A Constitutional Amendment that is being debated in the Senate today and that is expected to come up for a vote this week, would add these 53 words to the Constitution:
“Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman.”
I know we’ve talked about this before, but since there’s now a Senate floor debate, and possible vote, it seems pretty relevant. I think it’s absurd that my congressional reps are being hounded by the White House to pursue amending the constitution over something like this. Really a great way to spend my tax dollars.
Recently, I’ve been reading up on the ancient Roman civilization. Bush reminds me so much of the imperial dictators like Caligula and Nero. Only, Bush can’t outright order people to be killed. At least, not in his own country. Imposing laws that limit human rights and personal freedoms is outright ridiculous.
Sammy G
Silly things for election years…
It’s funny, even if Bush is pushing this stance for religious purposes, the vote will come down to the economic cost of giving homosexual couples the same tax breaks traditional couples get. With wars in Afghanistan and Iraw, GW can hardly stand for less tax $$$ to come in, eh? And if he can also win the votes of the Bible Belt, then hey! What a wonderful political stance.
Even if is unconstitutional.
But, you say, “If it’s added as an amendment, then it will be constitutional!” Explain to me how you can have the separation of church and state but also dictate the form of a marriage? With respect to gov’t, all that CAN come of this is no tax breaks. Narriage is the dictate of the church, not the gov’t. Homosexuals will still be able to get married, they just won’t be able to file jointly.
BTW, doesn’t the populace have to vote on an amendment? Or does Congress have the right as well?
There should be a law that no legislation shall be proposed in the 6 months leading up to an election.
My $.02 Weed
Weedmaster on Cue
Here’s how you can have separation of church and state and dictate the form of a marriage: if it’s statistically proven that same-sex marriages harm society.
For instance, if social workers collect sampling data over a period of time which shows children raised in same-sex homes are a significant % more likely to become criminals than children raised in hetero homes, then this would show damage to society.
To my knowledge, there is no authenticated data that shows how same-sex marriages lead to any societal harm. To my knowledge, this point hasn’t even been raised by the senate in their debates.
Personally, I don’t believe that this proposed legislation has anything to do with avoiding a lower tax base.
If any of your kids had been in Accompany Publishing’s show, “The People’s Rights”, they would know that ratifying an amendment to the constitution requires 2/3 vote of the Senate and then 3/4 votes by the states. 🙂
Probably not going to pass, in my opinion.
Sammy G
bad bad bad
Well, I can tell you right now that even the *possibility* of gay marriage is stretching the thread of my God-fearing, heterosexual marriage. Dani and I might have to get a divorce if they let gays marry.
*rolls eyes* Harming society my ass. In a world where Britney Spears gets married for 55 hours, I don’t see how gay marriage can do anything but help.
But let’s not forget what this CURRENT debate is all about. Going into an election year, the Republicans want to make entirely sure that they have on record that Democrats are voting against this amendment, and therefore (*shock*) are against traditional family values. Sneaky bastards.
And Weed, if GW wanted to make sure that enough tax was coming into the treasury, he shouldn’t have pushed those multi-billion-dollar tax cuts.
— Ben Schuman Mad, Mad Tenor
Hmmm
Ben,
Now why would GW want sinful homosexuals to get a tax break? Only traditional families with children and his rich buddies deserve tax breaks!
Let those not in the mainstream support us “normal” people as we live up to GW’s ideal American.
Just beware of the AMT! My $.02 Weed
What is that rate anyway?
Ben, it would be interesting to find out what the homosexual marriage divorce rate is, in comparison to the hetero divorce rate.
Homosexual Divorce Rate
My guess is, the rates are probably about the same. They’re all people, after all, and gay people sometimes make bad choices just like straight people sometimes do.
— Ben Schuman Mad, Mad Tenor
The Senate
I think that those folks in the Senate are a bunch of fags.
No Data To Ban Gays as Foster Parents
Two years later, and voted down again in 2006. It’s going to be clockwork; every two years on federal election cycle this ridiculous Constitutional Amendment will be dredged out to rally the conservative base.
Of course, the measure failing a couple weeks ago in Congress wasn’t what made me sit up and take notice. This morning I happened to catch a little news blurb in which the Arkansas supreme court ruled that state foster agencies cannot ban gays from becoming foster parents. The ruling stated that there is no link between a foster parent’s sexual orientation and the child’s well being. Arkansas had originally passed a law banning gay people or any family with a gay member from becoming foster parents.
Last year, Texas tried to ban gays from becoming foster parents. Meanwhile, Florida bans adoptions by gays and lesbians. Mississippi prohibits gay couples from adopting. Utah bars cohabiting couples that are not married, whether gay or heterosexual, from adopting or fostering.
Obviously, I don’t know if this is the first time that a state supreme court blasted a state ban by pointing out the lack of social data that shows gay parents harm kids. This has been the conservative rally call: we must protect our kids. Great. Where’s your proof?
The actual quote from the Arkansas justice: “There is no correlation between the health, welfare and safety of foster children and the blanket exclusion of any individual who is a homosexual or who resides in a household with a homosexual.”
But…But
But it’s just not right!!! My dad said it ain’t right and his daddy before him! And my preacher says it ain’t right either.
Funny how the Catholic church can be out against homosexuality but accomodate pedophiles in its midst up until the 90s. Not that the Vatican is out of touch…
The biggest argument I’ve heard for the marriage amendment boils down to this: It’s tradition.
In the 1700s and early 1800s, it was tradition for southern plantation ownser to use slaves
In some American Indian tribes, it was tradition for the father to be his daughter’s first sexual partner
In some clans in Africa, it is customary for boys to drink semen to become big and strong until they reach puberty, then they switch to having sex with women (and also giving semen to little boys, I’d imagine)
Women traditionally didn’t vote or have rights until after WWII.
People traditionally slaughtered animals and left them as gifts for the gods (and God)
I’m all for tradition, but traditions change. Especially when the tradition is prejudiced against a certain group.
Hooray for reason! My $.02 Weed