Republicans Unexpectedly Oppose Traditional Marriage

When I first read these paragraphs in an editorial from the Seattle Post-Intelligencer ("Congress: Democracy's day off"), I looked back at it several times, wondering where the typo was, or where the word had been left out that changed its meaning:

The House passed on a voice vote, without hearing or thought, a measure to give federal courts jurisdiction to review decisions to withhold food, fluids or medical treatment from an incapacitated person, saying that it violates either the Constitution or U.S. law. They'll probably call this "Terry's law" because it's designed to prevent the husband of Terry Schiavo from removing a feeding tube.
This is one of those really tough decisions that families make every day. But the bill's sponsors would prefer that federal judges overrule spouses.

Surely, I thought, in this brave new world of moral regressiveness that looks to restrain the zealous activities of "activist judges" — especially when it comes to the sovereignty of the spouse in a traditional, mixed-gender marriage! — congress would never, ever pass a bill that would extend the power of the judiciary and effectively redefine the hallowed institution of "marriage". Apparently I was wrong.
I guess those wacky House Republicans just get more like a random-number generator every day. I wonder what they'll think of next.

Posted on March 18, 2005 at 14.52 by jns · Permalink
In: All, Raised Eyebrows Dept., Splenetics

2 Responses

Subscribe to comments via RSS

  1. Written by S.W. Anderson
    on Friday, 18 March 2005 at 20.31
    Permalink

    This is quite a striking switch for a party that for decades championed states' rights and howled about interference from the federal executive and judicial branches. Of course, a key issue then was the insistence of some states on protecting their traditions of racial discrimination.

  2. Written by jns
    on Friday, 18 March 2005 at 22.49
    Permalink

    And, of course, that "state's rights" thing contributed to a weakening of Republicans' position on a constitutional amendment banning marriage equality for gay people, since all the Democrats could waffle by saying they thought it was an issue for the states to settle for themselves, and Republicans were forced to pretend that it was actually about "state's rights".
    I am pleased, maybe even surprised, to have a new ally supporting marriage equality in the irrepressible John Cole at Balloon Juice who wrote, in "The Sanctity of Marriage":

    The past few months have been very illuminating for me, and now that some in my [Republican] party are viciously attacking Michael Schiavo, it is pretty clear what is meant by 'the sanctity of marriage.'

    The sanctity of marriage is bullshit rhetoric to keep fags from marrying- other than that, it means nothing to these Big Government Republicans, who have thrown reason and concepts of privacy and human dignity out the window and replaced them with the bible and a faux sense of morality.

Subscribe to comments via RSS

Leave a Reply

To thwart spam, comments by new people are held for moderation; give me a bit of time and your comment will show up.

I welcome comments -- even dissent -- but I will delete without notice irrelevant, rude, psychotic, or incomprehensible comments, particularly those that I deem homophobic, unless they are amusing. The same goes for commercial comments and trackbacks. Sorry, but it's my blog and my decisions are final.