Nothing like seeing your president is concerned about that little part of the first amendment about, you know, Congress making no law establishing or prohibiting etcetera etcetera.

CNN on Bush and the Gay Marriage Ban

“WASHINGTON (CNN) — While calling for tolerance, President Bush said Tuesday he would support a constitutional amendment, if one is needed, that defines marriage as being between a man and woman.”

I won’t comment on the irony of using the phrase “calling for tolerance” in the same breath with a suggestion that marriage be defined as a one-man-one-woman arrangement. That’s not what’s got me confused here. What’s got me all confuzzled is a quote from Bush further down in the article.

“Bush said a constitutional amendment will be needed if ‘judicial rulings undermine the sanctity of marriage.’”

I’m sorry, what was that again? I don’t think I heard you correctly. “If ‘judicial rulings undermine the sanctity of marriage.’” No, I did hear correctly, didn’t I. Let’s look at what’s wrong with this picture for just a second here. It’s that last little phrase–”the sanctity of marriage”.

Sanctity is defined by the American Heritage Dictionary as “1. Holiness of life or disposition; saintliness. 2. The quality or condition of being considered sacred; inviolability. 3. Something considered sacred.” Any way you look at this, you get “sacred”. Which in turn is defined as ” 1. Dedicated to or set apart for the worship of a deity. 2. Worthy of religious veneration: the sacred teachings of the Buddha. 3. Made or declared holy: sacred bread and wine. 4. Dedicated or devoted exclusively to a single use, purpose, or person: sacred to the memory of her sister; a private office sacred to the President. 5. Worthy of respect; venerable. 6. Of or relating to religious objects, rites, or practices.”

See a theme?

Now, I ask you… What business does our government have making a law, much less passing an amendment to the Constitution, which upholds one religion’s beliefs–which is explicitly based on one religion’s beliefs? Whether I agree with the amendment or not is immaterial here; the point is, Bush is proposing something which exceeds our government’s allowed power.

If Bush wants to protect the sanctity of marriage, he should be talking to his priest, not Congress. If he’s got an actual legal reason to justify this amendment, that’s different. But at the moment–hello, Constitutionality!

No Comments »

CNN on the warning about “killographic” games

“WASHINGTON (Reuters) — A public interest group had a holiday warning and a new word Monday for parents of video game users: Beware of ‘killographic,’ defined as the ‘graphic depiction of brutal violence.’”

Dunno whose silly idea that term was, but whatever.

This article would have had me up in arms a few years ago, as a teen. The very implication that I couldn’t watch, play, or read whatever I wanted to would have been tantamount to locking me in the deepest, darkest prison cell. Hell, I wrote an entire essay about it somewhere around eleventh grade because of a game (Phantasmagoria) I’d never even played and had no real desire to.

Now… I think it’s intended to express the moral outrage of this “National Institute on Media and the Family” about the violence in video games–but I think it has a good message despite that. The message is this: Be aware of what your kid is playing. Don’t buy them Devil May Cry or Grand Theft Auto Vice City and then blame the game manufacturers or the store that sold it to you. Check the freaking ratings, people, they’re there for a reason. Even if you don’t have time to go read reviews, at least look at the box before you buy the game. On every box there’s a rating. It will tell you if the game is super-adult. I fully support organizations that put out lists of games not appropriate for children. Every parent who follows their advice will be one less parent screaming outrage later and trying to blame their oversight on anyone but themselves. I hope they’re being reasonable, but you know.

No Comments »