Gay marriage? Check.
What's next? The Pledge of Allegiance.
Even with the phrase "under God" intact, reciting the pledge is a civic exercise, not a religious expression. The federal appeals court that ruled that reciting the pledge in public school was unconstitutional got it wrong.
The theocrats' proposed solution, however, is far worse.
They and their allies again have the Constitution, and your freedom, in their sights.
Americans United is on the watch.
Meanwhile, back on the gay marriage debate, Michael Scherer, writing for Salon, notes that those in favor of a constituitonal ban on same-sex marriage are barely talking about homosexuals.
Instead, they primarily talk about how same-sex marriage would hurt the marriages of straight people.
Come again?
Scherer explains:
Their convoluted logic works like this: If society approves of long-term homosexual monogamy, then the "institution of marriage" will be weakened. This will lead straight people to abandon monogamy and harm the welfare of the nation's children, who benefit from stable, two-parent families. "Our policies should aim to strengthen families, not undermine them," explained President Bush in his Monday address to amendment supporters. "And changing the definition of marriage would undermine the family structure."
And changing the Constitution to do what federal law already does, would, by discriminating against homosexuals, undermine all Americans' freedom.
Which is just how the theocrats, on gay marriage, the pledge and other issues, want it.
Recent Comments