Surely, the growing religious right that captured congressional seats last fall by arguing that the institution of marriage is under attack recognized the hypocrisy in their argument - one of these tenets "under attack" is that spouses make such life-impacting decisions for each other, taking the place of parents upon marriage.Another great piece, and segment:
That the House Republicans would attempt to alter the law and the nature of the marriage they made an electoral campaign out of purporting to defend simply because they didn't like the result, must have been a tough pill for some to swallow. But cutting off their own arguments on the sanctity of marriage in the process has been a small price to pay for votes from a hypocritical electorate that cares little for the Constitution....
Conservatives will tell you that the sanctity of the marriage relation between a man and a woman is so sacrosanct that the nation needs a Defense of Marriage Act, if not a constitutional amendment to preserve it. Yet let a husband like Michael Schiavo attempt to carry out the wishes of his wife, communicated to him within the bounds of such a marriage, then his word is worthless. Far from being able to carry out her wishes, everyone else's opinion, from the governor on down, means more and that sacrosanct relationship really means nothing, if it results in a result that the right doesn't approve of.Indeed, the sheer number of hypocritical items swirling around this case is absolutely mind-boggling. It's to the point where more than a few Republicans must be wondering in private, "what the hell did we do?" as it's quickly become obvious to most of America that this sudden intervention by the GOP was from the start nothing more than naked posturing to appeal to certain voters. As I've said before, this is about as low as politicians can get (and that takes some doing!).