So I showed her
this link that
fearsclave thoughtfully provided.
She threw a fit, naturally. "Why don't they just abolish all institutions entirely, then?" she pontificated sarcastically. "Start with a clean slate? Clearly tradition means
nothing to these people." (My mother likes demonstrative pronouns: it helps her to distance herself from stuff she finds distasteful)
I actually made some headway in this conversation. Namely, I got her to agree with me that the State needs to recognise homosexual unions.
Not marriage, which is religious. She believes that religious ceremonies are sacrosanct and part of a long standing tradition and should not be meddled with. My mother is something of a traditionalist/conformist/revisionist type.
However, when I explained that that was why we have a division of Church and State, she warmed to me. I explained that in the US (this was some tricky manoeuvering on my part, because she hates the US so much that if I use them in an argument she'll automatically take the opposing viewpoint) they were seeking to prevent gay marriage on *moral* grounds, when in fact the State has "no place in the bedrooms of the nation" (another tricky manoeuver: quote Pierre Trudeau, whom she quite liked because she has a thing for charismatic politicians no matter what their leanings).
I argued that the US was defining gays as "inferior" people, from a social and moral standpoint, much like they had defined black people as inferior fifty years ago. While my mother is as racist as she is homophobic, she *does* understand the concept of equality, and she does believe in the equal treatment of human beings. She also massively objected to Bush's use of the word "sinners" in his speech, which for her is also part of that sacrosanct tradition that Bush has sullied by using it for his own purposes.
The conclusion? I finally found a use for Bush: using him as a weapon to fight my mother's prejudices.
Ironic, no?