(no subject)
Jun. 3rd, 2006 06:20 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
changeyourstars8I really shouldn't have read this: Bush's radio address about how he has to protect marriage from the evil horror of people who want to get married.
But wait! There is hope on the horizon! Look at this excerpt--
"In our free society, people have the right to choose how they live their lives. And in a free society, decisions about such a fundamental social institution as marriage should be made by the people -- not by the courts."
Wheeee! So apparently this is going to be legalized . . . no, wait, I forgot. Gay and lesbians don't count as 'people'. I gotta do a better job of remembering how the logic works here.
And I'm really curious to see how Concerned Women for America, the Traditional Values Coalition, and all the rest of the "We should all lead moral lives! And by 'moral', I mean, 'according to MY morals', of course" crowd would react if this amendment to protect marriage cut out any option for divorce, and declared all second/third marriages null and void. I mean, wouldn't that ensure longer partnerships, and no chance of splitting up? They do want to protect the institution of marriage, don't they?? :-P
Anyway, Chris'll be home soon, so I am now done with this topic for today. Hopefully. Unless I find something else brain-searingly stupid within the next hour or so.
But wait! There is hope on the horizon! Look at this excerpt--
"In our free society, people have the right to choose how they live their lives. And in a free society, decisions about such a fundamental social institution as marriage should be made by the people -- not by the courts."
Wheeee! So apparently this is going to be legalized . . . no, wait, I forgot. Gay and lesbians don't count as 'people'. I gotta do a better job of remembering how the logic works here.
And I'm really curious to see how Concerned Women for America, the Traditional Values Coalition, and all the rest of the "We should all lead moral lives! And by 'moral', I mean, 'according to MY morals', of course" crowd would react if this amendment to protect marriage cut out any option for divorce, and declared all second/third marriages null and void. I mean, wouldn't that ensure longer partnerships, and no chance of splitting up? They do want to protect the institution of marriage, don't they?? :-P
Anyway, Chris'll be home soon, so I am now done with this topic for today. Hopefully. Unless I find something else brain-searingly stupid within the next hour or so.
