trendymatt's Diaryland Diary ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- A brief commentary Of all weeks to actually have stuff to do at work, it had to be this one, when I have quite a bone to pick with President Dubya concerning his State of the Union address this past Tuesday. Well, without further ado, I'll give my mini-critique, only a few days late. Most of what I had to say was covered by Minderella, so I'll just touch on the two points that pissed me off the most: "To encourage right choices, we must be willing to confront the dangers young people face -- even when they're difficult to talk about. Each year, about 3 million teenagers contract sexually-transmitted diseases that can harm them, or kill them, or prevent them from ever becoming parents. In my budget, I propose a grassroots campaign to help inform families about these medical risks. We will double federal funding for abstinence programs, so schools can teach this fact of life: Abstinence for young people is the only certain way to avoid sexually-transmitted diseases. (Applause.) Decisions children now make can affect their health and character for the rest of their lives. All of us -- parents and schools and government -- must work together to counter the negative influence of the culture, and to send the right messages to our children." Okay. *deep breath in, exhale out* First of all, don't even get me started on the whole abstinence agenda. Yeah, let's just tell kids not to have sex and they won't, right? And while we're at it, why don't we all just stick our heads in the sand so that we don't see the religious right taking us from behind... without condoms, I might add. The truth of the matter is that only a select few parents ever have a truly open, honest dialogue with their children regarding sex. Doubling federal funding for abstinence-only programs will only perpetuate this, because as long as the schools continue to beat the dead "sex is evil" horse, parents won't have to face the reality of what their precious children are really doing when they're out "studying" on a Friday night. Again, heads in the sand. A growing majority of teenagers are having sex without posessing the knowledge to do it responsibly. In my line of work, I've heard all kinds of myths about sex from students in high school health classes. One girl thought that if she douched with lemon juice after unprotected sex, she couldn't conceive. A boy once raised his hand during a demonstration on how to use a condom with a terrified look on his face - he didn't know before that day that Vaseline should never be used as lubrication with a latex condom. If President Bush's plan of abstinence-only education is implemented, these kids wouldn't stop having sex. They would simply continue the same risky practices until an unwanted pregnancy happened or potentially deadly infection was diagnosed. Of course, abstinence is a great idea. Expecting it to be the norm, however, is hopelessly myopic. *deep breath in, exhale out* Now for the real fun. This will be so good, in fact, that I am forced to deal with this paragraph-by-paragraph... "A strong America must also value the institution of marriage. I believe we should respect individuals as we take a principled stand for one of the most fundamental, enduring institutions of our civilization. Congress has already taken a stand on this issue by passing the Defense of Marriage Act, signed in 1996 by President Clinton. That statute protects marriage under federal law as a union of a man and a woman, and declares that one state may not redefine marriage for other states." So, let me get this straight. Honestly, I really want to get a good understanding of this logic, because after months of hearing the tagline "Defense of Marriage" in every newscast on television, I am still completely confused as to what needs defending. What harm exists in the idea of two men or two women living together in a loving, committed, legally-recognized relationship? Other than the "eww" factor that a lot of heterosexuals have about gay sex, I can't think of a single thing. And to be quite honest, thinking about a lot of the straight people I see on a daily basis having sex makes me a little queasy. But you know what? I'm over it. I really chuckle at the ludicrous idea of respecting individuals, as long as they go along with what is considered the social norm. It just goes to show you that you are unique and special - just like everybody else. "Activist judges, however, have begun redefining marriage by court order, without regard for the will of the people and their elected representatives. On an issue of such great consequence, the people's voice must be heard. If judges insist on forcing their arbitrary will upon the people, the only alternative left to the people would be the constitutional process. Our nation must defend the sanctity of marriage. (Applause.)" Activist judges? Since when does recognizing the value of every person, regardless of sexual identity, equal activism? I don't know about you, but when I read the term "activist judges," all I can picture is Ruth Bader Ginsburg standing on the steps of the Supreme Court setting her bra aflame with a lit joint. If only! And obviously, the will of the people is represented in the fight for legal civil unions for the GLBT community. We are becoming an increasingly politically-aware and active force to be reckoned with. The judges who question the authority of the government to dictate who is allowed to live together and start a family are the ones who are truly hearing the peoples' voice. "The outcome of this debate is important -- and so is the way we conduct it. The same moral tradition that defines marriage also teaches that each individual has dignity and value in God's sight. (Applause.)" I can only assume that in Bush's vernacular, "moral tradition" equals "the Bible." If that's the guide he's using to perpetuate government policy, then he is using an extremely outdated, watered-down, irrelevant, inherently flawed guide that has been translated back and forth between so many different languages that its original meaning was likely lost four hundred years ago. The fight for homosexual marriage is one that should be fought in our churches, not our legislature. Civil unions, however, are a different animal altogether. It's about equal treatment from a legal standpoint. I, personally, could give a rat's ass that a church would let me marry another man within its walls. If we wouldn't have the same legal rights as a heterosexual married couple, the ceremony is useless. And even somebody as clueless as Dubya must see the irony in applauding the "dignity and value" of individuals while simultaneously robbing them of their right to legal protection. Damnit. I'm all pissed off now. I've gotta go get myself come coffee. Later, folks. 3:05 pm - 01.23.04 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
||||||
|
||||||