I believe a marriage is between a man and a woman. And I think we ought to codify that one way or the other. And we've got lawyers looking at the best way to do that.
How much more does it take to convince Her Royal Highness, that he's among the sinners whose love the robertson radicals dare not name? I mean if the obviously pandering President Biblical Quotes (mote...speck...log...neighbor) can say he's got "lawyers" looking into it, does that mean Al Gonzales is about to outlaw Sully's marital ambitons by Executive Fiat over a presidential signature? Interesting concept, but not too likely.
Sully of course is outraged, and clueless at the same time.
I have no idea what he's talking about. We already have a Defense of Marriage Act. "Codifying" marriage as a federal matter? Huh? Is this an endorsement of the Federal Marriage Amendment? Or is it an ingenious way to mollify the far right without the FMA? No clue here.
Not sure how this works, it's like being in denial about being in denial, I guess. Which is a pretty permanent state for HRH. So, they don't like him. Another day, another dollar. Vacation starts tomorrow, right?
posted by Jo Fish on 07.31.03 at 12:25 AM
Comments:
Looks like someone just explained it to him -- two hours later he's figured out what Bush meant and seems just shocked too!
President Bush said yesterday, in so many words, that he is considering amending the constitution to deny gays legal equality in their relationships - indeed to enshrine second-class citizenship for gays in the sacred words of the founding document.
posted by: Seb on 07.31.03 at 06:35 AM [permalink]
Well, it's double work, of course, as Jo has already pointed out. We already *have* a law establishing a man/woman (or woman/man, with a hat tip to those who feel the female gender is cruelly overlooked in this (mal)Administration.)
What we *need* of course, is a Federal law establishing that clueless homosexual writers be granted an annual stipend large enough to permit them to actually pay for internet services, so they don't have to steal them by skulking around Wi-Fi cafes.
posted by: Lurch on 07.31.03 at 07:35 AM [permalink]
the Pope annouced that same sex marriage was immoral. which begs the obvious question: where was he when the chuch was having sex with little boys. while not anti-catholic, i can see why there are those that accuse the catholic church of becoming irelevant. morality does not equal voyeurism, the pope and right-wing christians need to stop obsessing over what consenting adults do in their bedrooms.
posted by: Theo on 07.31.03 at 10:49 PM [permalink]
