Tuesday, June 06, 2006

Mary Cheney, Mary Cheney

There's Mary and her father, grinning at the prospect of the "Marriage Protection Amendment" serving to distract the American public from ongoing "collateral damage" in Iraq.

They're here to introduce a great post at Dispatches From the Culture Wars on Bush's Gay Marriage Speech. It begins:
The White House has been kind enough to put the text of President Bush's speech advocating the "Marriage Protection Amendment" yesterday on their webpage. It would make a perfect example of illogical argumentation for a logic course.
The union of a man and woman in marriage is the most enduring and important human institution.

But apparently not so enduring that it can't withstand more people getting married.

For ages, in every culture, human beings have understood that marriage is critical to the well-being of families. And because families pass along values and shape character, marriage is also critical to the health of society. Our policies should aim to strengthen families, not undermine them.

I totally agree. But why does this claim not apply to families headed by gays? And what is the causal link between gay marriage and diminishing these good things about marriage? If gays are allowed to get married, are straight couples suddenly going to stop passing along values and shaping character?

Recommmended reading, and a depressing reminder that logic and science are not allowed by the current administration.

NOTE: Although it seemed funny and novel at the time, The Neurocritic is certainly not the first to use "Mary Cheney, Mary Cheney" as a title. Katha Pollitt (from The Nation) wrote a nice column with that title, right before the November 2004 presidential election. Katha didn't explicitly mention the reference, however, to "Mary Hartman, Mary Hartman" (I've wanted to work that show into a blog entry, and there you go). Sometimes things look so bleak that all you can do is laugh. Or cry. Or try to get rid of that embarassing waxy yellow buildup on your kitchen floor.

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]


At June 06, 2006 5:47 PM, Blogger Dan Dright said...

Here's the clincher:

The repugs are defining the parameters of the debate by framing it thusly:

They are conflating the religious institution of marriage (judeo-christian) with the govermental recognition of such unions as legal entities. By doing so, they are setting up a paradigm that a priori states that marriage should be legislated by government.

The thing is, government shouldn't have jack shit to do with marriage in the first place.

People who aren't able to deconstruct the differential components of their sophistic and intellectually dishonest argument will say that it sounds like it makes sense.

Plus, everybody's afraid of heinie sex.

I'd lay odds most repugs love to watch hot girl on girl action in the rec room while their wife is making smores upstairs.


Post a Comment

<< Home

eXTReMe Tracker