solarbird]

Aimed at whom?

No, seriously. Propoganda has to be aimed at somebody. Who has noticed this, other than activists?

It's also really early. Or maybe it's not. I'm not very good at marketing. Maybe you do want to start now. And this is just a tiny side-effort or something. It's not like it's difficult work to put one of these things out, I suppose.

[firni.livejournal.com]

oh please oh PLEASE let that scum-sucking asswipe get voted out next year! I can't even come up with a decent comment on this because I'm FROTHING AT THE MOUTH just like I do every time he does something stupid (which means I froth a lot, eh wot).

[tinlail.livejournal.com]

This kind of stuff has always struck me as actions by small time political hacks, for small time political donors. I am sure that these kinds of proclamations flow out with out anyone really important caring. But random groups vets, treehuggers, light rail, gold standard, who knows can claim to have influence. There are a tone of them (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/proclamations/)

[gazerwolf.livejournal.com]

I noticed. I'm not an activist.

I suspect it's more to get the idea in print in something official before any push for amendments. It also by being presented in this low-key way insinuates itself into the general public thinking, without making too much of a issue.

It can also serve as a reminder to his supporters of how he thinks and what kind of things he wants help with in the future.

My own opinion as a hopelessly monogamous heterosexual? Leave it alone Bush, marriage should be available to anyone who wants a committed relationship.

I've never heard a single NON-religious argument for the exclusion of same gender marriage (or for that matter Poly marriage) (except perhaps the "But that will cost us extra tax revenue, and the insurance costs for my business will go up!" bullshit.)

[cafiorello.livejournal.com]

Hey, and if we had universal health care, your insurance costs would go down, and you could stop worrying about who the beneficiaries were....

I'll bet this is a fund-raising ploy for W's re-election. Not only can he point to the proclamation when asking the fundies for money, he can point to all of us frothing at the mouth and say, "You don't want *them* winning, do you?"
Cathy

[solarbird]

If we get universial health care, it certainly needs to be UK-style, not Canadian-style. (Because can you imagine the fights over what gets covered by the "universal" care? And the UK system allows for an extensive private network, whereas the Canadian system really doesn't.)

[kitchengrrl.livejournal.com]

I'm going to stay out of the Bush-whacking, because I will get REALLY into it (We HATES the Bushitses! Tricksy, it is.)

I just wanted to say that's a super cute picture of you and Anna! :D

[solarbird]

<giggles!> *^_^*; The full picture is here. ^_^

Scarier still?

[toreypet.livejournal.com]

http://objective.jesussave.us/kidz.html

Now I see nothing wrong with being religious, but just how far is too far?? Talk about yer propaganda... I'm not sure whether to laugh or cry at some of the things on that page.

Now run away from the scary athiest (or anyone else not exactly like yourself) and find an adult or priest to tell, quick, before you get corrupted! :>

Re: Scarier still?

[solarbird]

You should laugh, 'cause it's a parody - like Landover Baptist. Check around the rest of the site and you'll see.

[backrubbear.livejournal.com]

You might want to follow a link that arkanjil recently posted pointing the the State of Texas's Republican Party Platform. It makes all very clear.

[solarbird]

Not much new there, really. Well, the gold standard making a comeback is kind of amusing, but otherwise, that's been Republican Party Politics at the ground level for a while. But the question remains as to how this affects the next battle, coming next year.

On several things

[(Anonymous)]

Having worked at a Christian college(Methodist,specifically) for just short of a decade, I found most of them to be more tolerant than the population in general, but when you did get a hardcore one, he(or she) was proselytizing full bore,and would-in great detail-tell you just how wrong you were about everything,and maybe even have some verses(carefully chosen)to back themselves up. I'm not particularly religious at all,but have nothing against it in principle-religion, to me,is like politics-to each their own...just keep it out of my face unless I ask.Religion and politics mix in the same way water and pure sodium does.
It has been my experience that the true Christian sets an example by how they live their life-not by what they preach.Few at this college believed the Bible to be a book of schematics,but rather a general guideline.I met a lot of wonderful folks,and maybe a half-dozen real pricks.The trouble is, the pricks tend to make the most noise and get noticed.
Universal health care-In many ways,I have my doubts..Maybe what we have sucks, but I'm a long way from convinced universal health care is the answer..Cheaper? Since when is any government-run system cheaper? They can just hide true costs better. And then there's the ever-present bureaucrosis that all government agencies suffer from..I would hate to see health care wind up being managed like the IRS is(they hire some genuine dorks there..maybe it's a requirement.) I wouldn't want to see anyone suffer for the lack of care,but,well, I don't know.Maybe have some sort of national health care as a default system. Maybe this is one of those things where there is no magic-wand answer. Scott

Re: On several things

[solarbird]

It has been my experience that the true Christian sets an example by how they live their life-not by what they preach.

That's nice and all, but the loud, politically active, voting ones are the ones out to get me, and the ones I have to care about. They're the ones in power.