Bush Unsure Ban on Gay Unions Is Needed (washingtonpost.com)
Last week’s Supreme Court decision to strike down the nation’s remaining anti-sodomy laws has left some conservatives convinced that so-called “defense of marriage” laws prohibiting gay marriage cannot survive future court challenges. As a result, a move to amend the Constitution to define marriage as applying only to male-female couples has rapidly picked up strength. Last Sunday, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) said he supports such an amendment.
…
The president of the conservative Family Research Council, Ken Connor, was less categorical. He said Bush’s position so far is “prudential.” But he too predicted that Bush will have to take sides. “All elected officials . . . are going to be forced to express their viewpoints on the meaning of marriage and the role of heterosexual marriage in our society,” Connor said.
I really don’t understand why straights get sooooo outraged at the thought of same sex unions. I can see the religious arguments against it (but then again, many of you know my view on most religious arguments anyway) but these are CIVIL unions we’re talking about. Keep your morals and your books out of it. It is possible, the last time I checked, to disaprove of something without trying to outright ban it. In fact, if you don’t approve of same sex unions, then don’t have one; it’s as simple as that. Remember, the last time religion ruled the world, they called it the dark ages.