Sorry guys, the State of the Union didn’t do it for me. Lots of obvious things were said. I do have some pet peeves though…
“Our second great responsibility to our children and grandchildren is to honor and to pass along the values that sustain a free society. So many of my generation, after a long journey, have come home to family and faith, and are determined to bring up responsible, moral children. Government is not the source of these values, but government should never undermine them.”
Okay, I agree. The government should not dictate moral values, the society does and the government should reflect the society as long as it does not discriminate against minorities in the society. That goes back to the Framers. I’m not sure if kids need to come home to the type of faith that I think Mr. Bush is speaking of, but I’ll go with it.
Next paragraph:
“Because marriage is a sacred institution and the foundation of society, it should not be re-defined by activist judges. For the good of families, children, and society, I support a constitutional amendment to protect the institution of marriage.”
Wait, since when is marriage sanctioned by the government sacred? Perhaps sectors of the society have different opinions of marriage. Last time I checked if a church said that you were married it meant nothing to the government unless you paid the fee and signed the form. If it’s so “sacred” they why is the divorce rate over 50%? And wasn’t it just said that the government should not undermine values? Or did I misunderstand the first point and what was actually meant was that the government should not undermine the values of the majority or at the very least the strong minority that installed the current regime? In this “amendment to protect the institution of marriage” are you going to make divorce illegal or just really hard? It seems to me that there are more problems here than a few homosexuals wanting to be able to do some of the basic things that heterosexual couples can. I still can’t see how this is a threat, the gay guys aren’t trying to bugger you. And when was the last time we had an amendment that limited rights. Personal opinion here, but I think this type of amendment would be the worst thing since prohibition.
“The United States has no right, no desire, and no intention to impose our form of government on anyone else.” Ack!, Cough! Sorry getting over a sinusitis infection.
Well I don’t feel warm of fuzzy and I still think should look for a post-doc in Europe. Yep, we’re going down the shitter, but at least we will feel good about the whole think. Or at least be told that this is the right thing for us.
