defending sanctity

While reading through Tripp's blog today, I noticed his request for comments about the President's State of the Union address last night.

So I posted a comment, and after hitting enter, I thought a moment, and a) realized that it is presumptive of me to make a snarly comment on his blog and b) that I really did have a strong reaction to Bush's speech.

What are the classic words of the letter to the editor writer, I am appalled that ...? Well, I am.

Why does the president and the right wing use language to hide what they are doing when they talk about codifying special rights for straight people, and worse, putting into law restrictions upon gay people?

What's defended in the 1990s Defense of Marriage Act or this more draconian effort to amend the United States Constitution so that gay families are stripped of any legal protections and responsibilities that their state has offered, ones that are already in place for straight people?

Nothing is defended. In the name of defense, punitive restrictions are placed on gay people. Ms. Spears and her Louisiana boyfriend have the freedom to play around in a Las Vegas instant marriage parlor. But lord forbid that loving, committed couples of the same sex are allowed equal legal rights and responsibilities.

And if we are all so willing to let the president make little aside comments like the one he made last night, and not challenge what he is saying, aren't we all a bit gullible in watching an erosion of American justice and freedom? Because if it is ok to prevent equal protection for gay families, isn't it then ok to preserve some other imaginary concept that upsets folks who have an extreme distaste for gay folk in our society? And who else is next?

Then I calmed down a bit.