minutia press.
Protecting the institution of marriage

Like others, I've been confused why the Senate and our President see fit to spend so much time and energy trying to keep gay people from getting married.

There are many more pressing issues, but let's suppose for the moment that our politicians' goals are to protect the institution of marriage.

What kind of institution is marriage when 50% of those who enter said institution fail? As a contract, the institution of marriage is an embarassment. Everyone who says "'till death does us part" knows that there is a trap door, a way out, a means to dissolve the marriage should things just not work out.

Why does the thought of gay people marrying threaten those who are not gay? How does such a union make the usual kind of marriage meaningless?

If the Senate really wants to protect the institution of marriage, then why not provide some mechanism for supporting those who are married from government interference, from burdensome taxes, and from the pressures that cause married people to drift part. Keeping gay people from marrying does nothing to help those who are already married.

And of course, the Senate doesn't really care about this issue at all, except to incite people who might vote their way to show up at the polls. Once again, an end justifies a means. Why not give people something genuine to vote and to care about?

I say that the population is too smart to be conned by this attempt to use hatred and prejudice to win votes. I say that people are too clever to be deceived by this kind of distraction from the issues that really confront us today. I hope that people will show up at the polls, and throw out those who are unwilling, unable, and uncommitted to considering the real issues that confront our society.


I agree with you 100%.

Except sometimes I fear that people really are dumb enough to fall for that. Or at least enough people to make a difference.

Posted by: Nathan at June 11, 2006 10:11 PM