Bush pushes gay marriage ban

From the AP via the Houston Chronicle:

Cheered by conservative supporters, President Bush gave a push today to a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage as the Senate opened debate on an emotional, election-year measure that has little chance of passing.

"Our policies should aim to strengthen families, not undermine them," Bush said in a speech. "And changing the definition of marriage would undermine the family structure."

All Senate Democrats, except Ben Nelson of Nebraska, oppose the amendment, and critics say Bush's efforts are primarily aimed at energizing conservative voters for the November elections. Together with moderate Republicans, the Democrats are expected to block a yes-or-no vote, killing the measure for the year.

Sen. Wayne Allard, R-Colo., who sponsored the measure, acknowledged that politics played a part in the timing of the debate, but for a different reason: to force senators to take a stand and answer for their votes on the campaign trail.

Click here for the rest.

Not a chance in hell is the convential wisdom on how likely it is that this amendment will make it out of Washington. That's why everybody's saying that this ill-fated move is all about energizing the conservative base, now largely demoralized and disillusioned by both the GOP dominated Congress and their once great leader, when midterm elections happen this November--the fear is that a lot of conservatives, in disgust, won't show up; gay-bashing, the GOP hopes, will give them the piss and vinegar they need to get them off their couches and into election booths, avoiding a total rout by the Democrats.

Well, we'll see how that works out for them.

As for me, I still don't see the reasoning behind right-wing opposition to gay marriage. The homophobia, of course, I get: it's the real reason so many people have problems with gay marriage. But the logic offered by these bigots I just don't understand. They say gay marriage threatens traditional man-woman marriage. Well, okay, how? It changes the definition of marriage, they say. Well, okay, I concede that: same sex marriage does, indeed, change the definition of marriage. But where's the harm? How does that affect anybody at all outside of gay individuals who want to get hitched? Obviously, there is no harm; nobody is affected in any negative way at all. It's bullshit, in other words, sophistry that's been retro-fitted to accommodate pre-existing fear of homosexuals. That is, conservative homophobes didn't arrive at the conclusion that gay marriage is wrong after careful deliberation. Rather, their knee-jerk response is to deny gay people as many rights as possible, and to then come up with squirrely bogus arguments to justify the position after the fact.

It's all a bunch of crap.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$