Blogs > Liberty and Power > GEORGE W. BUSH -- TRAITOR

Feb 1, 2004

GEORGE W. BUSH -- TRAITOR




Our contemptible Panderer-in-Chief comes a bit closer to revealing his hatred for individual rights, equality before the law, and the founding principles of the United States:

After three days of private strategy sessions, the Republican leaders of the Senate have decided to scale back two of their major legislative initiatives: the energy bill and a measure that would impose strict caps on jury awards in medical liability cases.

The decision came at the annual retreat of Republican members of Congress, which featured presentations by lawmakers and pollsters, entertainment by the comedian Dennis Miller and a speech on Saturday by President Bush. ...

Mr. Bush's 11-minute talk, delivered in a folksy style to an admiring audience of lawmakers, spouses and their children, was the only event at the retreat open to journalists. The question-and-answer session that followed was closed to reporters.

But during the session, Mr. Bush took the opportunity to clarify his position on an issue dear to some conservatives, a proposed constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, according to both Representative Marilyn Musgrave, Republican of Colorado, and a White House spokesman.

Mr. Bush said that if necessary, he would support the version of an amendment sponsored by Ms. Musgrave, the spokesman said. The specificity of his comments moved him a small step closer to backing an amendment. But they stopped short of satisfying some of the most determined Christian conservative groups. Many argue that a Massachusetts court ruling in favor of gay marriage makes an amendment an urgent necessity, and some are holding out for stronger language banning same-sex civil unions as well.

Oh, please. Of course, he'll support a constitutional amendment --"if necessary," which in this instance, as in every other one, means"if I conclude that my political well-being and my reelection require it." I commented on the philosophical implications and meaning of Bush's stance on this issue before, where I offered Bush my personal judgment of eternal damnation. I repeat that judgment again. In fact, if there were a punishment greater than eternal damnation, Bush has now fully earned that punishment as well.

In case you haven't seen the text of the proposed amendment, here it is:

FEDERAL MARRIAGE AMENDMENT (H.J.Res. 56)

Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this constitution or the constitution of any state, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups.

To appreciate the depth of the perfidy in which Bush is engaged, a brief historical review is required.

With a few notable (and deplorable) exceptions, all of the amendments to the Constitutionexpand individual rights. The first ten amendments -- the Bill of Rights -- are widely recognized as an important, indeed essential, check on the powers of a centralized government.

The Thirteenth Amendment famously states:"Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."

The Fourteenth Amendment provides:"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

The Fifteenth Amendment states:"The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude."

The Nineteenth Amendment provides:"The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex."

The Twenty-Fourth Amendment states:"The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax."

The essential meaning of these amendments is clear: all people of the United States are fundamentally equal, and possess identical basic rights -- and they are not to be denied the equal protection of the law on the basis of race, color, sex, or any other forms of discriminatory treatment, such as a poll tax.

But now, for the very first time in our nation's history, our President himself has said that he will support --"if necessary" -- an amendment which would enshrine in the Constitution itself second-class citizenship for an entire group of citizens, made up of many millions of people. And he would do this because those people have one single trait for which Bush and certain of his supporters have an irrational, baseless, indefensible dislike, or even hatred.

Make no mistake about this: even if one believes that the state has no business in marriage to begin with (which is my view), the fact is that in this country, and in this world at this time, the state is involved in marriage in countless ways. And it is nothing less than the most revolting form of discrimination for the state to provide benefits to one group (heterosexuals) while denying those same benefits to another group (homosexuals). And to do this solely because one particularly powerful pressure group, the Religious Right, has a visceral dislike for gays and lesbians is beneath contempt. And to enshrine such irrationality and discrimination in the Constitution itself earns the proponents of such a loathsome idea an eternal date with the devil.

To make this point absolutely clear -- and to cut through the truly vile evasive tactics used by Bush and his supporters on this issue -- let's rewrite the proposed Federal Marriage Amendment, as some people might have wanted it to read only a few decades ago:

Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a Caucasian man and a Caucasian woman. Neither this constitution or the constitution of any state, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon couples made up of one Caucasian member and a member of any other race, or any groups of mixed races.
Do you find that sickening? Does it make your stomach turn? Does it make you want to vomit -- to contemplate such an abomination being added to the Constitution of what had been the noblest nation in mankind's history?

You ought to have the same reaction to what Bush and the Religious Right are proposing. In principle, there is no difference between the two examples. Both examples deny equality to one group on the basis of a single characteristic, a characteristic which another group finds"distasteful," or"sickening," or"disgusting."

Welcome to George Bush's America: an America which spits in its own face, which disgraces a history which expanded the rights of all people, and which now dares to lecture other countries -- and even to impose our will on them through military might -- all in the name of"democracy" and"freedom," while our President himself acts directly against our own recognition of individual rights and equality on the most fundamental level.

There ought to be a punishment worse than eternal damnation. If there is one, Bush and all his supporters with regard to this issue fully deserve it, several times over.

If Bush were ever to demonstrate any degree of honesty with regard to his loathsome and vile beliefs, and if he were to support any version of the proposed Federal Marriage Amendment fully and explicitly, no other country and no one at all on the face of the Earth should listen to instruction or leadership from the United States on any issue at all -- and it will take decades, and some new political leaders who demonstrate a basic understanding of the principles which once animated this country, to earn the United States any degree of respect in the future.

But Bush has already come so close to committing this act of profound betrayal, that I think this will probably be his legacy in any case. I do not know what country Bush thinks he is leading -- but in terms of the principles that he apparently believes in, it is absolutely not the United States of America, not in terms of the philosophical ideas which served as the foundation for this nation. In this sense, Bush may well be the most unAmerican President we have ever had.

And if that is not worthy of a place in Hell, I do not know what is.

(Cross-posted at The Light of Reason.)



comments powered by Disqus

More Comments:


John T. Kennedy - 2/4/2004

Arthur Silber,

You characterize support for federal marriage amendment as perfidy but on your own blog you seem to have said that prohibition of polygamy (and incest) is in the interest of common welfare:

http://coldfury.com/reason/comments.php?id=A572_0_1_0_C

I fail to see how any argument for prohibition of polygamy or incestuous marriage is in principle any different from an argument against homosexual marriage.

I think you should stick to the idea that government shouldn't be involved in marriage at all, but I'd go further and say that individuals ought to evict government from their marriages:

http://www.no-treason.com/comments.php?id=537_0_1_0_C

In truth, nobody needs government's permission to marry and government recognition of gay marriage will neither improve the lot of gays nor make people more equal under the law. You are not better off inviting the state into the most intimate part of your life. And legal recognition of marriage is designed to promote inequality and cannot in principle do anything else, would married gays be more equal to single individual under the law than they are now? No, they'd be as privilieged at the expense of single individuals as other legally married people are now.

Expanding the public sphere is never a good idea, expanding it into one's initmate life is a tragic blunder.