I only have one comment on President Bush's State of the Union address that I need to make, right now. I'm sure other people have already pointed it out, but it needs to be said as many times as it takes.
Our President stated:
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.
To which I say: crap!
It is so way past time we got over this fantastic nonsense about "preserving the sanctity of marriage." Yes, we want to live in a world where some things are still sacred, and marriage is a nice place to start because it hits so close to home. We each want to think that our own marriage, the marriages of our friends, our neighbors and our family, are sacred. And we don't become disabused of that notion so easily. Not even when we see the "sanctity of marriage" regularly destroyed by violence, by dishonesty, by indifference and neglect, by farcical unions for profit or publicity, by dynastic marriages for financial or political gain, by arranged marriages and shotgun weddings. None of those blatant abuses of the institution of marriage, often to the injury of one of both of the parties, inspire us to pass discriminatory laws or suggest Constitutional amendments. But the possibility of legally recognizing an honest commitment between two responsible and loving adults who happen to be of the same sex -- that represents a threat to the sanctity of marriage? Can you be serious?
Furthermore, let's be clear about who, exactly, is "forcing their arbitrary will upon the people" here. No one, no activist judge or gay rights advocate, has ever suggested forcing anyone into or out of a marriage against their will. If you believe that marriage should be defined solely as a union between a man and a woman, or between a (fill-in-the-blank) man and a (fill-in-the-blank) woman, you're free to limit yourself to entering into, attending, celebrating and endorsing only such marriages. But when you say to someone else that he or she can't marry another consenting adult because it doesn't fit into your idea of marriage, whether you're in the "overwhelming majority" or not, that is forcing your arbitrary will on people.
And, finally, is it possible that President Bush isn't aware that judges, activist or not, are not supposed to be influenced in their decisions by "the will of the people and their elected representatives." Did he miss that subtle nuance of judicial propriety? Could someone please slip him a note?
I'm glad to hear that our President believes "each individual has dignity and value in God's sight." It's too bad he doesn't advocate treating them that way. Most of us look back at the bigotries that were widely accepted by "the people" half a century ago and shake our heads in disbelief. We're proud of the progress we've made toward eliminating them from our civilization, but we've obviously kept a few in reserve. Let's let them go.
