Divided We Fall, Part 2

The U.S. Senate will begin debate next week on a constitutional amendment being pushed by President George W. Bush and the White House to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman. The proposed amendment also prohibits judges from ruling that either the Constitution or any state may give same-sex couples the right to marry or the same legal rights as married couples.

One would think people have more pressing concerns.

Nevertheless, the President used his weekly radio address today to flog the idea that the institution of marriage needs protection from “activist judges and some local officials [who] have made an aggressive attempt to redefine marriage in recent years.” He’ll be addressing the issue again on Monday in a nationally broadcast speech.

I can appreciate the President’s wish to give Americans insight into his thinking on important matters, and no doubt the senate ought to give full and fair debate to issues of national relevance as often as its members’ busy fundraising schedules will allow.

But this issue, now?

There are dozens of reasons why this issue fails to merit consideration as something to address at the constitutional level, and it is widely acknowledged to have no chance whatsoever of being passed by Congress.

So why on earth is the President bringing it up again nearly two and a half years after he first proposed it?

Because he’s a divider, not a uniter. The man has no observable interest in bringing the citizens of this great nation together on even a single issue of real importance.

He prefers to do most of his work in secret, as far away from public view as possible, and every time some little bit of light shines public or media attention on his criminal ineptitude or his designs on unitary executive power, he trots out something to fan the flames of fear, jingoism, and intolerance that burn beneath the veneer of our country’s global preeminence.

With the lowest approval rating of any president since that other notorious criminal, Richard Nixon, Mr. Bush could be forgiven a craven play for a boost in his popularity. His choice of a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage as the vehicle to rally public support only proves his tin ear and his remove from reality.

He and his advisers may be betting this obvious genuflection before theocraticallly inclined American conservatives will bring together God-fearing Republicans and Democrats alike and prevent the Republicans from losing control of Congress in the Fall elections.

Instead, it is far more likely to galvanize clear-thinking people on both sides of the philosophical divide to neutralize the nut-job-in-chief until a new decider can be chosen in 2008.


  1. Butler Crittenden - June 4, 2006 @ 10:33 am

    There is no possible sane negative reply to this analysis by Lonnie. Unless perhaps the frailties of language and the dangers of tongue-in-cheek may be misinterpreted by some. Lonnie says: “I can appreciate the President’s wish to give Americans insight into his thinking on important matters,…”, as if the bum gained office in an honest election, ever had an “insight” or is able to “think,” much less discern an “important matter.”

  2. lonbud - June 4, 2006 @ 12:04 pm

    As Mr. Colbert proved at the WHC dinner, one can still speak truth to power as long as it’s securely chouched in irony. The worst part of it, however, is not that the irony goes over their heads (deck chairs on the Hindenberg), but that the truth is routinely ignored by both the administration and the media.

  3. George Powell - June 5, 2006 @ 8:21 am

    The Shrub has proven to be nothing more than a craven war criminal. The “morality” bleats that come oozing from his smirking lips should be seen for what they are by every thinking voter. As commander-in-chief, the “Decider” is in fact and by law responsible for the conduct of the troops under his command. The onus of murdering innocent Iraqi civilians falls directly on him. But he is more concerned with the “sanctity of marriage?” Let’s cut to the chase and impeach all war criminals now.

  4. lonbud - June 5, 2006 @ 9:12 am

    While it would indeed be satisfying to down the whole enchilada, we should recognize the impracticability of serving it up given the staff in the kitchen and the servers on the floor.

    It’s not unreasonable, though, to demand — at a minimum — a trial of the actual perpetrators. Does Haditha’s Lt. Calley even have a name? Where is the Level 1 accountability in America’s Shock & Awe Roadshow, and why aren’t the media doing a better job of letting us know what’s being done in our names as we bring the wonders of freedom and democracy to the Middle East?

    It seems to me trying to get accountabilty and responsibility at the top in the curreent climate is a quixotic notion at best.

    We need to begin putting fire to the feet of the mainstream media corporations and start causing them pain for failing to do their jobs.

  5. Tam O’Tellico - June 5, 2006 @ 9:23 pm

    Guys, you’ve got it all wrong. This amendment isn’t simply a craven appeal by a proven incompetent to reinforce his hold on the utter ignoramuses who still can’t see they blew it twice already. No, this was clearly a back-handed slap at Dick Cheney through his gay daughter. W simply wants to show Crooked Dick who the real boss is in this administration.

    Actually, what I find far more frightening than this obvious political grandstanding is that a vast majority of Americans (70% or so according to most polls I’ve seen) support this idiocy. Can someone please tell me what is so appealing about homosexuality that requires such measures to prevent its spread?

    It makes one wonder what the real fear is among the masses.

Leave a Reply