If they're so concerned about the sanctity of marriage, why don't they propose a Constitutional amendment banning no-fault divorce?
And if Canada's full of terrorists, why don't we build a giant fence along that border?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
I second both these motions.
Perhaps I should have used the universal sarcasm font.
Or maybe you aren't the only person using the universal sarcasm font.
Or maybe my last post was in the universal sarcasm font.
(damn it! now I'M confused...)
Oh, wait, now I remember! It's a mid-term election year, and they'd rather spend time debating an amendment with no chance of passing than risk calling attention to the rocky economy, the unpopular war or the national crises in healthcare and education. I was thinking that the Congress should be worried about the economy, foreign policy and public services-- how silly of me! At least they didn't actually vote on the thing in the Senate (the silver lining-- see, I'm an optimist!).
well... I still don't think that that would address the central reasons that I oppose the amendment the GOP is throwing around right now. First off, I don't see how such a ban would do what its proponents market is as doing(ie, defending marriage). Why does denying legal privileges to homosexuals protect or stengthen or benefit heterosexuals who are married or encourage straight couples to get married in the first place? Are the marriages of Microsoft employees weaker because they offer insurance benefits to same-sex partners? Doubtful. If that's the case, then why should we even consider it? Is it anything more than simple discrimination?
Second, this amendment would be pretty much unprecedented in nature, with the possible exception of the repealed 18th amendment that started prohibition. The amendments to the constitution are either procedural (lame duck amendment, etc) or serve, like the original bill of rights, to protect the rights and freedoms of individual citizens against encroachment by the federal or state governments (the 13th, 15th and 19th amendments, for instance). An amendment curtailing the rights of individual US citizens is out of character with the rest of the document.
As far as the states controling it themselves, that's what we presently have de facto and de jure, so what's the point of a federal amendment? The extreme right of the GOP touts it as protection against "activist judges", but 1) I don't see what we need protected from, and 2) I don't feel comfortable with the legislature flippantly amending the Constitution in order to circumvent the judicial branch. We have checks and balances for a reason, and if by "activist" we mean that judges rule against certain laws passed by the legislature... well, that's their job. (And given the fact that we haven't seen a veto pen uncapped in the last six years, someone needs to keep a check on the Congress).
I have an idea about how this amendment is tied in with current racial and linguistic xenophobia and related rather directly to September 11, 2001, but I've already written too much for one comment, so...
I gotta get me a veto pen
vetoes are so last millenium. Bush could be the only president never to veto anything.
Post a Comment