The Further Adventures of Chickenhawk: Into the Kulturkampf!
So the Supreme Court astonishes everyone by doing the right thing and striking the Texas sodomy law from the books. Goes one further, even, and asserts a more robust right to privacy for all of us than we could have expected. And everyone wondered what the President’s reaction would be.
Sen. Santorum floats a trial balloon, and is roundly, soundly criticized for likening consensual homosexual relations with hot “man on dog” action. And everyone wondered what the President might have to say on the subject.
Pundits began to muse about the possibility of a split in the Republican party, between moderate, socially liberal(ish) swing voters and the rabidly bigoted hardcore conservative bloc—both necessary to a second four years of Bush. What would he do? they asked. How will he handle this dicey dilemma?
But through it all, the President and his various spokespeople remained silent.
Then, a USA Today/CNN/Gallup poll was released, showing a marked decline on the part of the American public in the acceptance of consensual homosexual relations and the right to marriage or recognition of civil unions for gays.
The President spoke right up.
“I believe marriage is between a man and a woman, and I think we ought to codify that one way or another,” Bush told reporters at a White House news conference. “And we’ve got lawyers looking at the best way to do that.”
How nice to know he has the conviction of his courage on this one.
Commenting is closed for this article.
I would say there is some connection between Santorum's critique receiving widespread attention, reiteration and unconscious parroting and the recorded decline in support of gay marriage. It goes like this (in SAT verbal analogy form, natch): Gay sex : fucking your dog :: gay marriage : marrying your dog.
What people don't understand is that dogs have very traditional ideas about marriage and sex. Putting the latter before the former is simply not done in dog culture.
Well, Bush or no Bush, poll or no poll, I think the bizarre influence religion has on American opinion, or at least how the media perceives American opinion, is enough to prevent gay marriage from happening for a long time in the States.
Still, it is awfully disturbing that legislators and the president feel the need to go further than they already have on the anti-gay marriage stuff.
Family values, indeed. Feh.
Some stuff Ampersand is reading today
Journalist Gregory Palast posts a follow-up to his Cynthia McKinney article, Relynching Cynthia McKinney. Thanks to Alas reader Dan Sallari for pointing this out to me. Trish Wilson discusses the issues surrounding no-fault divorce. The blogger behind ...
Kevin Moore, that about the dogs is the funniest thing I've read all day. Thank you! :)
And here's to hoping they never get around to passing any law they do draw up.
First, Francis, thanks for stopping by; your journal is one of my favorite oases on the internet. --And while I won't downplay the distressing influence of fundamentalism in the States, and analogies that compare the current struggle for civil rights with previous struggles for civil rights--noting the similarities in disapproval of interracial marriages in the '60s compared with disapproval of gay marriages today, say--are not without their flaws, still: when the best argument the Other Side can muster is, "It's for kids," well. Those aren't even straws being grasped at.
(But never let it be said that he who thinks law and civil rights are based on logic, justice, and fair play, isn't setting himself up for bitter disappointment. Sigh.)
Heh heh! He said hardcore Republicans! And swinging Republicans! Heh!