admin
22 December 2023
"President" Bush and Pope John Paul II have recently addressed issues regarding "reserving marriage for heterosexuals" and "fighting against gay marriages". As if marriage were a table in a restaurant or an enemy country. It's humorous that a country that lets Elvis marry couples is now saying that the institution of marriage is such a holy and sacred thing that it needs to be reserved strictly for a select group.
During his speech on July 30th, Bush stated, "I believe marriage is between a man and a woman, and I think we ought to codify that one way or another." Bush never followed this statement with any solid reasoning as to why the ban should exist. Regardless, if the "President" thinks that homosexual marriages are wrong due to his own personal or religious beliefs, it is unconstitutional to deny any American the opportunity of a legal civil union with their partner. Under the U.S. Constitution, church and state are considered separate entities that should never be merged. Maybe Bush should actually read the Constitution once.
Marriage should not be defined under religious terms, especially not by a U.S. president. It's one thing for an institution such as the Catholic Church to express its views regarding homosexuality's threat against procreation and the sanctity of marriage (a 12-page set of guidelines entitled "Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons"), but it's another for The United States government to publicly announce that it believes same-sex marriages are wrong, and that it is taking legal action to back that belief.
Regarding "codifying" marriage to be reserved for one man and one woman, Bush stated, "We've got lawyers looking at the best way to do that." Legal action? Why is it even necessary to act at all? As if wanting to make a life-long commitment and having monogamy with someone of the same sex even needs to be taken care of?
By saying that homosexual marriages are wrong, Bush is saying that homosexuality is wrong. No country in the world should support a leader who singles out a certain race or sexual orientation, just because of what his religious or personal beliefs on the matter are. Doesn't that sound eerily familiar? Isn't it parallel to someone we all have heard of by the name of Adolf Hitler?
During his speech on July 30th, Bush stated, "I believe marriage is between a man and a woman, and I think we ought to codify that one way or another." Bush never followed this statement with any solid reasoning as to why the ban should exist. Regardless, if the "President" thinks that homosexual marriages are wrong due to his own personal or religious beliefs, it is unconstitutional to deny any American the opportunity of a legal civil union with their partner. Under the U.S. Constitution, church and state are considered separate entities that should never be merged. Maybe Bush should actually read the Constitution once.
Marriage should not be defined under religious terms, especially not by a U.S. president. It's one thing for an institution such as the Catholic Church to express its views regarding homosexuality's threat against procreation and the sanctity of marriage (a 12-page set of guidelines entitled "Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons"), but it's another for The United States government to publicly announce that it believes same-sex marriages are wrong, and that it is taking legal action to back that belief.
Regarding "codifying" marriage to be reserved for one man and one woman, Bush stated, "We've got lawyers looking at the best way to do that." Legal action? Why is it even necessary to act at all? As if wanting to make a life-long commitment and having monogamy with someone of the same sex even needs to be taken care of?
By saying that homosexual marriages are wrong, Bush is saying that homosexuality is wrong. No country in the world should support a leader who singles out a certain race or sexual orientation, just because of what his religious or personal beliefs on the matter are. Doesn't that sound eerily familiar? Isn't it parallel to someone we all have heard of by the name of Adolf Hitler?
artid
1604
Old Image
6_1_god&satan.jpg
issue
vol 6 - issue 01 (sep 2003)
section
stories