Month: February 2004

Well, since everybody and his cow in the blogosphere are talking about Bush’s announced support for a constitutional amendment to define marriage as between heteros, I’ll jump in with a few comments.

Con: I think neither government nor the church should be in the business of legislating anthropology. The church’s administration of marriage is a Medieval innovation with no basis in scripture. The only reason I can think of for government’s interest in marriage is for tax purposes. One can claim dependents who bear you no familial relationship, so why should the government care whom you claim as a domestic partner?

Pro: At least Bush is consistent in applying his positions, not bending to every whim of the electorate. Except . . . in this case the majority of the electorate is against gay marriage, so Bush gets it both ways. Taking the question to the legislature rather than the courts is the right way to go, although I can’t really imagine that the founders intended the constitution to define anthropology.

Also, I’ll ask the same question many in the blogosphere are asking: why isn’t anyone criticising Kerry, whose position on the matter is essentially the same as Bush’s?