You’d never know if you listened to President Bush. You’d realize that marriage is between a man and a woman, that we need to protect it, and that it’s important. Maybe you’d even hear that “activist judges” are doing something to harm it. But what’s the problem?
Obviously it’s the gays, but President Bush isn’t about to tell you that.
But the irony gets thick when the president purports to be evenhanded in conducting this half-debate. Bush said this in his most recent address on the issue: “As this debate goes forward, we must remember that every American deserves to be treated with tolerance, respect and dignity. All of us have a duty to conduct this discussion with civility and decency toward one another, and all people deserve to have their voices heard.”
What Americans is he talking about? The ones he consciously never named in his speech? Does he seriously think lesbians and gay men are being treated with “civility and decency” — much less “tolerance” or “respect” — when he will not meet publicly with a gay or lesbian group on this issue and will not even mention that the debate over same-sex marriage is about them?
It is beyond laughable at this point for the president to say that “all people deserve to have their voices heard” when he is the chief person who will not hear those voices.
As the author writes earlier in the piece, Bush is conducting “an argument of heterosexuals, by heterosexuals and for heterosexuals.” Which is familiar, isn’t it? Any time an “other” group is discussed — people of color, gays and lesbians, women, non-Christians — the conversation revolves around their relationship to the dominant group. When it’s a rights-based issue, the conversation is about how many rights, liberties and privileges the dominant group is willing to bestow upon the others. There’s never an evaluation solely of the problem itself, and the group at issue; it’s always comparative, with the dominant group reasserting its upper hand. And that dominant group never bothers to subject itself to the same scrutiny that it puts the “others” through. Their privilege, their rights, the fact that they are the standard is just assumed.
If homosexual Americans are not entitled to equal protection, then an honest president would say so and explain why.
We are, perhaps, beyond believing this president to be honest. But if he is to be congratulated by the Christianists for bowing to their wishes, shouldn’t they, at least, require him to say what he means?
The answer, apparently, is no. They know exactly what he means and exactly who he is talking about. And if he is less manifest in his dismissal of gays and lesbians than they, his may be the greater insult for being so much more indifferent.
For decades now, lesbians and gay men have been open about our sexual orientation. But the president’s message to his supporters is that we should just stick with what worked for so long — at least for heterosexuals. If lesbians and gay men won’t go back in the closet, he will do what he can to impose one.
I’ve gotta say that I love his use of the term “Christianists,” the same way that you hear some people use “Islamists” to refer to radical Muslim religious reactionaries. I might have to borrow it.
And I would love to hear George Bush — or anyone else, really — offer a decent explanation of why gays and lesbians aren’t entitled to equal protection under the law. Someone wanna give it a shot? Because I’ve been doing quite a bit of reading on this, and I have yet to hear an a decent argument on this point.
Read the whole op/ed.
What I like most about this article is how Link calls Bush out his utter condescention and apparent mental absence.
I mean, do you know how this President never says anything that any mainstream person could possibly disagree with?
How stupid would someone look trying to argue with that? Nyah nyah nyah you’re wrong! Marriage is not enduring at all nyah nyah nyah!
No it is possible to man marriage nationwide without a constitutional amendment nya nyah nyah nyah
No they dont! We should not treat people with respect nyah nyah nyah!
The President says NOTHING. NOTHING. Yes it’s true that glittering generalities are often used by politicians. But I’ve noticed that this is ALL Bush uses. He never makes any potentially disputable argument in any way without using entirely meaningless generalities. Folks, this is not George Bush speaking… it is a artificially constructed simulation created by political consultants and speechwriters. I find it beyond condescending but rather insulting that he thinks he can manipulate people by uttering hollow nothings while pushing through radical constitutional policies that will undermine the rights of millions of people perhaps irrevocably. Utterly insulting.
Sorry should have been “ban marriage” not “man marriage”. Perhaps someone with moderator privleges could change the letter and delete this post? Thanks
The whole idea of a constitutional amendment is horrifying. You can add me to the list of people who really don’t understand what the big deal is if my aunt gets to marry her girlfriend or if the gay guy down the street can marry his partner. The entire argument is ludicrous. And the other thing that really gets to me about this is the arguments that people use against gay marriage are exactly the same arguments that were used half a century ago against interracial marriage (I know this point has been made thousands of times, but still). And since my interracial marriage didn’t cause irreparable damage to the institution (and my children are doing just fine), I don’t see how a gay couple would.
However, I do see why they want an amendment. It’s because the laws against gay marriage are clearly unconstitutional under the equal protection clause (if an honest supreme court ever gets hold of the case), so they have to make it constitutional by putting it in.
And I’m really sorry if this isn’t coherent, but this whole thing just pisses me off to no end.
I think this is just a distraction to keep us from looking deeper into the situation.
You know like don’t let the left hand know what the right hand is doing?
I think it’s just a smoke screen to cover something even more insidious and heinous and I don’t think we are going to like it when it comes about. You can’t keep it secret forever, but you can control how long it will stay hidden to an extent.
More of a power grab incoming? The war with Iraq to be expanded to Iran? I dunno, just some speculation because it’s sure has stirred the Pot. It Reminds me of my mother’s passive agressive attacks on me. She likes to distract you long enough til she turns around and claws your heart out by something she does deliberatly, and then rubs salt in the wound to make sure you know it was deliberate.
It’s actually more insidieous that he needs to use a smokescreen. That has me worried. But eh, I can’t do anything about it even if I did know if there was a “two” coming. (e.g. the one two punch used by boxers)
Idle speculation of course, ymmv
I agree. It’s definitely a distraction. But for what I don’t know…..
Most likely the opening salvo of an election season rally.
I wonder what’s supposed to happen when gay people marry? Rivers turning to blood? A rain of frogs? Fiery hail? Bloody frogs raining down from above that explode into flame when they hit the Earth? (Eeeew! Poor frogs!) Whatever it is, I don’t recall seeing it on the evening news…
How about Pat Robertson’s head exploding? Now there’s something I’d enjoy seeing…!
I think what they’re afraid of is that nothing will happen, and more people will realize that gay people are normal humans just like everyone else.
I love that gay people don’t even exist in this little speech. It’s “activist judges” who are throwing handfuls of frogs and locusts at innocent God-fearing Americans who deserve the right to stop other people from getting married if it grosses them out.
And the best part is how clearly he doesn’t give a shit about this either way.