Bush continues to try and sell the line that a few special individuals (like, say, the same ones who put him in office) are trying to redefine the institution of marriage, an institution that hasn't changed for hundreds if not thousands of years. I find it interesting that Bushie wants to maintain and/or establish an enduring definition of marriage.
The Constitution was established to be able to adapt to the needs and demands of the times and people. Many religious texts, the Bible included, are understood differently given societal changes and advancements. Shakespeare, for example, while rooted firmly in his time, has themes, situations, and characters that are so universal, they are easily enjoyed and understood by modern audiences or are readapted with modern dressings.
If a society or a people want to redefine marriage, they should be able to. I find it interesting that although the Bible explicitedly prohibits women from being church leaders or even speaking in church, many evangelical leaders and ministers are women today. Why? We have different cultural understandings and values. Sounds a little hypocritical doesn't it to ignore or reinterpret one part and not another?
I'm tired of this slippery slope argument that says gay marriage leads to cats and dogs living together, mass hysteria. Society always has the right to draw a line in the sand. We can say two men marrying is fine, but marrying your sister or daughter is not. Laws are a negotiation among different people for a common understanding. We may think one thing is fine, but not another. People said the EXACT SAME THINGS about interracial marriage. I don't think Rome is burning quite yet.
As for Bush, regardless of his belief, he is using this issue as a way to solidfy his base of the Religious Right and other conservatives. It's disgusting. He's playing with my citizenship and making a statement about my worth as a human being and American citizenship for political gain. I loathe the chimp that is Bush.
Do you want an American theocracy? Then vote for the Federal Marriage Amendment (FMA).
If this amendment were to be ratified, this would only encourage and fortify the position and power of the Religious Right. Already the false idol of the Republican party, this movement will not be satisfied with making homosexuals second-class citizens.
Fundamentialist continue to define our great nation in the image they think is morally correct. I'm trying to avoid a slippery slope argument here, but it is not too hard to see that we could easily be headed for even more breakdown between state and religion. Recently on Charlotte public access, I heard a conservative minister extolling the virtues of Christians becoming involved in politics. Indeed, this is one of the few points I agreed on with the man. People of all religions, as a matter of fact, should be encouraged to run for public office. Mostly because if only Fundamentialist run, they will continue a clear agenda for setting the moral code by their faith.
Fundamentalists seem to completely miss the point of the Christian faith. The whole gospel, indeed the entire message of the Bible, is about people choosing God. God never imposes Himself on people. Yet, Fundamentalists seek to remove the choice that is our God-given right. As an aside, I find it interesting to note that most Fundamentalists are economically conservative, cutting money to charitable organizations. I personally think that Christianity, taken to its logical extreme, leads to a very socialistic society. In any event, Fundamentalists labor under the delusion that they are, at any moment, about to be thrown to the lions for the hedonist secular throng. So, apparently, their tactics is to turn the lions loose on the public (or worse, try to invoke God to divinely punish the great unwashed masses).
Secondly, Fundamentalists assert that they are returning us to our great Christian foundation as a country. Much has been written and debated on this subject, and I don't have the time, length, or energy to get into it here, but a quick perusal of information on this matter leads to the conclusion that while some of the founding fathers were Christian, many were not. Most certainly weren't the raving evangelicals we know today.
Regardless of their religious faith, this country was established with the promise of freedom of a state-imposed religion. Part of the creation of this country was for the exercise of whatever religion you wanted to. Trying to re-create a "Christian" nation is wrong both theologically, morally, and historically. Yet, under the guise of persecution, Fundamentalists seek to create a theocratic society. And we all see how well theocracy works in the middle East. You think Calvin Klein will be excited to design burkas for the modern working woman? Oops, wait, she can't work. Never mind.
Despite what the Religious Right tells us, I don't feel like God is dangling us over the flames of hell like a spider over a fire so much as we are dangling over a fire created by these zealots. A fire probably created by book burning and the destruction of our Bill of Rights.