Left I on the News

George Bush, justifying his election-year push for a Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, makes this claim:

"Ages of experience have taught us that the commitment of a husband and a wife to love and to serve one another promotes the welfare of children and the stability of society."

So the obvious question is this: gay people live together, and have children (either adopted, from before the relationship, or, in the case of lesbians, via artificial insemination). Does George Bush think that it better "promotes the welfare" of such children to have their parents "living in sin," rather than joined in marriage? If not, then why does this amendment not also propose banning adoption or artificial insemination by gay parents, and taking children away from existing relationships and placing them to be raised in "proper" families with heterosexual parents? And, for that matter, how about banning adoptions and taking children away from single or divorced parents? Banning divorce itself should be a no-brainer as well. "No-brainer." That's a pretty good term for this proposed Constitutional amendment. Except not in the usual sense of the term.

And while I'm asking questions: Can anyone remember the last time an American flag was burned (in the United States)? I sure can't.