Tuesday, June 06, 2006
"No Divorce for Hets"
Last Saturday in his weekly radio address, George W. renewed his call for Congress to pass a constitutional amendment that would limit marriage to a man and a woman, thus banning gay marriage. This action caters to the Religious Right and to the social conservatives. It also takes our focus off of more important issues such as the economy, the war in Iraq, Osama Bin Ladden, health care. . .
Fortunately, the Senate failed to pass the Federal Marriage Amendment, so discrimination will NOT be written back into the Constitution. But the Republicans pushing the ban on same sex marriage vowed to continue their work and take the fight to the states "in order to protect marriage."
If its marriage protection they are truly seeking, then I suggest they are focusing on the wrong group, and using the wrong tool. If anything the same sex couples who have married in Massachusetts have had far less cases of marriage interruptus (separation) or marriage dissolution (divorce) or serial marriage than opposite sex couples ....[The latest figures are that less than 1 percent of the same sex couples married have separated or divorced; that is far less than the heterosexual couples married in the same time period (20 percent).]
So, as Alix Olson said if its marriage you really want to protect then the law you should be advocating is "No Divorce for Straights."
But, methinks, it is not marriage that the President et al are out to protect, but it is fear of gays and lesbians gaining the rights of all citizens-- it is gays' and lesbians' second-class citizenship they are out to protect.
Fortunately, the Senate failed to pass the Federal Marriage Amendment, so discrimination will NOT be written back into the Constitution. But the Republicans pushing the ban on same sex marriage vowed to continue their work and take the fight to the states "in order to protect marriage."
If its marriage protection they are truly seeking, then I suggest they are focusing on the wrong group, and using the wrong tool. If anything the same sex couples who have married in Massachusetts have had far less cases of marriage interruptus (separation) or marriage dissolution (divorce) or serial marriage than opposite sex couples ....[The latest figures are that less than 1 percent of the same sex couples married have separated or divorced; that is far less than the heterosexual couples married in the same time period (20 percent).]
So, as Alix Olson said if its marriage you really want to protect then the law you should be advocating is "No Divorce for Straights."
But, methinks, it is not marriage that the President et al are out to protect, but it is fear of gays and lesbians gaining the rights of all citizens-- it is gays' and lesbians' second-class citizenship they are out to protect.
