Maybe they'll approve man-dog relations, next!
Now that The Supreme Court struck down the Texas anti-sodomy law (how dare consenting adults actually screw in the privacy of their own home!), the debate begins to rage about gay marriage. Typically, the family values crew is panicking about the sanctity of marriage. Did this columnist ever stop to think, in the midst of crafting a completely asisnine argument, that social pressures have forced homosexuals into man-woman marriages?
From flag burning to gay marriage, the chicken littles want to pass constitutional amendments to limit freedom in the name of freedom, an argument that amounts to chasing one's own tail. Our President doesn't yet want to commit to a Constitutional Ban against something which is not allowed yet, anyway. Wake me up when thodse self professed "Freedom Lovers" intend to make a salient point: zzzzz.
"Sacntity of marriage" has such a sanctimonious, religious tone that the whole argument crosses the threshold of the Separation between Church and State. A Church is entitled to ban homosexual marriages as a tenet of faith, but the last time I looked, the government was supposed to be impartial toward religion, with the exception to our supine position to God in the "Pledge of Allegiance," of course.
Maybe the idea of "marriage" is outdated, after all? Don't tell my fiance, however, we're still planning on having a marriage that won't be threatened by homosexual unions. Now, about those damn Canadians... |
Now that The Supreme Court struck down the Texas anti-sodomy law (how dare consenting adults actually screw in the privacy of their own home!), the debate begins to rage about gay marriage. Typically, the family values crew is panicking about the sanctity of marriage. Did this columnist ever stop to think, in the midst of crafting a completely asisnine argument, that social pressures have forced homosexuals into man-woman marriages?
From flag burning to gay marriage, the chicken littles want to pass constitutional amendments to limit freedom in the name of freedom, an argument that amounts to chasing one's own tail. Our President doesn't yet want to commit to a Constitutional Ban against something which is not allowed yet, anyway. Wake me up when thodse self professed "Freedom Lovers" intend to make a salient point: zzzzz.
"Sacntity of marriage" has such a sanctimonious, religious tone that the whole argument crosses the threshold of the Separation between Church and State. A Church is entitled to ban homosexual marriages as a tenet of faith, but the last time I looked, the government was supposed to be impartial toward religion, with the exception to our supine position to God in the "Pledge of Allegiance," of course.
Maybe the idea of "marriage" is outdated, after all? Don't tell my fiance, however, we're still planning on having a marriage that won't be threatened by homosexual unions. Now, about those damn Canadians... |
<< Home