« BLOOD MONEY | Main | SHOOTING FROM THE LIP »
February 26, 2004
WISDOM FROM TEXAS
Who woulda thunk it? A wise Texan -- and one with a law degree, no less. Commenting on yesterday's item, Blood Money, a former federal assistant prosecutor from Houston writes:
"I'm not certain I agree with your characterization of 'The Passion of the Christ.' I must confess that I have not seen the film, nor do I intend to. But based upon the legitimate reviews, I think it sounds like nothing more or less than another gratuitously violent Mel Gibson film. (As I recall, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John tell the story in a more balanced manner and without the hysteria.)
"I don't believe we should dignify a crass, commercial offering by making some sort of cultural event out of it. As with most films, people will read into this film whatever they want. Remember your Marshall McLuhan.
"Likewise, I don't think 'Passion' signifies some sort of apocalypse. It's just a movie, and apparently a one-dimensional movie that deals exclusively with the torture and murder of Jesus Christ. No context, no explanation, no motivation. As others have said Gibson seems to be fascinated with torture and suffering (remember 'Braveheart'?). Wouldn't a balanced examination of the life of Jesus Christ deal even in passing with issues like peace and love?
"Enough on that.
"On the issue of 'gay marriage' -- and I hate to even use the qualified term -- I hardly know where to begin. All of what I'm about to say is obvious and should be beyond debate. But bear with me.
"There is either marriage or there is not. The marriage relationship carries with it benefits and advantages to those so united. It is quite simply unconstitutional to deny those advantages and benefits to people because of their sexual orientation. The notion that we can address this fundamental inequality by creating something called a 'civil union' is disingenuous at best. The minute we create two separate classes of people, we invite discrimination. Did we learn nothing from the 'separate but equal' laws regarding racial discrimination? Remember 'Brown v. Board of Education?' Separate is never equal.
"Preaching from the Religious Right regarding the sanctity of marriage makes me want to puke. It is simply a straw-man argument. Sanctification, whatever that means, can only exist in a relationship between two committed individuals. When an 18-year-old stripper marries a wealthy man in his 90s so she can inherit upon his death, is that 'sanctified'? When Larry King or Liz Taylor marry over and over and over again, is that 'sanctified'? Why then is a union between two committed people, who have lived together as help mates for many years, and who happen to be of the same sex, not 'sanctified'?
"I have heard people complain that we simply cannot recognize marriage between same sex individuals because their sexual practices are 'disgusting.' I would observe that, unless the parties are movie stars in a very carefully staged environment, sex acts, in general, are pretty disgusting. With all due respect, would you want to watch the president and the first lady engaging in intimate relations? For that matter, who would want to watch Mr. and Mrs. Herman, or me and my wife? Is that any reason to refuse to recognize our marriages?
"The fact is that marriage is a creature of statute with enormous economic and social ramifications. The government has no business defining marriage as 'sanctified' only when it exists between members of one class as opposed to another. We as individuals are free to read into marriage whatever religious or 'sanctification' implications we wish. The union itself, however, must be made available to all, regardless of race, religion or sexual preference.
"The larger, more interesting question is simply: 'Why?' Why would Bush disparage the actions of a judge in striking down a clearly unconstitutional law by referring to the judge as an 'activist judge,' whatever that means? If he would have someone read the Constitution to him, Mr. Bush would find that Article III of the Constitution created a separate judicial branch to act as a check on the power of the Executive and Legislative Branches. Marbury v. Madison and virtually every Supreme Court case since has affirmed the right and obligation of the judicial branch to protect the Constitution by striking down laws inconsistent with its requirements.
"Opinion poll after opinion poll shows that the majority of the American people do not favor a Constitutional Amendment to prohibit same sex marriages. Why then does Bush force the issue?
"The answer is that the man is simply a whore. He is pushing an amendment he knows won't pass, at what expense we can only guess, in order to mobilize the right wing loonies who constitute his political base. This is simply one more action of a desperate man who cannot run on his record. In this regard at least, I'm personally encouraged."
Posted by at February 26, 2004 10:36 AM