Reactions on an FMA

After reading some email responses on Andrew Sullivan's blog, I cannot understand why President Bush has come out and stated his support of the FMA.

To be sure, I firmly believe that as much as adultery is sinful, the practice of homosexuality is sinful. But, contrary to my beliefs 15 years ago, I am of the conviction that legislating morality is a tricky and difficult task--a task that sometimes ought not be done.

And it ought not be done in this case.

The FMA should not be simply because those who support the FMA do so from within a particular theological context, a context that is not shared by all. That context--that Christian context that I share--is the truth. It is absolute. It does not change. Say it with me: Rob is not a relativist. But it is unconstructive to attempt to force that context upon those who will refuse it.

Perhaps President Bush felt that his hand has been forced because of the various gay marriages that have been all the vogue recently. But to respond through a Constitutional admendment, that is going too far. Perhaps a good litmus test would be to know that "your rights end where my nose begins" Referencing the idea that your freedoms are limited only when your freedom impinges upon mine (or others).

In any event, FMA or not FMA, the issue of homosexual marriage has taken on proportions and a life that goes beyond the importance that it really should have. In other words, people on BOTH sides of the issue have blown this thing way out of proportion (contrary to how Sullivan, Gary Bauer or Chuck Dobson would have to you believe). A homosexual marriage in San Francisco, outside of the grief I sense that such a thing could occur, does not affect my life.