Wulfie's Wurld

Commentary: Sacred Institution

“I believe [marriage is] a sacred institution that is critical to the health of our society and the well-being of families, and it must be defended.” Thus spake President Bush yesterday in reaction to a decision made earlier by the New Jersey courts. Let's ignore the fact that the decision was about a slightly different subject.

I have only three things to say about that particular statement. First, it's George Bush's opinion. He has a right to hold that opinion. I'm willing to stick my neck out and suggest that, politics aside, that really is his opinion and merely rhetoric to win votes from the Religious Right, and not merely to stir up the homophobic vote less than two weeks from Election Day. It is one of the reasons I went into the military--not to defend my opinion, but to defend all opinions, whether they agreed with mine or not. I may not agree with this opinion, but I respect it.

Second, I'd like to point out the discrepency of the rhetoric versus the reasoning. If marriage truly is "critical to the health of our society," I'd imagine that marriage should therefore be encouraged. Currently, married couples are in the minority. There are more people living together or remaining single than are married in our country. If marriage is critical, why work against a small segment from taking part and by so doing, increasing the health of society and families and the overall commonweal? If marriage is so critical, why not also encourage those living together to get hitched? I don't hear anything at all along those lines. If I didn't know the background of this contention, and looked at the President's statement at face value, I'd think it was an argument used by the homosexuals, and not an argument against them.

Third, I'd like to point out the use of the word "sacred." That's the part that scares me. That the President has an opinion doesn't bother me. That it differs from mine doesn't bother me. That it's moronically illogical doesn't bother me. Use of the word "sacred," however, does.

"Sacred" comes from the Latin to consecrate or make holy, and is defined as "dedicated or set apart for the service or worship of deity." It not only has religious connotations, it has religious denotations. The scary part isn't that this happens to be someone's opinion, but that this person is an elected government official and speaking in an official capacity. The Bill of Rights to the Constitution says that Congress shall make no laws respecting an establishment of religion. The Legislative Branch shouldn't do it, the Executive Branch damn well shouldn't be doing it or advocating it be done. That is not the way to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." And if that is the best of the President's ability to do so, then he is unfit for office.

In my opinion, all citizens of the US should enjoy the same rights. Marriage, as currently defined, carries with it legal rights. The direction ahead seems perfectly clear to me. Either grant all people the same rights by allowing all people to marry, or separate the legal part of marriage from the religious part. That means that showing up before the pastor and getting married may give someone the warm fuzzies, but to receive legal recognition of the bond, that same couple must also appear before a Justice of the Peace and form a legal, civil union. Various religions will be free to restrict "marriage" however the wish, because it will have no impact legally. One or the other.

Either that, or stop quibbling about definitions and stop wasting everyone's time on these stupid non-issues and deal with the issues that are killing people.