Every so often - okay - frequently - Fox News reminds me why it's so dangerous. Well, not dangerous I suppose (not like it's starting any wars, oh wait), but - what's a word for "placating the lowest common denominator of society?" It's doing that.
This morning, while reporting on the 7 or so same-sex couples that have put in for marriage licenses and the pressure on the Mass legislature to act swiftly, the reporter/host/whomever, said that the if the legislature failed to pass a defense of marriage amendment it risked "alienating" over half the electorate that oppose gay marriage.
"Alienate?" Like white people were alienated when someone allowed the dilution of the race with interracial marriage? (and it's good to know that Fox is as fair and balanced in its presentation of domestic - that would be American and in-the-home - issues as they are in foreign.)
For the record - I'm not married and I'm not homosexual. So maybe that's why I don't feel a need to defend the institution of marriage. If I did defend it, it would probably be from serial matrimonialists and adulterers. If any two people can stick together for better or for worse, I say go for it. It doesn't bother me if you call it marriage.
A wise Reep friend of mine said conservatives should be for gay marriage because they are generally for institution building - and what's more institutional than fitting the love-that-dare-not-speak-its-name into the same contractual setting that everyone else is in? Add normalcy to it and control it more easily.
Or keep calling them subhuman, abhorrent, unnatural, or incapable of honoring the high and mighty institution of marriage. Say it's against the bible, and affront to God. Then when you meet your maker, explain to him why you felt adequate to pass judgement on someone else's love. Explain why yours is worth more. You might want to start explaining now - because I still don't get it.