Bush endorses marriage amendment
Published February 24, 2004
Warning: Emotive, from-the-hip screed starting in 5, 4, 3, 2, 1...
President Bush endorsed a Constitutional amendment to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman today. And a large step backwards was achieved at the same time.
As far as I can tell, the purpose of the various amendments that I have read is to limit the abililty of any government in the US (state, municipal, etc) to be able to perform a ceremony legally joining two people who are not of opposing sexes. Many readings of most of these amendments would also prevent any legislature from enacting any type of union that would have the "incidents of marriage." Can anyone tell me why the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) isn't sufficient? So much so that we need to enshrine in to the Constitution another blight that's pretty much the equivalent of a three-fifth's a person stain (didn't we learn the first time)? And why do conservatives who normally swear fealty to federalism and letting states be labratories for experimentation want to stop what they have supported so many times before?
The US constitution has only been amended 27 times. Almost every single one of those amendments is focused on the activity of the federal government (who can vote and how, whether the government can tax income, the process for filling the office of the President). The only two amendments I can think of off the top of my head that limit the actions of the citizenry were Prohibition — first to limit freedom, then to restore it. 2 out of 27, that's what, 7%? In our collective wisdom as a country, it would seem that we've decided that mucking about with the Constitution is better left to restrain the power of the government, not the other way around. So why this time?
Furthermore, it would take 2/3 of the states to support this change. Does anyone think these votes are actually there? For myself, I can say that I would not vote for anyone who would support this level of bigotry. President Bush just lost my support. He largely had it before this point.
For the record, I'm not gay, I don't have all that many friends who are gay (or, at least, I'm not aware of it if they are). I'm strictly going on my own sense of fairness and equality on this one. I'm also not a liberal, just to try and pre-empt some of the flaming that I'm sure will follow this post. I'm a registered Libertarian. If you're offended by this rant, tough. You were warned in the excerpt. Perhaps a more rationally worded commentary will follow on later.
- Bush endorses marriage amendment
- Published: February 24, 2004
- Type:
- Section: Politics
- Writer: Casper
- Casper's BC Writer page
- Casper's personal site
- Spread the Word
- Like this article?
- Email this
Save to del.icio.us
Comments on this articleComments
I figure this isn't an issue worth voting on because it will eventually be subject to a constitutionality question before the Supreme Court. All these other people acting right now are just wasting time.
The whole "Bush can change the face of the Supreme Court" thing isn't very compelling to me either.
The Dems should resurrect the ol' Balanced Budget Amendment--- threaten Bush's multi-billion dollar spending spree.
You remember that one, right? The Republican's Holy Grail for healing America's economic future?
Look for it in the trashbin labeled "Historic Right-Wing Smokescreens".
feh.
Or how about an amendment to outlaw divorce? You wanna protect the 'sanctity of marriage'?
Friggin' hypocrites and jingoists.
I figure this isn't an issue worth voting on because it will eventually be subject to a constitutionality question before the Supreme Court.
Uh, no. The whole point of making it an ammendment to the Constitition is that the Supreme Court can't overturn anything in the Constitution. It's by definition constitutional.
Could someone please explain to me how rescinding civil rights of about ten per cent of US citizens will keep the American Fascist Party in power for another four years so they can gut the rest of the constitution?
Jim, I think they didn't actually choose this battle, and that they really don't want it. However, they may fear that if they don't address this issue, they'll lose their base to the farther right.
Since the amendment won't muster the 2/3s of the House and Senate, it's pretty much an empty gesture, although it's not so good for Tom DeLay, who has to either split with the president, or bring a clear loser amendment to the floor of the house or compromise enough to get it passed. Because in the gerrymandered house districts (on both sides of the aisle), dems don't have much incentive not to sink it.
So, is this like Lenny Bruce's routine about President Kennedy going on teevee and saying "nigger, nigger, nigger" until the word lost all meaning. Oh, wait, it's the opposite, Bush is a hatefilled scumbag who has no interest in making the USA a better place. And to think there are people who actually vote for him. Why vote for the lesser evil, indeed.
Jim, I think they didn't actually choose this battle, and that they really don't want it. However, they may fear that if they don't address this issue, they'll lose their base to the farther right.
terrorism
economic stagnation
offshoring of jobs
education
ongoing problems in iraq
massive debt load
haiti
north korea
GAY MARRIAGE?
Won't somebody think about the ugly, fat, balding sperm donors? If they allow same sex couples to legalize their love and commitment, then David Crosby will have wanked into a plastic cup in vain. And no matter how hard you try, you will not be able to get the image of Crosby wanking into a cup out of your mind.
What astonishing hypocrisy from George Bush and his minions! You may want to read my post on this blog under the story regarding the Governor Perry gay sex scandal in Texas for a little inside information on George Bush's own sexual habits with various guys over the years. Maybe also check out his crude come one to the Canadian PM's aide in January, published in the Globe and Mail. At least he didn't tell Martin's aide that he had a "pretty mouth"!
Mark:
"terrorism
economic stagnation
offshoring of jobs
education
ongoing problems in iraq
massive debt load
haiti
north korea
...GAY MARRIAGE?
I wonder how we'll feel if (gawd forbid) some Al-Queda nut-bar takes out half the population of an American city and we realize we spent the last six months talking about gay marriage, Mel Gibson, and Sex and the City.
"America will never be the same."
Yeah, that post-9/11 'seriousness' really stuck with us.
No wonder they fucking hate us.
(Shrugging.) I expected this. But, will the diversion of attention from the invasion of Iraq and the economy work?
If you read the language of the proposed amendment carefully, you'll note that it divides the world between 'married couples consisting of one man and one woman' and 'everyone else.' It doesn't say that the incidents of marriage will be denied only to gay couples; it says they will be denied to ALL unmarried people, including heterosexual couples. The language of this amendment could be used as a basis for outlawing ALL sex outside of marriage.
Add your comment, speak your mind
(Or ping: http://blogcritics.org/mt/tb/13095)
For myself, I can say that I would not vote for anyone who would support this level of bigotry. President Bush just lost my support. He largely had it before this point.
As a registered Republican, I'm also now having serious qualms about the direction of my vote in November.
However, what makes you think that Kerry or Edwards would be any different? Both have come out against gay marriage and in favor of civil unions, which is essentially what the amendment would provide for.