Boston Globe columnist Jeff Jacoby is right about the gay-marriage debate should be approached:
Pro, con, or undecided, Americans should be able to discuss something as serious as redefining marriage without resorting to slander and ad hominem attacks. There are sincere, compassionate, and thoughtful people on both sides of this issue. How can you tell who they are? They aren't the ones calling people bigots.
The attempt, futile and grandstanding though it may be, to advance the constitutional-amendment option through the Senate is at least generating discussion of the issue, though not all of it is thoughtful and lacking in slander.
The federal Defense of Marriage Act, contrary to what its supporters say, is not the last word on the issue. On a lot of issues, a good federalist would say that it should be up to indvidual states how to handle things, and that is the approach taken by people who say both that they think gay marriage is wrong but it doesn't belong in a constitutional amendment. The marriage act allows states to not recognize same-sex unions approved in other states, but that collides with the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution, which has been the rationale for, among other things, a marriage in one state being recognized in all of them. There's no way to resolve that conflict but before the Supreme Court. One way or another, it would seem that we're going to have a national answer to this conflict, not a state-by-state one.
Comments
It's not like it takes some great social philosopher to say that name calling is undesirable discourse.
On the other hand, the people promoting the amendment say things like, "marriage is under attack" (by gay people, presumably) and "gay people are abnormal" so it's easy to understand why some gays or their straight supporters use words like "bigots." This is, in fact, a correct use of the word "bigot."
I'm all in favor of people being respectful of each other. However, the fact that this debate is being pushed forward in a nakedly cynical political push to "shore up the base" makes me suggest that this is not the ideal case for your argument, Leo. "Bad facts," as the tax lawyers might say to describe a situation where the specific facts aren't a good way to prove a general rule.
And did you see Jon Stewart's discussion with Bill Bennett the other night? Stewart may be a comedian, but his commentary was right-on and Bennett was left stammering.
John Stewart didn't have a "discussion" with Bill Bennett OR an "interview". Bennett was left stammering because Stewart wouldn't shut his pie hole.
I used to admire Stewarts talent and dry sense of humor. He used to offer hilarious irony, now he offers the tirades and talking points much like the ones he parodies.
I miss the old Daily Show, it was a classic for a while.
So what you're saying, Tim, is that Stewart pulled a Bennett on Bennett?
I'm all for any 2 parent household....makes for (usually) better offspring. And bearing in mind that in my area, 2 parent households are as common as ethnic, EMPLOYED young males....I'd take a few gay couples living near me over these other households ANY day.
As to a formal "amendment" against gay marriage.....don't think so. Should be left at the state level.
The U. S. CONSTITUTION never was and should never be used as a "dictionary" to "redefine" any word, as it sets a very bad precedent.
That's what Webster's and Oxford's are for, anyway.
Personally, *if* the politicos wanted to keep the *marriage* aspect out of it...couldn't they just call it a "union", and let it go at that?
This nation's politicians can attempt to ban gay marrigae, but yet cannot balance a budget, secure a border, wean themselves from foreign oil, or even halt the flow of drugs into this nation.
Seems to me the word PRIORITIES needs to be brought up a lot more instead of the word MARRIAGE (unless the lack of priorities they refer to IS a marriage of inconvienience).
B.G.