Serving Bowles

I’m always a day or two behind the news, so you have probably already heard that Charles, Prince of Wales is going to marry his longtime love and former mistress Camilla Parker Bowles. But that’s not the news I’m talking about. I’m talking about the fact that The Bush2 White House has announced that when Chuck and Cammie travel on a post-wedding tour to the U.S. that Camilla is not welcome at a White House dinner. Why? Because she is a divorcee and that doesn’t jive with the Bush administration’s traditional marriage agenda.

Bush thinks a divorced woman at the dinner table is detrimental to American family values? What century is this? Feeding a divorcee means that you support broken marriages?? Can no one stop this man? Who put it in the president’s job description to be author of the moral code of the nation. I thought the president was supposed to provide us, the nation, with economical security, protect us from harm, and lay the groundwork for future progress. People set their own moral codes. I set mine. You set yours. He sets his. And none of us has the right to enforce our morality on others.

It’s not like I am some big fan of Camilla Parker Bowles and Pricne Charles. I really don’t give a rat’s ass about their marriage. Although I do think its a shame that Princess Diana had to suffer through a lot of humilation brought on by the Charles/ Camilla indescretions, ultimately their wedding has no effect on me or my choices in life. In fact, who does it really ultimately effect other than themselves (and their immediate families to some degree) ?

Does love go against the Bush agenda? Is it not okay for people to love each other, George W? Camilla and Charles are just two people in love (they must be if they kept this level of intimacy through both of their previous marriages and public scrutiny). Why can’t they be invited over for pot luck? Oh, that’s right, people loving each other is not a priority for you. Otherwise, you wouldn’t have such a problem with gays marrying each other. They, too, are just people in love. Why can’t they be married? So, you’re disgusted my the idea of man2man sex. Two men kissing turns your stomach. Those aren’t the issues. Marriage isn’t a way of expressing sex and intimacy. It’s a way of expressing love. And if you find fault with love, then you’re just not human.

If Ronald Reagan was still alive, what kind of response would he and Nancy get when they want to come over on Sloppy Joe night? They were both divorced. In fact, (and I could very well be wrong) I think Reagan was the only divoreced man to ever hold the office. It’s highly unlikely that the Grandaddy of the modern GOP would be unwelcomed.

I do hope that all this will rankle Tony Blair enough that he will finally stop giving “W” reach-arounds. What if the tables were turned? What if Queen Elizabeth refused to have recovered alcholics over for tea? Guess who’s not coming to dinner. Way to go , Mr. President. You’ve already riled up all our enemies. Why not piss off the few allies we have left, too.

Doesn’t the White House belong to the nation? To the people? To us? I’m sure some of our tax dollars go toward the upkeep of the place. Except in matters of security, I think we have more say about who’s invited than the first family does. They can make their rules for their private quarters in the building, but as far as the public spaces, the White House is partially my house. I say find Camilla a seat and save her an extra drumstick.

5 Responses to “Serving Bowles”

  1. James Says:

    I’ve absolutely given up trying to figure out the motives of this administration. It perplexes me the way these people work.

    If this story were to come out prior to this administration, everyone would have said bullshit. The sad thing is that people expect this out of him. *shrugs*

  2. greg Says:

    Is any of this surprising? I think it’s the typical lunacy we’ve always seen from the Bush white house. And allies? Do we have allies?

  3. Tom Says:

    It is just another example of the right wing loonies in action.

  4. Gurkie Says:

    I think it might have more to do with the fact that the marriage represents years of infidelity and I wouldn’t like it either if someone I knew was getting married after all these years of shamelessly cheating on his wife. You expect me to be happy about this marriage? I can’t. I would be happier if this marriage happened first and had more respect for Charles if he would have risked the throne to marry the woman he obviously has been in love with for so long. As much as I don’t “get” what Bush does at times, I’m glad someone is speaking up against this most unholy of unions. :-) But, IMO, he should relent and save face and have them visit the White House. After all, they’re public figures and only 1/3 of the house is actually yours. Just get it over with. At the very least, the international community might start respecting us again. I said MIGHT.

  5. B O'Man Says:

    You are very correct, the bush admin is driving what alias you had, away. The U.S. people as a whole cant be that stupid, and must see the “Christian Right” running the country and their leader.