it's too early for this

[kodalai]

I was going to make a sarcastic comment on how ridiculous it is that Bush and his allies plan to protect the institution of marriage by oppressing the people.

Then I realized that there was no point. It's not ridiculous at all. Or, it is, but that's the way Bush and allies simply choose to operate. Protect the institution by suppressing the people. As Lois McMaster Bujold put it, principles before persons.

I'd like to give them the benefit of the doubt and think that this is simply a difference in moral philosophy between them and me -- to think that they honestly believe they are doing good by upholding symbols at the suffering of people.

Unfortunately, I get the impression that their moral philosophy is a lot simpler. Us over them.

I don't try to think that I have all the answers. I don't expect people to go along with all my beliefs and opinions as gospel truth. Maybe the Republican financial philosophy really is better for our country. Maybe we really do need to take military action in order to protect our country's security. Maybe if everything I wanted our government to do suddenly became done, people would be *worse* off than they are now.

But then I look at the lies, the cheats, the hypocrisy, the propaganda, the betrayals that have put us where we are. And maybe I have to take my own stand of principles before people.

Bush Daitouryou, yurusarenai.

Comments

Re:

[kodalai.livejournal.com]

Marriage was originally a creation of the Bible, not a creation of the people.

Well, I think here the historian in me has to disagree.

Marriage was around long before the creation of the Bible, either old testament or new. Marriage exists in cultures and countries that have never even heard of the Bible.

Marriage is a creation of the people. Human beings have had pair-matings -- and marriages, which is pair matings under a new name and a few more frills -- since the dawn of human society. And no, it was not always done for love because people wanted to be together. It was first of all done as an economic merger of interests -- two peoples or two families agreeing to pool their resources to rear a new generation of children. It was done to form kinship bonds between two people. It was done to ascertain, at least in name, that the two people involved could be certain their offspring belonged to them and no-one else.

In other words, marriage as an institution of economic exchange far, far predates marriage as an affirmation of holy dominion over human life. Religion almost certainly become involved early on, but it wasn't the Bible. The current Church monopoly on pair-bonding springs from a time in Western civilization where the Church was the only central authority around and thus had monopoly over almost every aspect of life, from marriages to births to deaths to taxes.

But we don't require religious sanction to get born any more, nor to die, and we certainly don't (or IMO shouldn't) leave the business of taxes to the churches. Marriage might still be an economic bond, or it might be a bond of purely human love and affection, but it was not then and is not now a creation of the Bible.

^ This wasn't a flame, by the way. I'm just disagreeing with you. *huggles* And I want you to always feel free to disagree with me. :)

Re:

[kodalai.livejournal.com]

(Deleted post)

Oh dear...

[bishsticks.livejournal.com]

You know what I object to? Bush spending $1.5 billion in this ridiculous Defense of Marriage Act, when that money could so be better used elsewhere, say in schools or how about free child care so lower income mothers (or dads) can go to work to make extra money for their families and not have to stay at home with the kids because they can't afford child care. Or any other of a number of programs that could actually do some good for people instead of discriminating against them.

*mumbles* Stupid Bush. *mumbles*

[ginalin.livejournal.com]

Any time a government feels free to disenfranchise one group of people from a fundamental human right, such as forming a pair bond and having it legally and officically recognized, then can you help but wonder who they will deprive of a basic right next?

As for Bush and co. trying to force their own religious or moral principles upon an entire diverse population, well, that's clearly a violation of some of the founding principles of the United States involving freedom of religion and separation of church and state.
These people need to quit acting as though there is a state religion. Although around 75% claim to be Christian in some general fashion in the US, less than half of those people are regular church goers or even have any firm belief in God.

Christian belief is as diverse as this country is in population, and the "morality" that Bush is telling us he wishes to protect comprises the ideology only a minority in this country. Since when does minority opinion rule?

Re:

[kodalai.livejournal.com]

Since when does minority opinion rule?

Or even majority opinion. In my strange little world, "liberty and justice for all" means "liberty and justice for ALL, including the people you don't like." But what do I know.

Re:

[ginalin.livejournal.com]

I think the thing that disgusts me most is this whole campaign of hate is being conducted under the guise of "family values".

Since when is bigotry a family value?

Even if homosexuality isn't your personal choice or lifestyle, promoting bigotry and hate as some sort of moral highground makes me intensely nervous.

I mean, it's such a short hop from one kind of hate to another, and who knows when someone will decide that it's your turn to be officially hated because they don't like something you do?

And I've never been able to figure out why the government thinks it's their business who someone chooses to sleep with!