Bushinations: Words mean what we want them to

The logic used by a Florida federal judge in his decision upholding the Defense of Marriage Act escapes me. Apparently “the government has a legitimate interest in allowing states to ban same-sex marriages, namely to encourage ‘stable relationships’ for the rearing of children by both biological parents.” This assertion flies in the face of the facts on the ground, namely that permitting same-sex marriage does not impact opposite sex couples who continue to commit adultery and physically and emotionally abuse each other, which are much more damaging to any children living in a household.

Further, the statement is a logical fallacy in that it contradicts itself: How can a person who is (regardless of how one might understand the word “is”) attracted to people of the same gender provide a “stable environment” (in the words of an Indiana judge who announced a similar ruling yesterday) for his or her children and spouse? That person can hardly be stable without being emotionally torn apart by the conflicting demands and–though exceptions exist as they do with every rule of human behavior–is generally demonstrated by the vast number of knwon cases.

So we have yet another example of how the Bush Crew (the Florida verbiage, at least, is taken directly from the brief filed by former Attorney General Ashcroft) ignores reality in favor of the desired outcome. I have yet to see or hear a single objection to same-sex marriage (or more generally, any same-sex activity between consenting adults) that is base on anything other than emotion or questionable understanding of a religious text. This is a good reminder of what America can look forward to for the next four years, or more if we’re not lucky.