Eli's raised some thought-provoking objections (see below). If anyone knows where I can find the actual amendment text, please alert me. Here are his thoughts, and a few responses:

Elimaan: hmm, based on your blog entry, maybe you should re-read his speech and re-evaluate your arguments, considering how Kerry agreed with the speech in most aspects and how Bush's speech is entirely about the use of the word 'marriage': most political analysts agree that his speech is very middle of the road for this time of election year in that his proposed amendment would allow civil unions and permit them to have the same privileges as marriage: the only thing it would limit is terminology (a civil union would not allowed to be called a marriage, but would be entitled to the same rights). This is essentially a re-iteration of Clinton's view when he signed the Defense of Marriage Act back in 1996.

**Where is the amendment text? I've been reading the LA Times nearly every day for the past month, and haven't seen anything about the actual text yet. Also, I'd heard that Kerry was the one considering making all 'marriages' civil unions, in effect taking religion out of government, and allowing churches to confer the title of 'marriage' to couples.

Elimaan: Also, cultural arguments such as "harems exist" are not good arguments, since there are plenty of examples of cultural habits that are extremely negative, such as the Indian custom (before British colonization) of burning a wife alive after her husband died, or the African Ibo tribe's tradition of killing twins (twins were believed to be inherently evil). Unless you're simultaneously arguing for the legalization of polygamy, you should re-evaluate your arguments.

**Perhaps I should wait to post arguments until I have sufficient time to consider them, like my history essays. You have a point - not all cultural institutions are beneficial - but the reason why I emphasized the berdache was because it seemed almost a direct analogy. You have a man who's clearly a homosexual; yet instead of being ostracized, he's encouraged and often considered to be very powerful (many took on spiritual duties). He's even 'beneficial' to the society - he often looks after children, in addition to doing the typical women's work. The only way he does not contribute is through reproduction - and that's arguably a good thing, since Native American tribes in California tended to run through their resources fairly quickly, then move to another locale and repeat.

(As for the harem argument - yes, I should've thought about it and deleted that reference. Note that I didn't try to support it later, either. That comes from trying to think after being up for a long time.)

Elimaan: P.S. I think it was pretty clear to most people that when he said "of civilization" he implicitly meant "of western civilization", and when you say that "it's only the Catholic/Christian worldview that finds this totally unnerving and aberrant - NOT the entire US" recent polls show that over 70% of US citizens agree with the wording of the amendment proposed, hence why it was a good political move for him to make it and a good poltiical move for Kerry to say he agreed to it..... if this speech convinced you not to vote for him, does that imply that Kerry is not a valid candidate in your opinion either?

**Could you refer me to where you read about those poll numbers? I'd honestly like to read that article, and the amendment wording. I thought I had the facts straight before I commented, but I'm certainly willing to reconsider if I was ill-informed. I usually try to believe the best in people - even politicians - and so I was shocked and fairly irate when I read and interpreted that speech, since it seemed so intolerant.

This speech was more like the final straw than a pivotal issue. I've been reading a lot about the election in the LA Times in the last month, as well as looking over Kerry's site (and Edward's too) and I feel that both of them represent my views better than Bush by a long shot. However, since my parents are both conservative and are pro-Bush, I felt somewhat wrong in expressing an anti-Bush opinion... but what I read into this speech was the suppression of rights and liberties of another minority, and I cannot in good conscience vote for someone who believes that is the correct thing to do. If Bush is pro-civil unions for *everyone*, where civil unions include all the present benefits of marriage, and 'marriage' becomes an extra title conferred by a church/synagogue/whatever to a couple who has the civil union ceremony performed in a religious facility or who are members of a religion - then that's fine with me. Like I said, as long as equal rights are extended to all, then I'm content.

...but I'll probably still vote for the Democrat.